Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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: Steve Marks Patent #06015476  (Read 47844 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2008, 12:06:30 AM »
@mace

I see things as patterns, I always have. When something deviates from an established pattern, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I can deal with a fake accent, BUT THE CAPTAIN KIRK THING IS BUGGING THE HECK OUT OF ME! (even though I enjoy double and triple puns myself.)  ;D

You   know   what I am talking   about.

I appreciate the extra hints though.

Paul

Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2008, 01:33:25 PM »
What the hel_ is this?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/77/34433/01643159.pdf?temp=x
 Is it a TPU or a EPU?
 I will have to search the patent data base with "EPU" later.

Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2008, 01:40:02 PM »

Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2008, 09:26:44 PM »
Here's a 9V battery, with the housing removed.  It's actually six AAAA batteries wired in series.  Handy if you run out of AAA and you have a 9V laying around.  They're a little smaller than AAA batteries but they work fine.  It's not hard to imagine 13 or so of these strung together fitting into the 6" TPU.

300mAh *13 = 3.9 Amp - Hours.
  Wrong.  See Kames' retort below.
9*13 = 117 Volts.

You should be able to pull a full amp for 20 minutes before the batteries start to precipitously crash, according to typical discharge curves for single 9V batteries at 1 Amp.

edit:  Looks like I was being overly optimistic.  Still, I calculate that 300mAh should deliver 1 amp for 18 minutes, though at such high current, the voltage will crash pretty quickly

« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 04:45:33 AM by zerotensor »

Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2008, 09:50:10 PM »
I just weighed my stripped-down 9V.  Result: 36.5 grams.
13 of these will weigh 474.5g  = 16 ounces.

Offline AhuraMazda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2008, 11:08:34 PM »
You can make a small toroidal shaped lead acid battery and it would last 20 minutes to light a 60 W bulb too.
Of course you would need the inverter too.

Offline kames

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2008, 11:10:44 PM »
Here's a 9V battery, with the housing removed.  It's actually six AAAA batteries wired in series.  Handy if you run out of AAA and you have a 9V laying around.  They're a little smaller than AAA batteries but they work fine.  It's not hard to imagine 13 or so of these strung together fitting into the 6" TPU.

300mAh *13 = 3.9 Amp - Hours.
9*13 = 117 Volts.

You should be able to pull a full amp for 20 minutes before the batteries start to precipitously crash, according to typical discharge curves for single 9V batteries at 1 Amp.





@zerotensor

Open a book and read how to calculate the power when the batteries are connected in series.
Better, just test your idea and see that your calculations are wrong.

Kames.


Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2008, 12:32:24 AM »

@zerotensor

Open a book and read how to calculate the power when the batteries are connected in series.
Better, just test your idea and see that your calculations are wrong.

Kames.

It's gonna be a while before I have the extra cash to dump on a dozen batteries, but it will be done.

Check yourself, Kames.  Amp-hours is battery capacity, not power.  Say you have 2 batteries each rated at 500mAh.  That's 1000mAh you have total.  Attach a load that draws 1 Amp across one of the battery's terminals.  After about a half-hour, you will have drained all the juice from your battery.  Now, swap in the fresh battery.  We get another 1/2 hour of operation at 1 amp.  We see that the rating of the battery is a measure of how much energy we can extract, not power.  Twice as many batteries, twice as much energy there to extract.

You say this doesn't work if you connect the batteries in series.  I disagree.  The capacity doesn't go away no matter how you hook them up. 

OK, Kames is right, and I must have been smoking crack.  Thanks, Kames.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 04:42:11 AM by zerotensor »

Offline kames

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2008, 02:22:19 AM »

@zerotensor

Open a book and read how to calculate the power when the batteries are connected in series.
Better, just test your idea and see that your calculations are wrong.

Kames.

It's gonna be a while before I have the extra cash to dump on a dozen batteries, but it will be done.

Check yourself, Kames.  Amp-hours is battery capacity, not power.  Say you have 2 batteries each rated at 500mAh.  That's 1000mAh you have total.  Attach a load that draws 1 Amp across one of the battery's terminals.  After about a half-hour, you will have drained all the juice from your battery.  Now, swap in the fresh battery.  We get another 1/2 hour of operation at 1 amp.  We see that the rating of the battery is a measure of how much energy we can extract, not power.  Twice as many batteries, twice as much energy there to extract.

You say this doesn't work if you connect the batteries in series.  I disagree.  The capacity doesn't go away no matter how you hook them up. 


Sorry, you really have to learn the basics.

PS: I just saw you posted your question in two threads. What for? Aleks answered your question correctly in another thread.

Kames.

Offline zerotensor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2008, 04:07:30 AM »

PS: I just saw you posted your question in two threads. What for? Aleks answered your question correctly in another thread.

Kames.
The other thread was for my planned video replication.  After I posted it, some folks started talking about the same thing here, so I thought I'd join in the discussion.

OK, guilty as charged.  My calculation was totally wack.
I see where I got mixed-up.  You are completely right, of course, about the amp-hours of series-wired batteries.   I stand corrected and thanks for setting me straight.  I guess my only defense is to plead extreme sleep deprivation!  I was conflating the energy stored by the battery with its amp-hour rating, which is somewhat understandable, but totally wrong.

Anyway, even with only 300mA-hours, I should be able to squeeze out about 18 minutes at 1 amp.  A lot less overhead than I originally thought, but still possible.


Offline eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #70 on: April 11, 2008, 08:01:41 PM »
That is a good question. I find Steven's 6 in. TPU intriguing since he strayed from the usual slim toroid design and made it thicker.  Interestingly, it has enough space to fit a row of 9V batteries perfectly. Each battery can weigh an estimated 34 grams.

OK, here's an alternate idea, assuming, of course, that SM wasn't faking the coils (I am not completely convinced that they are real, just want to try a couple of other ideas before writing them off completely):
What if this particular TPU used a standard iron powder core?  The dimensions look about right.  Is this a later TPU or an earlier one?  It may be a more advanced model than the air-core ones, or it could be less advanced.

Just a thought...

Eldarion

Offline wikiman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #71 on: April 13, 2008, 08:46:39 PM »
I think that patent more close "steven mark"s device

http://www.google.com/patents?id=42A2AAAAEBAJ&dq=4685047

turbo

  • Guest
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #72 on: April 13, 2008, 10:05:00 PM »
intresting patent wiki  :)

i also found a patent which could be related.

3610971

http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/3610971.htm

M.

Offline eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #73 on: April 14, 2008, 01:15:53 AM »
Here is a patent with a well-known winding configuration... ::)

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4595843.pdf

Offline wikiman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Steve Marks Patent #06015476
« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2008, 08:47:20 PM »
Have you ever seen that. its very interesting real and approved. They are using nanoantennas to get solar power.

Harvesting the sun's energy with antennas
http://www.inl.gov/featurestories/2007-12-17.shtml