Author Topic: The Brnbrade Coil/Overunity? (Read 371811 times)

EMdevices · « **Reply #105 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:32:24 PM »

Ok, you can even see the orange wire crossing upwards to reach the top tab.

I know we can't prove a connection from a photo, but I don't see any blatant deceit... yet.

I'm just hoping he comes clean on the yellow wires down bellow.

EM

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #106 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:33:37 PM »

Someone tell me I am wrong and I will erase my prior statements.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #107 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:36:09 PM »

What role could the 2 alufoils per rod can play ?
As he thus shields the electric fields from each coil, but not the magnetic,
maybe it is a key to just have the electric field for a transformer effect but not
the electric field ?
What about eddy currents inside the alufoil ?

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #108 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:38:25 PM »

@ EM

It would appear to me that the two orange wires are behind the bulb. Look close, and you will see nothing on the three prongs except for the two jumpers. We need more clarification from brnbrade, how everything is wired.

Cheers,
Bruce

wattsup · « **Reply #109 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:39:13 PM »

@btenzer

Keep cool.

The battery lines are going to the yellow going to the terminal then to the two coils in mobius.

The orange are going to the light along with the two probes from the meter.

OK you can't see the battery wire completely going to the yellow but this is only a lack of overall detail in the picture. Plus if you consider the angle of the yellow versus the battery wires, we can presume they are connected otherwise the battery wires would simply fall straight down off the side of the table.

Also, there is no sound input on this test so he is producing DC-DC and that's why the meter is at zero because he is on the AC selector.

@Brnbrade

Whenever you take pictures it is important to show all wires to be on the table and not falling off the side.

Be carefull if you plug the sound and produce the AC it could blow the bulb.

Good work.

Unicron · « **Reply #110 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:42:01 PM »

And what about the cap not connected now? is that not needed now?

bob.rennips · « **Reply #111 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:42:25 PM »

Quote from: EMdevices on July 02, 2007, 04:22:37 PM

Bruce, why don't you anotate my zoomed in photo. What do you mean? Place some labels on it.

I would think if he wanted to trick us he would use the yellow wires, but you never know. Let's hope he wasn't out to have a good laugh on us.

EM

Bruce - P****D - now there's something I didn't think I'd ever see!

But seriously it's not nice to think you've been had BUT I don't think this is the case.
Cheer up - ask for another photo of the whole setup and see what gives.

I think it's possible brnbrade used the aligator clips to also hold onto the stranded wire of those two connections you don't think are connected. If it's a con it would be MUCH easier to make the connection obvious and connect a 12 volt car battery to those yellow wires...

It's impossible to solder to the leads of those lamps. I've used aligator clips from my scope/freq. gen. many times to hold things in place when I want to try stuff out.

Besides it fits in too well to the stuff I'm currently experimenting having now heard about the insulators. Pulsing an electric field held on a coil does produce some interesting hash and noise on an oscilloscope...

Mannix · « **Reply #112 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:43:07 PM »

Stefan,

Just to respect Steven can you move this to somewhere other that Steven Marks TPU devices.......it just aint..and has no place here .

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #113 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:45:23 PM »

Quote from: wattsup on July 02, 2007, 04:39:13 PM

@btenzer

Keep cool.

The battery lines are going to the yellow going to the terminal then to the two coils in mobius.

The orange are going to the light along with the two probes from the meter.

@ Wattsup

Cool and reasoned. I just would like clarification to all of us how the orange wires are connected to the light. If through the probes, fine. This is all I want to know.

Cheers,
Bruce

EMdevices · « **Reply #114 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:53:43 PM »

Bruce, please, I think you've been griped by doubt. Take it easy. Let's wait and see what our Brazilian friend has to say.

Wattsup, thank you, you clarified the scope reading. DC in DC out. I totaly missed that. Thank you. My experiments now mean so much more !!!!

EM

P.S. See the photo, it's on DC (from the previous photos) and he left it on AC in the lightbulb photo, too exicited to show us, forget the meter reading he thought, I HAVE LIGHT !!!!

I would of done the same thing.

jacob · « **Reply #115 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:55:09 PM »

Quote from: btentzer on July 02, 2007, 04:01:10 PM

@ Jacob, EM and ALL

I now STRONGLY suspect DECEIT in the picture of the bulb. I need someone to confirm the following:

If you blow the picture up large, (it is of high resolution) you can see the three input prongs of the light bulb. AND NONE OF THEM have ANY INPUT from the two orange wires.

The ONLY INPUT is from the BATTERY CABLE connectors. This would explain why no volt reading (not hooked up, would give it away) AND why the wires go off of the table to no-where!!

I am never quick to dismiss nor quick to believe, but I have to dismiss this based on the photo, unless someone sees something I have missed...

Bruce

Bruce, for some reason, I cannot download the picture. Can you email it to me?

