Hey Zeitmaschine,   Has your project Basic Research Project 5a started yet.

Don't know yet how (and to what) to connect the gates of the thyristors.

As to the tpu only 2 are possible fakes,I have research the tpu for a long time.

Then surely it will be no mistake to research it a little bit longer. Let's assume - just for fun - that all the SM devices are real and working. What could this tell us?

It could tell us that the principle of work of the SM devices is the same as the principle described in the patent RU 2 386 207 (see illustrations below). Isn't that a strange coincidence?

And isn't it even more strange that I can't find any discussions on the web about this patent?

Nothing with the patent number Google - RU 2386207 or Google - RU 2 386 207 and nothing with full text (it finds just the patent) Google - КОММУТАЦИОННЫЙ СПОСОБ ВОЗБУЖДЕНИЯ ПАРАМЕТРИЧЕСКОГО РЕЗОНАНСА ЭЛЕКТРИЧЕСКИХ КОЛЕБАНИЙ И УСТРОЙСТВО ДЛЯ ЕГО ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИЯ

So, what's going on here? How does it come that the SM device looks like as if it was build according to this patent?

As far as I'm able to comprehend the automated translation of the patent, it describes the principle of work in terms of mathematics. Hence it should work if replicated correctly. Otherwise the mathematics must be wrong.

My problem: I do not have a transformer with four secondaries as drawn in this patent. But on the other hand I can't see such a transformer in the SM devices either. This could mean the design of this patent is more complicated than necessary. And therefore once again we are arrived at the phrase:

»It is so simple you will laugh«

Don't know yet how (and to what) to connect the gates of the thyristors.
Then surely it will be no mistake to research it a little bit longer. Let's assume - just for fun - that all the SM devices are real and working. What could this tell us?

It could tell us that the principle of work of the SM devices is the same as the principle described in the patent RU 2 386 207 (see illustrations below). Isn't that a strange coincidence?

And isn't it even more strange that I can't find any discussions on the web about this patent?

Nothing with the patent number Google - RU 2386207 or Google - RU 2 386 207 and nothing with full text (it finds just the patent) Google - КОММУТАЦИОННЫЙ СПОСОБ ВОЗБУЖДЕНИЯ ПАРАМЕТРИЧЕСКОГО РЕЗОНАНСА ЭЛЕКТРИЧЕСКИХ КОЛЕБАНИЙ И УСТРОЙСТВО ДЛЯ ЕГО ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИЯ

So, what's going on here? How does it come that the SM device looks like as if it was build according to this patent?

As far as I'm able to comprehend the automated translation of the patent, it describes the principle of work in terms of mathematics. Hence it should work if replicated correctly. Otherwise the mathematics must be wrong.

My problem: I do not have a transformer with four secondaries as drawn in this patent. But on the other hand I can't see such a transformer in the SM devices either. This could mean the design of this patent is more complicated than necessary. And therefore once again we are arrived at the phrase:

»It is so simple you will laugh«

in the bulge lie probably one 9volt battery for drive the oscillators.the two capacitor plus resistors  are probably 450+450 volt electrolitic to smooting out the hash at the output.the two toroid over the black box in the  center are.... ceramic rings??

at min 40:30 Paul Stemm explain the principle about the generator..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_fRKxz_UNo

The TC 207 transformer used in the Mustafa device is an older Russian transformer that used Alumin. wire to keep the cost down.

Hi Zeitmaschine, I see a battery at "G1".

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd168/Toey1/2386207-71_zps31683b85.jpg

Yes, a battery at "G1" .... and it's either connected as a direct short across the battery.... or it's not connected to the circuit shown but to something else that got cropped away. I refer to the point indicated by the arrow.

These diagrams that use a straight crossover with no dot to indicate "no connection" and a heavy dot to indicate "connection" have always bugged me. It is so easy to make a mistake at every stage: wiring, transcribing, interpreting, etc. It is much much better to use the "jumper" symbol or a clear gap where wires cross but do not connect, along with a heavy dot where they do connect. For example, what exactly is meant by the arrowed point below? If it's connected the battery is simply shorted. If it's not connected then there is an implied "something missing" somewhere.

Hey Zeitmaschine...   This might help you answer your problem of switching the Thyristors at the zero point of the wave.  Hope this is what your needing..

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.3e-club.ru/view_full.php%3Fid%3D14%26name%3Dzero-cross&usg=ALkJrhgpK3wn-3Bx13aS3SYQfR4FxP7q5g

My »little« difficulty in comprehension is this: The capacitors C1/C2 and the coil T2 shape a LC circuit. This LC circuit oscillates at a certain resonance frequency. The transistor VT1 also oscillates at a certain frequency specified by C3 and T1. But both frequencies are not in sync with each other. Therefore what should be the frequency of T1 compared to T2? Higher or lower? Would it not be better to synchronize the gates of the thyristors with the frequency of T2 so T1 can be omitted anyway?

The next question is this: Is it really necessary to toggle C1 and C2 so that at a given point in time only one capacitor is connected, or would it not be sufficient to connect and disconnect one of the capacitors and leave the other connected permanently?

Anyway the basic idea here seems to be to kick a resonating LC circuit out of equilibrium so it has no other choice but to collect additional energy from the space-time continuum (aether).

But seems that's all higher math and physics I'm not familiar with so best thing to do is to keep trying ...

Yes, a battery at "G1" .... and it's either connected as a direct short across the battery.... or it's not connected to the circuit shown but to something else that got cropped away. I refer to the point indicated by the arrow.

These diagrams that use a straight crossover with no dot to indicate "no connection" and a heavy dot to indicate "connection" have always bugged me. It is so easy to make a mistake at every stage: wiring, transcribing, interpreting, etc. It is much much better to use the "jumper" symbol or a clear gap where wires cross but do not connect, along with a heavy dot where they do connect. For example, what exactly is meant by the arrowed point below? If it's connected the battery is simply shorted. If it's not connected then there is an implied "something missing" somewhere.

Does not appear to be a short across battery.
From Patent:

@all

Sorry for interjecting again on this thread. @stefan has put most all the TK threads into a new section and he put me down as moderator, but I never asked him to do that. I have now asked @stefan to remove me as moderator as I do not think this new TK section needs a moderator. But should any @member feel they would be a good moderator, you can always PM @stefan.

I had originally asked him to start a new section under a new title "Understanding Over-Unity" to which I would like to be the moderator. So there was a misunderstanding and hopefully it will be corrected shortly.

All the best in 2013.

wattsup