Author Topic: Successful TPU-ECD replication ! (Read 1145619 times)

gn0stik · « **Reply #720 on:** July 07, 2007, 07:38:42 PM »

Otto, a while ago, on dave's forums you siad that you could confirm that there were inertial effects, that it lost weight, and that there was a rotating field.

Can you please explain this a bit further, and what we must do in order to see these effects?

Regards,
Rich

wattsup · « **Reply #721 on:** July 07, 2007, 07:43:22 PM »

@z_p_e

Yes you are very right. I should read up another 1000 hours. Fine. Then explain to me what the object is of having that secondary outside the primary. What are you trying to achieve is the question. Next question is, is it acheiving its purpose. If yes, why. and if no, why?

A basic step-up transformer is not banking on its core acting like a ring. Very different. The ECD and ALT1 are very different if you look at it from the rings' perspective.

My basic idea is that the outer portion of the secondary is being kept outside by the internal primary field, hence the outer secondary has no effect on the ring, because the ring is being cloaked by the primary being to close to the ring. What you are talking about is the current effect, what I am talking about is the field effect. Simple as that.

All I wanted to do is put forth an idea. Wrapping another primary over the CC as in the ECD+ is very easy to do and try so I will do it myself.

No sweat.

giantkiller · « **Reply #722 on:** July 07, 2007, 09:17:16 PM »

Quote from: wattsup on July 07, 2007, 07:43:22 PM

@z_p_e

Yes you are very right. I should read up another 1000 hours. Fine. Then explain to me what the object is of having that secondary outside the primary. What are you trying to achieve is the question. Next question is, is it acheiving its purpose. If yes, why. and if no, why?

A basic step-up transformer is not banking on its core acting like a ring. Very different. The ECD and ALT1 are very different if you look at it from the rings' perspective.

My basic idea is that the outer portion of the secondary is being kept outside by the internal primary field, hence the outer secondary has no effect on the ring, because the ring is being cloaked by the primary being to close to the ring. What you are talking about is the current effect, what I am talking about is the field effect. Simple as that.

All I wanted to do is put forth an idea. Wrapping another primary over the CC as in the ECD+ is very easy to do and try so I will do it myself.

No sweat.

Hi guys,
If you look at the ECD doc the primary is wrapped around the secondary. But both windings are tied together at the cw input side so this will not make a step up. You will have differences in the impedance and the slight phase shift increasing at the higher freqs. You will also see phase cancellation at the other end of the primaries. The secondaries will see phase cancellation at the load but in a longer time frame.
The first thought has to be the dynamic impedance across the segments and the unit as a whole. In others words, this thing is alive way beyond the standard thinking.
So the standard operation only takes play when the unit is first turned on. After that the 1,2,3 freqs should control our thinking. Clashing, bashing, clipping, hashing makes for an incredible noisy beast. When I flipped through freqs on the GK4 the scope was unreadable in normal terms but the 'woven indian blanket' patterns were very exciting. When I put the stun gun through it all bets were off because all I could see were the dartlets from the coil and the scope was useless. PHTvTvTvTvTvtVtVtVtVtVtVttttt(simulated stung gun sound effect), know what I mean? That was all I had to report. Talking about standard measurements was a joke. The running unit has to be on your bench.
I have thought there would have been other 'full experience, shock & awe' tests by now.

--giantkiller. Rompin, trompin, & stompin....

turbo · « **Reply #723 on:** July 07, 2007, 10:22:52 PM »

Quote from: giantkiller on July 07, 2007, 09:17:16 PM

But both windings are tied together at the cw input side so this will not make a step up.

Hi ,
in the early transformers the primary was actually a part of the secondary and vice versa...

How difficult is it to hook up a ammeter between the grid and the power supply?

we need some facts here people.

M.

turbo · « **Reply #724 on:** July 07, 2007, 10:27:18 PM »

Quote from: gn0stik on July 07, 2007, 07:38:42 PM

Otto, a while ago, on dave's forums you siad that you could confirm that there were inertial effects, that it lost weight, and that there was a rotating field.

