Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Successful TPU-ECD replication !  (Read 1139139 times)

z_p_e

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #330 on: June 16, 2007, 11:52:54 PM »
ZPE, one thing I have been wondering, is if we were supposed to replace the mobius with a ferrite.

When we removed the mobius completely and did not replace it with anything, we could not get the bulbs to light much at all.

Rich

What I think I said, and meant to say was, first with the two loops present, obtain some luminosity in the bulb, and note the intensity (take a snapshot of it for comparison).

Next, remove the wire loops, and again power up the device and take another snapshot to compare to the first. This is not an exact or reliable method, and is not the one I would be using myself. However, since everyone seems determined to use only bulbs, then that's what we have to work with I guess.

The bulb intensity should be about equal, if nothing else was changed. Keep in mind some tweaking of the frequency may be necessary to re-establish resonance again, if it drifted slightly for some reason. Keep the relative positions of the coils the same as when they had the wire loops going through.

Regarding the ferrite rod, there was no mention of the order in which things were done or swapped, so I am going to assume the following:

With the wire loops removed, and the ferrite rod inserted, a peak luminosity level was established. Then the ferrite rod was removed, and the intensity went to zero, or some low level.

Is this correct?

If yes, then I would expect that result. If things were done differently, please explain how.

Darren
« Last Edit: June 17, 2007, 12:20:10 AM by z_p_e »

gn0stik

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #331 on: June 17, 2007, 12:46:06 AM »
ZPE, one thing I have been wondering, is if we were supposed to replace the mobius with a ferrite.

When we removed the mobius completely and did not replace it with anything, we could not get the bulbs to light much at all.

Rich

What I think I said, and meant to say was, first with the two loops present, obtain some luminosity in the bulb, and note the intensity (take a snapshot of it for comparison).

Next, remove the wire loops, and again power up the device and take another snapshot to compare to the first. This is not an exact or reliable method, and is not the one I would be using myself. However, since everyone seems determined to use only bulbs, then that's what we have to work with I guess.

The bulb intensity should be about equal, if nothing else was changed. Keep in mind some tweaking of the frequency may be necessary to re-establish resonance again, if it drifted slightly for some reason. Keep the relative positions of the coils the same as when they had the wire loops going through.

Regarding the ferrite rod, there was no mention of the order in which things were done or swapped, so I am going to assume the following:

With the wire loops removed, and the ferrite rod inserted, a peak luminosity level was established. Then the ferrite rod was removed, and the intensity went to zero, or some low level.

Is this correct?

If yes, then I would expect that result. If things were done differently, please explain how.

Darren

Ok, what you have outlined is not the test we performed. At least, not when I was there. Cam, Mrd, Mike? Can you guys verify if this is what was done? When I came into the conference All three spools were connected as they should be to the control board as per the document without the ring in. They were lined up so that a longish ferrite rod could be slipped through the hole in the center of all the spools, hence, their relative position was not as it was when they were on the loop. Yes, you are correct, when the rod was removed, the bulb lost luminosity. I'm not sure if retuning it without the rod could achieve similar luminosity to when the mobius was in the equation or not, as I didn't witness any attempt to retune it without the ferrite in the spools.

There was conversation about testing with no ferrite. If I remember correctly they couldn't get similar luminosity at all. But when the ferrite was added it would light brightly as in their video. I DID see him tune it with the ferrite in, and remove it and the bulb lost 90% of it's brightness, but this is to be expected.

So that's what I saw, if there's any more info you need, I don't really know much more.

Based on what I witness however it seems that we may have not performed it correctly? Or are the differences consequential?

It would seem to me that we would want to keep all the variables as similar as possible no? Just without the coils. Reduction only works well if you remove one variable at a time. If you change multiple variables, you can't tell which one caused the results. IE, change in relative position, and ferrite.

Am I on the right track here?

Rich

« Last Edit: June 17, 2007, 01:06:48 AM by gn0stik »

z_p_e

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #332 on: June 17, 2007, 12:57:38 AM »
I would agree Rich.

To be fair and correct, as I mentioned the coils should be in the same position for both scenarios.

For the test done with and without the ferrite, that's another ball game altogether.

I would expect two things to differ with and without the ferrite:

1) The bulb should be brighter with the ferrite (higher L = higher bemf?)
2) The main resonant frequency will be different with the ferrite, and should be lower.

Darren

gn0stik

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #333 on: June 17, 2007, 01:07:28 AM »
I would agree Rich.

To be fair and correct, as I mentioned the coils should be in the same position for both scenarios.

For the test done with and without the ferrite, that's another ball game altogether.

I would expect two things to differ with and without the ferrite:

1) The bulb should be brighter with the ferrite (higher L = higher bemf?)
2) The main resonant frequency will be different with the ferrite, and should be lower.

