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: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?  (Read 350582 times)

Offline eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #120 on: June 03, 2008, 07:51:03 AM »
@loner,

Would you mind posting a quick schematic of what you are proposing?  This circuit sounds like it could help significantly with a problem I am having...

Thanks!

Eldarion

Offline nickc44

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #121 on: June 03, 2008, 09:10:36 AM »
@Paul

Do you think ne555's ( thats what I have ) are OK for this application
I will look at the PDF and try to get some Ideas
If you could make a schematic of a circuit after pin 3 I would
appreciate  it... you know a pictures worth a thousand words
thanks

@ Otto

So you or someone has used synthetic oil and it stopped working
That doesn't make sense ( not that a TPU does Ha HA ) did you ever try it without exposed wire
or has any one els ?

Nick

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #122 on: June 03, 2008, 10:22:41 AM »
Hello all,

@Nickc44

I didnt try it in oil but SM tried it and it was really not good. You know that we have a vibration when the TPU works. But in oil or another liquid there cant be a vibration.

Edit:

the TS555 is much faster, lower consumption......in short, much better.

Otto

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #123 on: June 03, 2008, 07:08:42 PM »
@nickc44

TS555CN's are rated the highest I have found in the 555 timer category concerning frequency. The standard bipolar 555 has a max freq of 500Khz, while the cmos 555 series ranges from 1Mhz, to the TS555CN at 2.7Mhz. I have had success overclocking the cmos varieties, but not the bipolar. Interesting, you said you tried the circuit and achieved 3 to 4 Mhz using standard ne555 BIPOLARS?? Awesome! Good job!

Concerning the schematic, use figure2 in the pdf, just like I told otto. It resembles a push/pull oscillation circuit, but is actually a source/sink drive circuit. For instance, an IRF840 and similar may well need to source/sink 1.5A or more to completely saturate the gate junction for full conduction, where the 555 function generator circuit can only source/sink 200ma. (I earlier didn't take this into account when I drew up the circuit, and it explains low amperage throughput problems I have been noticing.)

@otto

Sources of the TS555CN online:

Newark
Digi-Key
Sierra IC
Mouser
Online Components
Allied
B&D
Jameco
GemTek
Oxygen Elec.


Paul Andrulis

Paul Andrulis

Offline nickc44

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #124 on: June 03, 2008, 10:54:41 PM »
@ Paul

You know I'm not that good I only pointed the 3 or 4 MHz out so you knew what Circuit to reference
Thanks for all the help.. I will pick up the 555 timers you have suggested

How is your TPU working have you tried Otto's config as you know my config
is on hold waiting for parts I am going to use batteries power for testing

Nick

Offline nickc44

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #125 on: June 04, 2008, 04:56:17 AM »
@ Otto and Paul

Even the newbees get to shine in the sun for a while

Thanks for your help on the oscillators
I took Paul's fast Oscillator circuit and Otto's Config of the tpu

By using all adjustable Resistors I did get the Oscillator to do its job
Finally !!!

Using a 12 V battery and a bridge I got the voltage to around 130 VDC and this was only
one Frequency  But Otto 75 W bulb did not glow

I have an old setup for another Oscillator I will need to try for the second Frequency any Ideas

My Mosfet was Africa Hot so I used and old PC CPU heat sink to cool it down.. worked good

So thanks guys

Nick

Oh ya I did try 24 V and it got up to 200 VDC It probably would go Higher. I will test  but Otto no glow on the bulb... Still fun.. you know !!!

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #126 on: June 04, 2008, 05:48:26 AM »
Hello all,

@Paul

thanks for the circuit. I have to buy the needed ICs.

@All

something very important:

If you use a PS for the DC then my schematic is OK but when you use a battery then you have to reconnect a little bit your setup. I will post tomorrow how to connect the TPU when a battery is used.

Sorry, forgot this to say earlier.

Otto

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #127 on: June 04, 2008, 04:03:51 PM »
@otto

It's your favorite dumb question guy again. lol

This had been bugging me for a while. Did you ever try with two frequencies, one on the positive and one on the negative. Imagine when the tpu is disengaged from both ends at the same or varying frequencies. lol

On the +, is it possible to pass your frequency pulse through a fast diode. Also on the positive you can use a second diode in parallel to the first but in the other direction and going directly back the positive source. This will enable the flyback to return to source without touching the SS.

Flyback is what you are having as the heat source. Heat occurs when flyback occurs and it does not have a good place to go, like directly back to a battery positive terminal. I think that's why SMs TPUs heat up. There is nothing in his circuit that spells flyback return. He is returning the output to the circuit board, but the flyback is frying his coils. lol

If you give something to nature it will always want to give you something back. Give water and sunshine to an apple tree. It will give you magnificent apples that will nourish you much more then the water you gave it. Give a smart sequence of pulses at the right voltages and currents, into the right branchings of coils and like a tree, the coil will want to give something back to you. Flyback. Red hot and ready to use or ready to give back to your battery source so the voltage does not drop that much, or, ready to heat up your coils or circuit if you don't know how to accept natures generosity. This will be the challenge too tame the beast. This is what Tesla mastered.