Quote from: EMdevices on July 02, 2007, 04:03:50 PM

Quote from: jacob on July 02, 2007, 12:45:29 PM
Quote from: -[marco]- on July 01, 2007, 06:23:40 PM
The talk goes around the Farland Cook patents has been deliberatly changed.....
I do not know the reference source of where i heard it, but i am sure it was about these particulair coils.

Yes it was. And you heard it from me Marco. I made that claim a few times and the reason is simple. When you read the patent, it refers to elements in the drawing that are absent from the document. Therefore the conclusion that the drawing has been altered by simply erasing some of the circuit elements.

Jacob

Jacob, if you would be so kind, can you provide a reference for your claim.

I scanned the patent over and I don't see any references to other figures besides Figure 1 and Figure 2. (I used www.pat2pdf.org) Perhaps you have a hard copy with a different text? By the way, the No 16 and No 30 referenced in the document mean wire number, or size, or gage, not a part number on some missing figure, at least that's the way I read it.

EM

Sure EM, no problem. On the first text page, approximatively in the middle of the second column, you'll find the following text:

... the opposing initial secondary currents of the two helices B C being overpowered do not manifest themselves in the main circuit D of the battery, there being eight distincts currents developped in the action of one entire circuit of the two pairs of helices...

Unless I miss something, I dont see anything labelled as D in the drawing. Another reference to D also appears toward the very end of the text as follow:

For the purpose of preventing the heating of the helices caused by the intensity of the action, and to prevent circulation of the initial secondary currents in the main circuit, a rheostat of any convenient form may be made to constitute a part of the main circuit D.

The main circuit D is nowhere to be seen. Therefore my claim that this patent has been tampered with in order to make any replication attempt unsuccessfull. Obviously, there would be no motive to modify a design that doesn't work. I'll let you draw your own conclusions...

Regards,

Jacob

jacob · « **Reply #116 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:58:01 PM »

@ Bruce,

Please disregard my last request. I see that some enlargement have been posted.

wattsup · « **Reply #117 on:** July 02, 2007, 04:58:26 PM »

@btenzer

Off the terminal the right orange is going to the top bulb terminal and is held in place by the red meter probe alligator clip.

The other orange is going to the bottom bulb terminal and is held in place by the black meter probe alligator clip.

@unicorn

In actual fact the capacitor is not doing anything in the circuit because there is no charge/discharge control. But maybe when the sound it connected the fluctuations need the capacitor. But with straight DC-DC there is no need.

bob.rennips · « **Reply #118 on:** July 02, 2007, 05:06:37 PM »

Quote from: Mannix on July 02, 2007, 04:43:07 PM

Stefan,

Just to respect Steven can you move this to somewhere other that Steven Marks TPU devices.......it just aint..and has no place here .

I don't see why this is disrespectful.

I think you are being too hasty. You don't know how the TPU works - we only have theories and some promising experiments. If you know otherwise do tell...

The pulsing of electric fields, which IS what brnbrade is doing in his device, has direct parallels to SM's statement of 'removing the effects of the magnetic field' and could be interpreted as dealing with the electric field.

The idea that a stereo connection also adds to the effect also has direct relevance to the SM TPU. Many people, including myself, have identified phase, as being very important to the SM TPU. Only yesterday, Bob Boyce, who is a seasoned researcher into SM TPU style setups, reinforced this idea. A stereo signal uses very slight phase differences in the two signals to create the sound stage. It is very interesting that this appears to work with this device. I've added it to my list of experiments to try.

My current experiments, not all of which I've posted online yet, show some promising 'effects', concerning enhancing the electric field around an SM style TPU.

SM has also freely talked about solidstate components not being mounted near the fibreglass circuit board. Why ? Because of electric field effects.

As such I think these posts should stay around in the SM forum area.

jacob · « **Reply #119 on:** July 02, 2007, 05:16:36 PM »

@ Bruce:

I agree with EM. At this point, why don't we just wait and see.

Quote from: Mannix on July 02, 2007, 04:43:07 PM

Stefan,

Just to respect Steven can you move this to somewhere other that Steven Marks TPU devices.......it just aint..and has no place here .

Hi Lindsay,

I am not so sure about that. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if the core of the winding was actually part of the original circuit. And if so, it would act as the collector in a TPU. Of course it is not torroidal, but if you remember, Steven suggested that we start experimenting with non torroidal designs because it was easier and less dangerous.

And let's not forget that we are not only seeking to reproduce the TPU, but first and foremost to understand what makes it tick. And the process that goes on in the Cook McFarland device could be very closely related to what goes on in the TPU. How can we build something that works if we have no clue of the process we wish to create?

Jacob

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Brnbrade Coil/Overunity? (Read 371811 times)

EMdevices

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

Bruce_TPU

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

hartiberlin

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

Bruce_TPU

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

wattsup

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

Unicron

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

bob.rennips

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

Mannix

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

Bruce_TPU

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

EMdevices

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

jacob

Re: The Brnbrade OverUnity Coil/TPU

jacob

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

wattsup

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

bob.rennips

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????

jacob

Re: The Brnbrade Coil????