Darren

OK, that's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure, and didn't want to seem like I was trying to pooh, pooh cam's test results. Just trying to make sure we compare apples to apples as we do our reduction tests.

@Cam, you must have done a lot before I got there? I never saw you do any loopless experiment with three frequencies. When you tried you blew a fet. In fact didn't you blow two fets?

Sorry if I misrepresented anything, I just musta missed that.

Also, I'm not trying to get you to do it again if you are satisfied with the results.

In fact, I'd MUCH rather see Otto, or Ronotte perform this test, than for you to REDO it.

That would tell us if there are differences in the setups or not. You did a great job last night.

So, since we are all in different locations with different setups, it's difficult to see everything as it goes by on a web cam or if we're shooting the breeze in a conference with a lot of people talking it's hard to follow multiple conversations, etc. It can be hard to make sure we're all doing what the other guy is. So if different people perform the same tests and get the same results, it's easy to be sure we have essentially the same setup.

I just wanna be sure that

A. We did the test right
B. We are testing the right setup. (we built correctly)
C. We did the test at the right time.
D. We interpret the results correctly.

As I said, I came in late so I'm not sure about a couple of those questions. And because I wasn't sure what ZPE meant for sure by "removing the mobius".

Because we would get different results with ferrous material in the middle or not.

Rich



c0mster

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 183
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #334 on: June 17, 2007, 01:32:10 AM »
Folks

I am not satisfied with the results... I found 4 IRF730's in my trickle trunk and checked the specks against the 840's looks good, these are used in power supply switching. I have the tpu back together and ready, just fixing up the 555 drivers and getting the right trim pots for the frequencies. The ?remove the ring test? was done as follows: I tuned the tpu with 1 frequency after I tested 2 and 3 frequencies. Why one frequency? I seen the same results as with 2, I just was pulling to many amps with 2 frequencies. As I said before the third frequency killed the bulb. Then once tuned with 1 frequency I left everything the same and removed the antenna, fired up again and right away noticed it was brighter. I then continued removing the lower antenna incase it was causing an affect. Same brightness... Then I removed the spools and again tested ... same brightness. With the ferrite rod I slipped it in re-tuned the frequency to the ferrite and brighter went the bulb. Adding the ferrite and it's effects are standard electronics. I should be fired up in a few hours with these other mosfets BUT Tonight I am going to lower the input voltage because these mosfets can't handle 12v and when you are tuning it will draw out 7 amps. Also we really should be diodeing the BEMF back to the supply so it don't hit the mosfets. If I blow 1 mossfet I will be adding diodes. Tonight I hope all your wishes come true. I will give it my best to measure everything, make a video and satisfy all our questions if these mosfets work, otherwise we will have to wait till next week or for someone else who is ready.

Also a few posts back I posted the Otto PDf I was using. I followed it to a T and also verified with Jason.

Cam   

z_p_e

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #335 on: June 17, 2007, 01:53:17 AM »
Cam,

Your test sounds pretty conclusive to me, if you returned the coils to their original positions, as it sounds like you did.

The FETs should give you better power output, and less power input too. I doubt however that the wire loops will have any effect....but we'll see.

I have a theory as to why the wire loop diminished your output slightly in the original configuration, and that is because it is a shorted wire loop (or two loops to be exact).

I believe it is well known that a single shorted turn on any coil will severely, if not totally reduce the coil's ability to store a magnetic field. Although the wire loops are at 90? to the coils, the upper loop may be at such an angle as to have a slight effect on the coils' fields, thus reducing their outputs. It's a theory anyway.  :-\

Darren

replicator

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #336 on: June 17, 2007, 02:11:56 AM »

Just for a moment... I DONT BELIVE MAGIC. Every phenomen has a physic background. (Just maybe we havent found the way to describe it with mathematics yet.)

Is anybody tried to disconnect the CC's transformers secondary output from the Moebius? You tell about disconnecting the Moebius loop, and dont thinking about the CC coils and Moebius loop interaction. Yes, I know you will be not measure excessible power, just something "inducated" voltage. But...

[offtopik]
I have been thinking about the FE excessing methods sameness for many years ago. Phisics says that the electrons in wires dont able to travel just about a few centimeters per second because of irregular crystal grid caused resistance. In supercnductivity the electrons travels in Cooper-pairs. There is an interaction between the electron pairs and cristal grid.
[on]

The TPU=ECD is quite different. If the magnetic fux is eliminated by Moebius (or bifilar wounding) the electrons doesnt will travel faster!!!! In this device it seems that the magnetic field from CC coils primaries just makes pulsating electromagnetic fileld. Dont forget if anybody knows Maxwell equations! It told that the electric component of Pointing vector is perpendicular to the magnetic. Why is it importnt for TPU?
JUST because the CC coils will be inducate electric field between the Moebius loop two wires bacause it is perpendicular to it. Just a reason why Moebius (or simple two wires) is necessary in CC coils.

