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 371407 times)

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #225 on: July 01, 2008, 03:28:23 PM »
Hello all,

@Grumpy

why not?

Otto

I am not exactly sure.  Ferromagnetic material dampens the field, or absorbs it, or diverts it in some way.  A magnetic field is a dielectric phenomenon as this is where the field manifests - not in the material, but in the space around it, which is a dielectric.

I am not saying that you can not make a device that converts useful energy, and has ferromagnetic material in it's core - because you can - but it will not be a TPU as you have to take a different approach like Gunderson's ring device which has a ferrous core and a wavy collector and magnets perpedicular to the collector.

You can work with the "electric field" or you can work with the "magnetic field", but in the end you have to manipulate the "tempic field" and this means you have to alter the rate of entropy for the space your coils are in - this means altering the field that creates "time".  All three of these fields are related and two working together can manipulate the third.

The following is an excerpt from Wilbert Smith's "The New Science":

Quote
There is basically no difference between particles and radiated energy, except one of structure and configuration. Both contain Reality and are made up of fields in space, and are subject to the higher Parameters. We can say that radiated energy is "extended" and that matter is "reentrant", to describe loosely their configurations and structures.

With the foregoing in mind we can now explore what happens when the various fields are operated upon by each other. When an electric field is operated upon by a tempic field, i.e., changed, a magnetic field results. When a magnetic field is operated upon by a tempic field, i.e., changed, an electric field results. A tempic field should result when an electric field operates on a magnetic field, but the trick is to make it do so. Also, we would like to know what happens when a tempic field is operated upon by an electric field or a magnetic field.

A tempic field is largely amorphous and has direction only in relation to its own gradient in space, while both the electric and magnetic fields have vectorial aspects in addition to their scalar aspects. Therefore, we could hardly expect complete symmetry among the operations of these three fields. We can, however, work through an intermediate arrangement whereby we generate the desired field with its interaction already built into it. Whether or not there is a limit to this sort of operation we do not know, but it certainly hasn't been found yet, and it is a valid approach so long as we keep the basic rules constantly in mind.

As an introductory exercise consider the operation of a tempic field on an electric field by the simple expedient of having the electric field move. A magnetic field will be produced and will have a certain specific orientation (this is the Rowland Effect). The vectorial direction of the magnetic field will be mutually at right angles to the direction of the electric field and its motion. Now, since the magnetic field is a curl function its divergence over the entire field must be zero. In order to bring this about the magnetic field must operate on either or both if the other fields to close the system somehow, somewhere. One such method would be for this operation to increase the tempic field on one side and decrease it on the other so that the motion would close into a loop, which implies the operation of the magnetic field on the electric field to produce a tempic field. If the structure of the three fields is understood, the validity of this operation is at once apparent, which establishes another principle; namely, that when a magnetic field, produced by a moving electric field, is moved longitudinally a tempic field is produced.  

More thinking about this exercise discloses the fact that if this system merely closes on itself, the divergence, which is the electric field is eliminated, so that the only way in which the system can be self-sustaining is for it to close toroidally, so that there will be components of all three fields in all directions. That this is in fact the model of the basic particle of the universe in which we exist is amply borne out by experiment, because it displays a tempic field, an electric field, and a magnetic moment. The electric polarity depends on whether the spiral is right- or left-handed.

Inspection of this model discloses the fact that the tempic field will drop off as the inverse distance from the center of the toroid, the electric field will drop off as the inverse square of this distance, and the magnetic field will drop of as the inverse cube. What fields we observe with our instrumentation in the vicinity of such a particle will be the summation of the particle fields, the fields of all other particles, and the unresolved background fields of the fabric itself.

Possibly a clearer understanding of the structure of the basic particle may be had by considering the composition, orientation, and interaction of the entire field structure, considered together as a unit.

Looking at the composite field structure shows us three fields at right angles to each other. There is the tempic with its gradient in one direction, the electric with its divergence in a direction at right angles to it and including it, and the magnetic at right angles to the other two and including both of them. For self-sustaining conditions, the operation of each upon the other, there must be one-for-one relationships between them. Therefore the real movement under stable self-sustaining conditions will be in the vectorial 1,1,1 direction, or exactly midway among the three directions of the component fields. (this is inside the toroid)






th3jester

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #226 on: July 01, 2008, 04:24:38 PM »
Hmmmm. this thread got a little off topic.... ???

I've read most of everything from SM, Lindsay, Otto, GiantKiller and alot of others and still am not satisfied that something amazing is happening.

Now if someone can show me a TPU doing some real work, not lighting a LED or other bulbs but actually electrical work (and yes i do realize that lighting a light is electrical work but its pathetic, its not useful) then I will believe everything about SM and how he is not a scam artist.

I am going to forget everything I have read on this forum and all those PDF's and do my own research about a solid state generator. Anyone is welcome to join me.

Also, just to make sure, I am not bashing the above members or anyone else on this forum. I'm sure those people are not frauds and have probably learned a shit ton of stuff from SM research. I just don't like SM. There is too much discrediting information about him, and so I believe his TPU won't work.

-Th3jester

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #227 on: July 01, 2008, 07:12:41 PM »
@Grumpy
I understand and agree with the info you posted above and agree with the faults with iron in the core. The jard part is offsetting or cancelling one field so the other two fill the unbalance.
It is clear to me the tempic is hard to grasp beause it IS our frame of existance and reference. Iron in the core negates attempts to create unexpected resonance and speed.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #228 on: July 01, 2008, 09:04:06 PM »
@Grumpy
I understand and agree with the info you posted above and agree with the faults with iron in the core. The jard part is offsetting or cancelling one field so the other two fill the unbalance.
It is clear to me the tempic is hard to grasp beause it IS our frame of existance and reference. Iron in the core negates attempts to create unexpected resonance and speed.