Can you please explain this a bit further, and what we must do in order to see these effects?

Regards,
Rich

Rich, i have asked him the same question more then once, you know.
He just ignores it.

M.

threepointone · « **Reply #725 on:** July 07, 2007, 11:32:17 PM »

There's one very, very, very, very important factor that seems to not have been taken into account in any of the measurements: power factor conversion. This factor is most prevalent when you're dealing with large inductive or capacitive loads, such as the coils you're using.

Ohm's law works fine when you're working with pure DC, but when you have AC, square waves, or whatnot, things get kind of funky. Current and voltage go out of phase; in other words, the average current might be 2A, and the average voltage might be 5V, but at the instant the current is 2A, there might be 0V, and at the instant there's 5V there's only 0A. In this case, the apparent power (which is what you calculate and measure using the resistor voltage drop / standard DC measurement techniques) would probably be around 10W, while the real power provided is much less. You pretty much have to add up V*I at every instant of time to get a good real average power reading. I suspect this may be what's happening in some of the videos documenting this "TPU". The best way I know of to measure real power from the AC mains is a device called the kill-a-watt; it'll measure the PFC and real watts for you. I'm not sure how you'd do it for lower voltage AC; you might have to design your own circuit to do it, or somehow interpose a current and voltage graph on an oscilloscope, ensuring they're perfectly in phase, and then calculating the power coming out at every instant (unfortunately not very easy or fun).

There's a entry on power factor conversion in wikipedia, and probably much more across the web. This is a very big area of concern for power supplies, UPSes, and electric companies; usually low PFC devices (those where apparent power > real power) are pretty nasty and pollute the power grid.

Also keep in mind that power <> energy. For example, you can charge a capacitor in 5s using 100W, and get out 500W in 1s without breaking conservation of energy.

good luck with all your endeavors!

z_p_e · « **Reply #726 on:** July 08, 2007, 03:10:57 AM »

Hi threepointone,

I am currently working on a document that will hopefully address this power measurement issue, and more.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention however.

Regards,
Darren

z_p_e · « **Reply #727 on:** July 08, 2007, 04:00:31 AM »

Quote from: giantkiller link=topic=2535.msg38896#msg38896

Hi guys,
If you look at the ECD doc the primary is wrapped around the secondary. But both windings are tied together at the cw input side so this will not make a step up.

GK,

I'm not sure which document you are referring to, but if it is Roberto's pdf, I can't agree with your statement that the primary is wrapped around the secondary.

The CC is bifilar for as long as the primary winding lasts. After that, the secondary continues wrapping over top of the primary/secondary bifilar. So if anything, your statement should be reversed.

In regards to the CC being a step-up transformer or not, it quite clearly is. Secondary windings and inductance is higher than that of the primary's.

Attached here is Figure 4 from an ignition coil patent #4,516,559. If you look at either the "otto_roberto_simplified01.pdf" or "otto_roberto_simplified02.pdf" files that I posted some time ago, you will see they are almost exactly like the patent figure below. I found this patent diagram only now for illustration purposes of this post.

If you agree that an ignition coil is a step-up transformer (which it is), then you must also agree that the CC is a step-up transformer as well.

Darren

gn0stik · « **Reply #728 on:** July 08, 2007, 08:44:21 AM »

Quote from: -[marco]- on July 07, 2007, 10:27:18 PM

Quote from: gn0stik on July 07, 2007, 07:38:42 PM
Otto, a while ago, on dave's forums you siad that you could confirm that there were inertial effects, that it lost weight, and that there was a rotating field.

Can you please explain this a bit further, and what we must do in order to see these effects?

Regards,
Rich

Rich, i have asked him the same question more then once, you know.
He just ignores it.

M.

Roberto won't. I know otto is a "busy" guy. But Roberto is a very amenable and friendly person who understands the need to answer a question once in a while.