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2008, 10:47:00 AM »
Hello all,

finally the forum "fixed".

@wattsup

in our work are no dumb questions. I have also more and more questions that I try to solve but then other questions opens as Im working ......

Your picture is good but not to use with my 4" TPU. This TPU is weird because I cant use diodes, caps, resistors, magnets....nothing is disturbing in any way the work of this little "thing" exept a STORM!!!
Yesterday was a storm around my house and I was trying to light my bulb. It lighted a little because the current got crazy. I couldnt tune my device to the needed frequency mix. NO WAY.

After the storm - everything OK. No problem with my little TPU.

So, your picture is to use with a 6" TPU.

I saw youre analysing the 15" TPU. The coils, 2 of them, that are the output coils. Each coil for 1 frequency.

For now Im not concerned about the heat. There are some solutions.

Otto

Offline olecom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
simple energy math (not good for the first post, but anyway)
« Reply #129 on: June 05, 2008, 11:01:22 AM »

I would replace his adjective ?wonderful? with ?imaginary?.  Such a thing just does NOT exist.

Even at idle speed, doing no real work, 3.5 hours on a gallon of gas is not possible for a 25 hp engine.

Take your average 25 hp electrical generator, with a 10 gallon tank, it will only run for 8 hours at half load on 10 gallons of gas!  That?s 48 minutes per gallon at HALF LOAD!  That?s almost 4.5 times less than SM ?amazing? engine?s stated run time!  In other words, a normal generator would need to be 450 % more efficient at half load to match ?SM? claimed gas engine.

Simple energy math:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content
Gasoline contains about 34.6 megajoules per liter(MJ/L) or 131 MJ/US gallon.

1 gallon ~ 131 MJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Metric_horsepower
Metric horsepower, as a rule, is defined as 0.73549875 kW, or roughly 98.6% of mechanical horsepower.

3.5 (hours) * 3600 (seconds/hour) * 25 (horsepower) * 735.5 (W/horsepower) = 231682500 J ~ 231.7 MJ

Or somebody somewhere have wrong measurements/numbers, or this was actual wonderful (well-) over unity.
:)

Offline Drossen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #130 on: June 05, 2008, 05:04:58 PM »
@ olecom

Interesting name.  You wouldn't by any chance be a Windows programmer, as OLE is built on top of COM, and both OLE and COM are Windows technologies?

Now, as for your post, it has already been determined that the statement about a 25 hp engine running for 3.5 hours on one gallon of gas was most likely an exaggeration.  Using the information you gave, a 25 hp engine, that was 100% efficient, would consume approximately 1.77 gallons of gas in 3.5 hours.  Please realize that there are very few combustion engines on the market that achieve more than 30% efficiency.  However, the Bourke Engine that I mentioned in an earlier post is just under 83% efficient in converting the energy in the gas to usable rotational power.  Here is a link to that post:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4728.msg98469.html#msg98469

- Drossen

Offline hydrocontrol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #131 on: June 05, 2008, 05:17:53 PM »

Using the information you gave, a 25 hp engine, that was 100% efficient, would consume approximately 1.77 gallons of gas in 3.5 hours.  Please realize that there are very few combustion engines on the market that achieve more than 30% efficiency.  However, the Bourke Engine that I mentioned in an earlier post is just under 83% efficient in converting the energy in the gas to usable rotational power.  Here is a link to that post:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4728.msg98469.html#msg98469

- Drossen

You can reduce the amount of gasoline used. Of course you have to make up for it somewhere. Just do what JLN did here with lawn mower and the Plasma Fuel Reforming with the PMC. Off the shelf plumbing parts.
http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/pmcjlnen.htm
80% water 20% gasoline. Throw in a Bourke Engine and you only need to go to the gas station once a month.  ::)

Offline olecom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #132 on: June 05, 2008, 06:27:12 PM »
@Drossen,

I just want to go back to the topic. And that was simple energy no comparison of anything, no efficiency, nothing. I know about oil-funded agenda, e.g. "Who killed Electric Car?":

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_EV1
   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7202740060236675590

It will be nice if published historical info about "wonderful gasoline engine" with this typo/thinko/error can be fixed or clarified somehow (better in constructive way, of course).

[:side note: google nick and you will be tuxprized:]

Offline hydrocontrol

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2008, 07:42:17 PM »
Back on topic would be nice. Looking forward to the looping results Otto was going for next. Am I to understand Otto can light a 100 watt bulb and is now going for self power and to light the bulb at the same time. Sounds interesting..

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #134 on: June 06, 2008, 06:22:30 AM »
Hello all,

yes, Im thinking about how to feed back a little bit power from the output back to the input. Without the PS connected its not a problem.

I have new TV yokes from big TVs. and I want to see the dimensions first and then see what I can do with them.

I have this yokes on my workplace where I have more time. This yokes are wound in another way:
the cores are free. There are no windings around them and the windings are made with a few copper wires made as strands for more energy because the screen is sooo big. This is something like the open TPU where we see the lamp wire.

It seems that this yokes are something like TPUs but for a lower frequency?

Otto
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 06:48:52 AM by otto »