WHAT is itself the Moebius loop(s)? It has two different goals. Firstly it is a condenser, yes, simple conenser where the CC coils inducate electric potential. Secondly it is a consenser of CC coil's secondary part together built a parallell LC tank. (For my mind, with physic considerations it is magic.) And why interest to use induction less condenser as a "secondary of induced Pointing electric potential"? Hmmm... To prevent black out of flux induced potential, so the Poining potential will remain.

What is the benefit the Moebius loop from LC physics scope? Yep... It seems that it is a induction less capacitor. DONT throw it from the device. Just thinking about: without it, you will get a simple transformers (maybe Tesla like) from your CC coils. In every frequency. Thats all. With it, it will be the capacitor of CC's secondary and will resonate... And imagine: If the Moebius capacitor will give extra energy from Pointing potential, at the right phase, within its resonance with CC's secondary... the energy will be increasing.

So I have several pages with Maxwell equtations derived to enable  over unity. Is anybody interested in Maxwell mathematics? If yes, I will post the full mathematic hypotezis to this forum.  (Note: It is nor my discovery, as I know is not known, but I found similarity between the hipotezis and the physics of TPU...)

Sorry but I dont think currently what is the importance of "3 of frequencies" and "rotating field", because it seems that the three CC coils and the Moebius "capacitor" has 1 main resonance. Maybe the Moebius has own resonance freq, if anybody from you are HAM (radio amateur) it would be greatful check it with a GDO. Or  an another explanation that the 3 frequencies in phase, the Pointing potential induced waves will be travelling in Moebius, and it seems that with two "in pahase" frequency, there is no direction because of its 2 dimensional speading in Moebius (just imagine a line with 2 point on it, you are able to start moving in line two direction: to another point or to opposite direction... there is no synchronization).
The third freqency will be CLOSE the loop from the standpoint of transmission of waves in a line. If it in phase, it will blocking (black out) and/or adding wave with accurate timings. Thats why we need three different source to start spinning of waves toward of Moebius line...

Finally, Its too late to continue my brainstorming, I hope somebody curious about finding  exact parameters of this circuit and WHY important every little element of this construction, and WHY SM told as he told. I try to understand all and if you want I try to interpret it for US.

Regards,
replicator

PS: sorry for my English and the long post.

z_p_e

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #337 on: June 17, 2007, 02:30:41 AM »
Replicator,

You are right in that the wire loops do form a capacitor, and that they are in parallel with the secondaries.

However, the wire loops are actually quite short, and in comparison to the much higher self-capacitance of each secondary coil (and all 3 in parallel), this loop capacitance would shift the resonant frequency of the secondaries only slightly.

Other than a slightly lower resonance frequency, the circuit and operation remain unchanged.

Regards,
Darren

Motorcoach1

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 307
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #338 on: June 17, 2007, 02:37:42 AM »
Good thought Replicator. I don't have my scope working and it may be a gonner :( but what I'd like to see if the mobius wire was replaced with RGB58 (coax cable)-sheathing removed,  so the skin effect would be more prominent. the Rf would be on the outside of the wire and the AG material would be moot.   

mrd10

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #339 on: June 17, 2007, 02:38:31 AM »
Any comments from Otto and Roberto on Cams latest testing?

Mannix

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #340 on: June 17, 2007, 03:09:23 AM »
Hi guys!

One builder...Good on you Com.

I dont know what to make of this yet but I will not go about changing any thing untill i get the effect of the top and bottom coil offering extra out put..like in the doc....then and only then would I take either of them away. ..If i did not achieve that point I would be looking for something i did wrong.



this group mentality to one person testing risks a "race to the bottom".

It will be more lively as more devices are under our noses...
 Looking foward to contributing with that.

I like Ottos term..... PC Heros!...that is if you don't have one under construction.

Great days!

Lindsay


Bruce_TPU

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #341 on: June 17, 2007, 03:30:55 AM »

Sorry but I dont think currently what is the importance of "3 of frequencies" and "rotating field", because it seems that the three CC coils and the Moebius "capacitor" has 1 main resonance. Maybe the Moebius has own resonance freq, if anybody from you are HAM (radio amateur) it would be greatful check it with a GDO.

@Lindsay
Well said and ditto's

@ Replicator
You did very well and I agree with about 90% of what you said.  About the three frequencies and their importance.  I believe that SM clues us that ALL THREE are a derivitive of the resonant.  Resonant, 2nd harmonic of the resonant and intermodulation for the third, this of course is the sum of the first two to form a unique third.

