@All

I don't know if the page bellow already posted in this forum, but a guy tried make a Daniel McFarland Cook patent replica, but its don't work:

Here: http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoil.htm

And here: http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookUpDate.htm

And pictures here: http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoilPics.htm

More pictures:http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/CookCoilPics2.htm

Please, note that the author did not use aluminum (alufoil) layers between the coils. It seems that Brnbrade was the only one whose device worked.

Regards

Doug

Maybe Brnbrade had the coupling via his magnets at the left side ?

I would agree one of the pictures has what looks like a small 1inch magnet to the left of the coils.

Besides all this noise, noise , nosie.

You're absolutely right wattsup. The noise doesn't belong here...apologies.

I'll be posting something important in the TPU's "A Place for Debate" thread.

Regards,
Darren

@bob.rennips

Thanks for your info, but geez, if you look at Brnbrade's unit, mine is exactly the same, same winding directions and same connection points. Also on Farlands patent, his Figure 2 is identical to mine. But, I will try the other way when I get home as with other configurations, since Brnbrade has not indicated the cap values, etc. I'd like to know what type of capacitor he is using in Trail #1 and #2, please.

As for the core, in the patent Farland states " The iron core A may be solid bar or a bundle of iron wire, the latter giving higher tension to the current with equal length and fineness of wire.

Also, would you agree that when Farland refers to the Primary, he means our secondary and vise versa.

Lastly, for start-up Farland refers to the possibility of using a magnet, an electro magnet or by winding a second Primary on the coils. This sounds like a good idea and can be done easilly. I think this is what Brnbrade has highlighted in his reply #265 on page 27.

THIS IS NOT A TPU!

Other than an old  speaker magnet in the picture..I do not see it.

Am I losing my basic common sense and courtesy here?

Yes, you are. If Otto's design is TPU related, then this is as well, it shares many design aspects. Go ask otto if he got any inspiration from this, or if erfinder's talk of mobius this, and mobius that, was at all inspired by the mcfarland stuff.

The differences you note, result in a different output, for sure. If this device works, we can draw from it, to further our platform.

By the way. Marco was doing what otto did a year ago, results wise. In fact it was a bit more impressive in my opionin, but he didn't think so. I encouraged him to persue it but nothing came of it. This was all BEFORE the wireless transmitter stuff, but nobody mentioned anything about it. Why now. I agree it needs to be studied more. But promising results need to be studied. All of them. I don't know what my point is here.

On the one hand, I see the immense amount of value in otto's work, but not being overunity, and displaying so many wierd results not mentioned by SM, along with the ones mentioned by him... It's not the full picture. So something is missing from it. Perhaps aspects of what brnbrade is doing are applicable. Or what Marco did a year ago. He got massive amounts of voltage and current out, compared to in, which did NOT diminish when attaching a load. He thought it was measurement error, did not disclose, and dismissed it. Not having seen everything, I had to assume he was right. I had no choice, based on the data I had at the time to dismiss it as well. I still think about it. Marco then went on to do the dancing magnets, and the MT replication (wireless power).

Also, nobody seems interested in verifying Otto's claims of inertia, or wieght loss.

People have tried measuring a rotating field in Otto's device, but have been unable to.

This is highly distressing to me. I built anyway, as I have enough data to build his. Unfortunately, that is not the case here, yet. I want to test for all possible expressions of SM type reactions. I will tune as per Ottos doc, but frankly, I care not a whit about seeds and sines forming. I care about mitigating RF radiation, so that I can handle it, like SM does. I care about replicating the form of the device that is seen in the videos. Not the 2/3 ratio of ring diameter, or whatever, or bottom ring 2" reduced from the top.

In other words I want to help mold the ECD into a TPU. Not get stuck on the ECD. Which in and of itself is obviously NOT a TPU. But first I have to test the ECD, to insure it operates like Ottos.

Neither is Brnbrades setup a TPU, but perhaps parts of it can be used.

The similarities, are what's intriguing Mannix, not the differences. If you want to focus on differences, note the differences between SM's setup, and Ottos. If we are discounting things based on differences, rather than similarity, then we have some crow to eat here. I hope you realize Lindsay, that I'm not trying to caustic, but keeping the possibilities open. And to stop the assumption that, this over here, is related, and this over here, is not. Not even you can say that. No disrespect intended.

@stefan, I really don't think it matters where this thread is. If Mannix thinks its disrespectful, then fine, Keep it here. But keep in mind, that it only matters that SM thinks it is disrespectful. What I think is disrespectful, is assuming that someone's experimentation is any less important than someonen else's, and any less relevent. Also, what I think is disprespectful to SM, is assuming something is not TPU related and therefor making it open game to anyone who wants to claim it. The cook patents are public domain after all. So move it or don't move it, either way its disrepsectful to SM.
I suspect you'll do what makes sense to you.

@Earl, if I did measurements and found overunity in them. I would immediately suspect my equipment of being broken, or faulty, or that I screwed up my measurements somehow. Marco assumed the same thing, unfortunately, we don't know for sure in that case..

Ask EM what its like to proclaim OU and then discover the truth a short time later, and then retract apologetically, this prospect prevents a lot of people from disclosing in the first place, or at all..

Regards,
Rich

...