Hey BEP,

Glad to see you looking in the same direction.  Yes, it is hard to grasp.  I'm still trying.

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #229 on: July 01, 2008, 09:06:40 PM »
oops - duplicate post

Spider

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #230 on: July 01, 2008, 09:53:12 PM »
@Grumpy,

Excelent quote, now I understand the kick coil

Thanks,

Spider

Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2247
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #231 on: July 01, 2008, 10:38:51 PM »
you will also see from that quote that communication via the tempic field is far more efficient than communication with EM.

EMdevices

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #232 on: July 01, 2008, 11:14:01 PM »
I thought I was a great communicator....  :-\       LOL  ;D

BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #233 on: July 02, 2008, 12:37:36 AM »
Hey BEP,

Glad to see you looking in the same direction.  Yes, it is hard to grasp.  I'm still trying.

Oh, I've been thinking that way for quite a long time. I just hesitate to use words most think are magic. It causes problems  ;D
When you start to understand a bit of this, Marco's dancing magnets aren't very surprising  ;) and neither is a slow running watch.

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #234 on: July 02, 2008, 05:45:42 AM »
Good one guys.

@otto

I have been using only the IRF840 and my function generator on the yoke. I forgot to look for your ecd diagram, but know I found it. Is this the way.  I grabbed this image from your ecd circuit diagram. I hope you don't mind. lol

So far, I have done many many types of connections of the yoke coils, pulsing through the 840 with the gen on the base. So far, blew two 840s. lol Many of my alligator clips are shot. Running up to 24vdc through this, sometimes my power supply refused and only gave 12vdc. Just hot, smoke here and there. Your regular testing site I would say. Now in most of these I kept the collector completely isolated and connected to a 1200v 88uf (huge) capacitor via a heavy duty capacitor and I put my volt meter on the cap. So far - D E A D. Completely dead. So from my present tests at the levels up to 2mhz, nothing, even through I could see the pulses on the scope. The best is 1 - 14hz. That's where I saw some potential movement.

So this is telling me something even though it does not work. I tells me the coupling is not happening in this manner from the vertical to the collector, so now when I try your system with the interconnected coils to collector, and if there is ANY sign of life, lol, I will know difference.

What I hate is the higher the frequency, the amplitude drops, so you have faster pulses but not more punch.

Please explain to me how the IRF7307 will help. Does it receive the same function generator output? I'll get a few 7307 tomorrow, plus a few more 840s and some more alligator clips, this time heavy duty type. lol

otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #235 on: July 02, 2008, 06:19:52 AM »
Hello all,

@Grumpy

thanks.

@th3jester

SMs TPU wont work??? HA;ha. Youre welcome in my home. I can show you something. Did I say a TPU? NO! Just "something".

@wattsup

forget the ECD. Almost all my drawings are in this forum so you can use them. Of course I dont mind.
Im using only my MOSFETs and never used the IRF 7307. This used Roberto.

You should use the schematic I posted. This schematic is for a TPU with iron powder cores. Not for the ECD. I see youre using cores from yokes. As said, my last schematic. It works only with frequencies at a high level, not low frequencies! 24V from the power supply, without caps, diodes, resistors....but WITH an output transformer - got this, as mentioned a few times - from a nice man here.

@All,

Im now using a Metglas magnetic alloy 2714A as a core. Google this. Maybe you get ideas.

Results: great.

Im using this alloy because the 4" TPU had not much room for the collector, the controls....
Now I have a 6" TPU - 1 ring only - with this alloy.
I hopw I can this week build another ring so my TPU will have 2 rings connected together and I hope ....who knows??



Otto


th3jester

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #236 on: July 02, 2008, 04:36:38 PM »

@otto

I'll be there at 12:00pm on Saturday July 5th.

Honestly I am skeptic to everything on this forum. And your post saying "something" proves my skepticism. Again, if this is a forum to work on developing "free energy" why not tell everyone what that "something" is and give very detailed plans on making it without leaving ANYTHING OUT!!!

If you've already done so with this "something" then show me where the link and info is at.

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #237 on: July 03, 2008, 05:09:15 AM »
@otto

I think I will wait until you return from your vacations and simply put this project aside. I made the connections as per the dual  diagram but am still confused about the mosfet and how to connect it, and how to run it. My power supply can go up to 32vdc but even at maximum voltage, it can only supply 5-6 vdc at about 5 amps, so something is wrong and I will not surely spend hours searching through the threads for more specifics. I think what is required is a more formal explanation on the set-up and exactly how to connect the mosfet (pin by pin) and how to run it, otherwise I am simply wasting precious time that I can put elsewhere. So I will wait until you return form vacation and take this up then.

otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #238 on: July 03, 2008, 06:05:38 AM »
Hello all,

@th3jester

This something is my newest TPU made with Metglas magnetic alloy. Its still in the construction. As I already saw with 1 collector and 4 controls it looks good but I have to build another collector with 4 controls so I can get more power and have more possibilities for various connections.

I will post the plans, thats for sure but as said, its not ready. Heeeeey, Im not hiding!!!

@wattsup

Im not anymore on vacation. This is the bad news. The good news here:

Connect the gate directly to the output of your oscillator.
Connect the source directly to the minus from your power supply.
Connect the drain directly to your coil or coils.

Thats it!!

If you have a car battery then use it. If you have a power supply then its OK but is your power supply with a current limiter? If so then it cant work because when we have a saturated core the current will rise to a lot of amperes. Maybe 5 - 10A and then you have to detune the frequency mix a little bit.

I hope this helped a little.

Otto

wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #239 on: July 03, 2008, 12:15:44 PM »