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 366405 times)

nickc44

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2008, 03:10:15 PM »
@ Otto

I have added some comments on your picture in Download under Nickc3
PDF format

See if you can answer or if anyone els can

with this setup are you still getting
large Voltages like 700v
and what is the currant

Thanks

Nick

otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2008, 05:16:05 PM »
Hello all,

@Mac

I cant measure the voltage nor the current. Not the voltage because my scope probe is not connected to the TPU. The probe is only near the TPU. The current I cant measure because of the high frequency.

@Nick

sorry, my mistake but  its not a problem: if you try my setup you can pulse te coil and then a short touch with this wire on 1 end of the bulb or the other end!! Trust me you will have the right position of this wire in 1 second because if you touch a wrong connection you will hace sooooo big sparcs....powerfull sparcs!!

EDIT: the NOT connected wire must be connected to the +24V!!!!! Sorry.

In short: this wire has to be connected to the +24V

My biggest problem are my SS oscillators. As I change the frequency, my signal is increasing or decreasing!! So I dont have the possibility to try with higher frequencies. Even with lower frequencies I cant chose the best frequency mix but I HAVE AN INCREDIBLE LIGHT  and thats what counts!!

If somebody tries to build my setup a have to warn such people:  you are playing with your live. This monster can kill you!! Its extremly dangerous!!

Otto

tosky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2008, 07:21:38 PM »
@otto
Since you are using 24V for the input, could you try to use 2 (12V battery) instead of the power supply? If it work, you can further use  diodes to rectifier those output energy back to the battery then count how long time it could run. This is a way to know if you got O.U.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2008, 08:58:24 PM »
@Otto

I am not trying to rain on your parade, but your wiring drawing you uploaded shows a direct short from the power supply to the bulb. IE Power supply positive to one bulb lead, negative to the other.

I still intend to try it, but I thought all should examine this. I have no doubts under such a situation that you would have bad arcing if you touched the wrong connection, as you would be shorting out your power supply.

By the way, Otto, I have gotten a yoke as you suggested and have been experimenting.

Another note:

At 24VDC, it takes just 4.2 Amps to get 100W of energy.

Also note that a 100W bulb designed for 120VAC has a resistance of 1.2 Ohms.

With 24V DC across the terminals, the bulb will then allow up to 20 Amps to flow from the DC source.

If your source is current limited, such as a power supply, then your power supply may well be then driving the bulb.

Without measuring the voltage, there is no way to know.

Paul Andrulis

MACEDONIA CD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2008, 12:22:17 AM »
hi  otto
  IF  YOU ABLE TO  PUT   ONE  HIGH SPEED DIODE   IN TO THE    OUT  COIL    WHIT  SOME CAP    <<LIKE   TV  POWER SUPLY ONLY ONE DIODE WHIT ELEKTROLITHY CAP>>
THEN YOU CAN  MESURING  THE   TRUE  OUT POWER   AND THEN TEEL AS  HOW IS THE DIFERENT

tosky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2008, 04:46:37 AM »
@Paul Andrulis
It is not surprise to light a 100W from 24V,  need only a little step up voltage. But your calculation is wrong a 120V light bulb should about 144ohm.
100=V^2/R.
R=120^2/100.

otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2008, 08:19:29 AM »
Hello all,

Just a note:

I have sent a schematic about the TPU to a guy here from the forum. This was on Tuesday, I think. Today is Friday and he told me that he got TODAY my schematic.
It seems that the internet is NOT sooooo fast as we think,ha,ha.

@tosky

I dont have 2 24V batteries, sorry.

@Paul

I dont think that is a parade what Im wrighting. I dont have a minus connection in my TPU and I never had one. Im measuring less then 3A with my analog meter connected between the PS and my TPU. Maybe Im wrong but I think that the MOSFETs would overheat if there would be a larger current. I dont have big heatsinks for my MOSFETs.
My power supply is NOT current limited. Im using my home made PS because my profi made PS is still waiting to be fixed. No time for that.

Otto



Gustav22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2008, 11:07:16 AM »
Otto's 2-TV-yoke 1000V setup which he had also posted in the download section of this forum.

Gustav22

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2008, 11:15:16 AM »
Otto's "half TPU"

altium

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2008, 12:14:32 PM »
Otto, thanks and congratulations!
What you think about collector from Cu-Sn alloy?

otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2008, 12:19:20 PM »
Hello all,

@Gustav22

THANK YOU.

Just a note: the NOT connected wire is to connect to the +!!! OK???

@altium

I made tests with soldering wire collectors and they gave me the best results. You can read about it in the ECD pdf.

I hope Im sure that an alloy has to be used if you dont want to use only copper. I made tests with pure metals like Aluminium, Iron, stainless steel......best to use is an alloy.

So try Cu - Sn alloy and let us know.

Otto

tosky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2008, 12:24:38 PM »
@Mac
I find most interesting is your setup and your theory. Could you share with us?

b0rg13

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #87 on: May 30, 2008, 12:32:07 PM »
hi Tosky,

.. i find Mac really hard to follow and ive seen others ask for pics or video and it never happens, it would be nice tho, some of the best pic ive seen come from EMdevices , tho i still wouldnt know how to make a tpu from it all, but it sure looks pretty.

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #88 on: May 30, 2008, 10:55:30 PM »
@tosky

You were using P = V2/R.

Hmmm, somewhere I did mess up.

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Is Lindsay?s ?SM? a fraud?
« Reply #89 on: May 31, 2008, 12:33:37 AM »
@all

I have been wondering how in the #### I came up with 1.2 Ohms???

This is funny, so I am going to share. I was holding another conversation with someone at the time. Word of advice, don't do this while trying to calculate formulae.

First, I messed up P=IV, which also translates to I = P/V in that I must have typed into the calculator V/P, or 120/100... That would explain the 1.2 part. (Brain Fart #1)

I HAVE YET TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT TRANSLATED FROM WATTS TO OHMS? (Hunh? "Brain Fart" and a half.)

I am glad my life didn't depend upon it!!!!!!!

@Otto

The "Half TPU" photo was the one I found. The "full TPU" photo above is better. I do not see the direct short in it. Even with the direct short though, after recalculating CORRECTLY,  the effect of full brightness would still be somewhat anomalous.

Let me show why, in support of your theory.

24VDC applied across 144Ohms using V = IR or I = V/R yields approx .17 .166(repeating) amps.

P = IV yields  a lousy 4 watts, with direct short..... So low that the bulb WOULD glow, but very weakly at best.

My bad Otto, sorry.

(I was starting to wonder if I had a brain eating virus or something, but nope, can still do basic algebra. ;D I do not have Drain Bamage. )

I do have one question, you may have already answered it, but I missed it somewhere if you did.

On the "full TPU" schematic, I see the positive 24V supply connection, but where is the negative?

Also, what kind of driving circuit? (The same 24V supply SW pulsed through mosfet's?)

Paul Andrulis