Perhaps you could field the question I asked roberto? Have you noticed any of the effects mentioned by Otto? or has he spoken to you about them?

I have heard him repeatedly talk about the rotation of field in particular, yet nobody has gotten a compass to spin. If the frequencies start too high, then it won't happen, but if he cannot see it that way, how does he determine he has a rotating field?

Second, how did he determine weight loss in the device? Or, if you have noticed it(have you?) How did you measure weight loss?

Third, have you or otto (yes or no) noticed the washboard effect, or inertial effects of the device?

Otto made claims to the effect on all of these effects, yet spoke no further on it.. I have been dying to know more ever since. These are important clues, and need to be understood.

Please let me know all you can on these points. Also know that these questions are coming from a believer. Not an outright skeptic.

we need open communication or this whole thing falls apart. That is what I'm trying to prevent.

I think answering these questions will renew a level of excitement and enthusiasm.

I also think, dropping those claims out there and saying nothing further on it, was a bit torturous to us. Especially the believers.

I originally thought it was because otto thought once we built it we would see them, but nobody has to my knowlege. I know cam tested for the rotating field, but I don't think anyone tested for weight loss. And since we can't really touch the device in operation, I don't think folks have seen the inertia, or washboard effect either.

Thank you, Rich

Hoppy · « **Reply #729 on:** July 08, 2007, 05:26:26 PM »

Quote from: threepointone on July 07, 2007, 11:32:17 PM

There's one very, very, very, very important factor that seems to not have been taken into account in any of the measurements: power factor conversion. This factor is most prevalent when you're dealing with large inductive or capacitive loads, such as the coils you're using.

Ohm's law works fine when you're working with pure DC, but when you have AC, square waves, or whatnot, things get kind of funky. Current and voltage go out of phase; in other words, the average current might be 2A, and the average voltage might be 5V, but at the instant the current is 2A, there might be 0V, and at the instant there's 5V there's only 0A. In this case, the apparent power (which is what you calculate and measure using the resistor voltage drop / standard DC measurement techniques) would probably be around 10W, while the real power provided is much less. You pretty much have to add up V*I at every instant of time to get a good real average power reading. I suspect this may be what's happening in some of the videos documenting this "TPU". The best way I know of to measure real power from the AC mains is a device called the kill-a-watt; it'll measure the PFC and real watts for you. I'm not sure how you'd do it for lower voltage AC; you might have to design your own circuit to do it, or somehow interpose a current and voltage graph on an oscilloscope, ensuring they're perfectly in phase, and then calculating the power coming out at every instant (unfortunately not very easy or fun).

There's a entry on power factor conversion in wikipedia, and probably much more across the web. This is a very big area of concern for power supplies, UPSes, and electric companies; usually low PFC devices (those where apparent power > real power) are pretty nasty and pollute the power grid.

Also keep in mind that power <> energy. For example, you can charge a capacitor in 5s using 100W, and get out 500W in 1s without breaking conservation of energy.

good luck with all your endeavors!

This issue has been raised many times on these threads and needs repeating from time to time.

To my knowledge Otto and Roberto have not yet reported their current measurements using filters with a battery as a power supply. Using a small Killowatt meter to take a mains power reading would be a useful bit of data. These are currently available in the UK from some DIY stores and are very innexpensive and probably available in other countries.

Clive

giantkiller · « **Reply #730 on:** July 09, 2007, 04:54:32 AM »

Quote from: z_p_e on July 08, 2007, 04:00:31 AM

Quote from: giantkiller link=topic=2535.msg38896#msg38896
Hi guys,
If you look at the ECD doc the primary is wrapped around the secondary. But both windings are tied together at the cw input side so this will not make a step up.

GK,

I'm not sure which document you are referring to, but if it is Roberto's pdf, I can't agree with your statement that the primary is wrapped around the secondary.

The CC is bifilar for as long as the primary winding lasts. After that, the secondary continues wrapping over top of the primary/secondary bifilar. So if anything, your statement should be reversed.