I have also been stating for some time now, that it was not either an accident or coincidence that SM mentions SPECIFIC frequencies.  He mentions his "resonance" at 35 KHz.  But instead of leaving it at that, he clues us in to the exact frequency, of 35.705 KHz.  Now, why would he do this if it were unimportant.  Here is his exact words.

"I made an amp and had a really difficult time with a 35K resonance.
I had so much trouble with it that I finally left the resonance there.
I last measured it at 35.705K at a really high level.
It is a good thing that I can't hear that high.
But it does prove that my output transformer is capable of going up to
245K HZ
.
Which I measured.
HEY, did you know that the frequency is proportional to the
speaker's circumference?
it appears that the frequency should change with the
circumference of the speaker.
That makes sense to you does it?
No one I have talked to realizes that yet.
I use 15" speakers myself. They are 15" from the dead center of the
outside flange to the other sides flange.
You know transistors just don't do well at those high frequencies.
They try hard but they just make all sorts of harmonics all over the place.
dirty things transistors.
MOSFETS are better you know if you wanted to make an amplifier that behaved as though it was a tube amp but in a smaller size."

I know that there is a way to "adjust" the resonance by the use of a cap and resistor.  Could not the resonance of our TPU be made to resonate at 35.705 KHz.  Then the second frequency would be 71.41 KHz.  Then the third frequency would be 107.12 KHz

I have pointed out evidence on my thread from an invester their at a demonstration, that SM clipped wire from his tpu until it reached resonance.  That means he "TUNED" the TPU to the frequency, NOT the other way around.  I have said this for weeks and feel like I am spitting in the wind.  SM did leave some great clues.  I mention one earlier about the signal being phase inverted for each of the frequencies.  No one says anything.  I post where SM said it, and still not a word.  I even posted where to find the circuit to do this and still no one takes it to heart.

The TPU is tuned to the one of the frequencies he told us.  The three frequencies are derived of that ONE.  Each of the three frequencies then need to be phase inverted as SM states, 180 degrees would be a start.  A Phase inverted signal is really two identical signals out of phase (sound familiar).  Think of the added speed to the kicks as this is multiplied by each of the frequencies.  GK has it right in his last couple of posts in his thread and nailed it as well.  It is about Speed.  The controller is about SPEED.  Disabling the flux is about SPEED.  Phase inversion is about SPEED.... Speed is energy.  Theory of relativity.

Thank you for your time,  Maybe someone with better electronics skills than I hears me.

Bruce

Mannix

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #342 on: June 17, 2007, 03:41:10 AM »
Bruce,

I wonder sometimes how much of our so called electronic skills are of assistance here ....multimeter...how to solder.....basic wiring ..now its getting harder...
BTW I suggest that everybody get an analouge meter here ..digitals....all of them...especially the cheapo's  are a problem!

I will be stupid untill i see an electron...or are they particles*&*!

Lindsay


gn0stik

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 302
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #343 on: June 17, 2007, 03:55:40 AM »
Weeeeellllp.

Great Cam, good to see you checking it all out again. Doubling tests is always a good idea. I still wish Roberto or Otto would do it, or at least comment on it. I haven't seen Roberto online anywhere today.

I am curious why you arent satisfied? Sounds like you did everythign right, and that most of the test was done before I got there.

So, My coil is done, after rewinding my controls, and due to shipping mishaps, I have no fets or drivers. Drivers got misdelivered, and fets are at my office. Aaaagggggghh. I hate UPS.

So the specs are (in american gauges)
Primary is 24ga., 13'8 3/4",(did a conversion of the lenght in meters of their primary) 12 grams in weight.

Secondary is 28ga., 12grams in weight (did not mesure lenght, as I just made it mass equivalent to the primary.)  But judging by the turns it's a little more than twice as long. Perhaps 2.5 times so that would make it about 33 feet or so.

Total weight (with the spool which is 11 grams) for each control was 35 grams.

Wound clockwise via a drill, bifilar till the primary ran out, then finished winding the secondary.

Resistance of the controls was .5 ohm

Collector is composed of dual 18 gauge stranded speaker wire around 3/4 OD vinyl tubing. The bottom part is not shown in the pic, but since there's nothing special about that, you can use your imagination for it.

Here's a pic.  Took it with my camera phone, sorry for the quality.


chrisC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !
« Reply #344 on: June 17, 2007, 04:00:04 AM »
Hey Rich:

With your one hose contraption, you ain't got that 44mm spacing which according to Otto, maximizes the coupling effect? Then you aren't comparing apples to apples. Just a thought.

Cheers
chrisC