In regards to the CC being a step-up transformer or not, it quite clearly is. Secondary windings and inductance is higher than that of the primary's.

Attached here is Figure 4 from an ignition coil patent #4,516,559. If you look at either the "otto_roberto_simplified01.pdf" or "otto_roberto_simplified02.pdf" files that I posted some time ago, you will see they are almost exactly like the patent figure below. I found this patent diagram only now for illustration purposes of this post.

If you agree that an ignition coil is a step-up transformer (which it is), then you must also agree that the CC is a step-up transformer as well.

Darren

You are correct. I have wrapped overlapping jacket style, semi-bifilar on the cross-sectional plane. Not side by side on the face of the tubing. I think I am burning out. Seen much too much lately. Looking at everything cross-eyed.

I am still finishing up the controller. It has a bug in it. I swap chips and a channel doesn't work. The malfunctioning channel is never the same one when I change out chips. OUch!.

--giantkiller.

Jon · « **Reply #731 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:00:10 AM »

I have created a document with my results so far recreating the TPU. You can see it here: http://www.freeenergygroup.com/FEG-Results.pdf

giantkiller · « **Reply #732 on:** July 09, 2007, 05:25:58 AM »

Quote from: Jon on July 09, 2007, 05:00:10 AM

I have created a document with my results so far recreating the TPU. You can see it here: http://www.freeenergygroup.com/FEG-Results.pdf

I am flattered. Thank you for these tests. It should be noted that the GK4 has 3 rings of 22 turns 16awg iron wire. What you have there looks alot like the GK3. It was a power hog and did not produce any anomalies but did show the comparison of awg to current draw. It did blow trannys. Nothing unknown there now but at the time the configuration of windings still held some magic with the current set of posters. As you might be able to tell that those renditions don't show up any more. Alot of us fell prey to the mystery. But we got to prove it, right? Either the TPU mystery will survive or we will. Somethings got to give.

Again, thanks. I wish you to continue on with your style of investigation. A new mindset is always welcome.

--giantkiller.

otto · « **Reply #733 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:01:02 AM »

Hello all,

@Rich

sorry, Im weekends at my workbench and dont even look at the forum.

About the weight of a TPU:

A looong time ago I made a TPU, as we all did. 4 segments and the Tesla patent 390721 for a rotational magnetic field.

The weight of a 6" should be ...gramms (sorry, dont remember).
I measured the weight of my TPU. Then I got an idea:
To measure the weight of my TPU while pulsing it. And so I did it.
At a very low frequency of about 1 - 5 Hz I pulsed my TPU. In the same time I could clearly see that this TPU changes its weight.

So, its clear that the TPU pulsed in the needed frequency ranges should produce energy and in the same time its weight should and will decrease.

Otto

Earl · « **Reply #734 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:58:41 AM »

Hi Otto,

what device did you use to measure the weight?

a mechanical balance ?
a spring scale ?
electronic load cell type ?

Keep up the good work, regards, Earl

Quote from: otto on July 09, 2007, 09:01:02 AM

Hello all,
@Rich
[snip]
I measured the weight of my TPU. Then I got an idea:
To measure the weight of my TPU while pulsing it. And so I did it.
At a very low frequency of about 1 - 5 Hz I pulsed my TPU. In the same time I could clearly see that this TPU changes its weight.

So, its clear that the TPU pulsed in the needed frequency ranges should produce energy and in the same time its weight should and will decrease.
Otto

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Successful TPU-ECD replication ! (Read 1145619 times)

gn0stik

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

wattsup

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

giantkiller

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

turbo

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

turbo

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

threepointone

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

z_p_e

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

z_p_e

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

gn0stik

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

Hoppy

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

giantkiller

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

Jon

Replication Results

giantkiller

Re: Replication Results

otto

Re: Successful TPU-ECD replication !

Earl

which apparatus to measure weight ?