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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 515719
  • *Total Topics: 15375
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Steven Marks 'Device'  (Read 19189 times)

Offline Skeptimus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Steven Marks 'Device'
« on: April 23, 2006, 05:15:16 AM »
Mr Marks

for goodness sake take a good long look at yourself in your mirror, show a bit of integrity and tell these poor gullable fools that the reason they will never be able to duplicate this device and make it work, even if you post precise construction details including schematics, circuit diagrams and component details, is because neither yourself nor anybody else has ever been able to make it work.

Anybody with a schoolyard knowledge of physics or an IQ rating above thier shoe size will know that the operating principle you describe for this device is nothing more than a collection of intelligent sounding words and technical terms jumbled together in no particular order.

The fact that there are time limits on demonstrations due to 'overheating', and restrictions on inspections with regard to looking inside the control unit, suggests to me some kind of 'smoke and mirrors' battery powered device using commonplace fast switching techniques that will not stand up to even the slightest serious scientific scrutiny.

There are probably people with a poor understanding of physics wasting thier time and money working on this nonsense right now, in garden sheds all over the world, winding coils and cutting tracks off of bits of veroboard as you are reading this, just come clean, tell them it's all drivel perpetuated to keep yourself amused, and put them out of thier misery.

But then life would be pretty boring, would't it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Steven Marks 'Device'
« on: April 23, 2006, 05:15:16 AM »

Offline Elvis Oswald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
    • ONI
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2006, 12:22:12 AM »
Many believe that anyone "debunking" a device is only doing it to "supress" technology.  For those people I would say that if you're talking about a mysterious death... and rumors of confiscated papers, equipment, etc.... then, you *might* have a valid point.  No one should ever be convinced to stop chasing clues left by great minds of the past.  But the case of Marks is another issue all together.

The device in question exists.  The inventor claims it produces electricity with no input.  The inventor is alive and well.  Not only that - but the device has been working (supposedly) for 9 years!  ::)

If Steven had a working device nine years ago, then it would be on the market by now... or someone would have killed him and taken it.  At the least, he would be working at area51 and would not be making videos to post here. 

IF you had the device in your hands right now - as Steven does - what would you do?  The options are to document the device and mail copies to every world government and media outlet and to everyone else you could think of... as well as posting it on the internet - everywhere you could... -OR- you could try and get a manufacturer to make it for you and hope that you would not end up dead.

Obviously, Steven has not offered anything in the way of disclosure.  I assume the device will be at Home Depot soon... maybe in another 9 years.  ;)




Offline Mannix

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 563
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2006, 10:33:13 PM »
Just in case anybody here wants to compare shoes size. It was shoe sizes wasn?t it?


 29 September 1997
Michael Fennell  (Consulting Engineer)
8348 Menkar Road
San Diego, CA. 92126
 
To whom it may concern:
 
I have been hired by Mr. Green to evaluate the performance of the Toroidal Power Unit or TPU as has been described to me as a proprietary invention of Steven Mark who was until 1995 President and Chief engineer of Spheric Laboratories, a public corporation.
 
I have been instructed to compare the performance of the TPU with that of any known batteries and other storage systems.
 
As understood the device is universally observed to have the following characteristics:
 
 Outside Diameter:  6"
 Inside Diameter:  5"
 Height:    1 - 3/4"
 Weight:   12 ounces
 Output Power:   250 Watts
 Output Voltage:  160 Volts
 Voltage Frequency:  5000 Hz.
 Duration of Performance: 30 Minutes
 
To compare the TPU with commercially available and developed batteries I described its performance in terms of -Specific Energy-.
 
The power delivered by a battery or motor is the amount of energy delivered per unit time.
A 250 Watt device delivers 250 Joules per second. The total energy delivered is the power times the amount of time that the device is on. A 250 Watt power supply that is on for 1 second delivers 250 Joules. Since the TPU was on for a half an hour, it delivered (250W) x (0.5 Hours) = 125 Watt Hour of energy. In Joules that is (250 W) x (1800 s) = 450,000 J.
 
A convenient way of comparing two energy sources is to compare their specific energies.
The specific energy of a battery is the total power it delivers divided by its weight. For the TPU that would be 125 W-Hour / 0.34 Kg or 367 W-Hour / Kg.
Specific energy is a useful number for comparing power supplies for vehicles and portable electronics, because a battery may deliver a large amount of power, but weigh too much to be useful. If the batteries constitute a large fraction of the vehicle mass, much of the power they supply is used just to move their own mass.
 
I have included a table comparing the specific energy of the TPU with that of other batteries. Generally, batteries are defined as self-contained electrochemical cells: they burn no fuel and require no outside chemicals.
 BATTERY    SPECIFIC ENERGY   COMPANY
             W-Hr / Kg   REFERENCE
 
TPU      367    As Observed
Lithium-iron Disulfide    130    (2)
Lithium     125    Battery Engineer(3)
Sodium Sulfur     100    (2)
Nickel-metal Hydride      75     Energy Conversion Devices.(3)
Zink-Bromide       70    Electro Energy(1)
Nickel Cadmium      56    (2)
Lead-Acid(Experimental)     50    (1)
Lead-Acid(Conventional)     35    (1)
 
(1) ?Electric-Vehicle Batteries,? H. Oman and Gross Feb. 1995
(2) ?Solar Dome,? Robert Q. Riley
(3)   Phone conversation.  See text.
______________________________________________________________________________
 
For electric vehicle applications, the most promising near term successor to conventional lead acid batteries are Nickel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) batteries. These are currently used in laptop computers.
Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) has a large number of patents on NiMH technology, and has licensed the technology to GM in the U.S. and other manufacturers in Europe and South East Asia. To obtain more information on these batteries contact Greg Fritz at ECD (248-363-1750) or John Dunbar at Gold Peak (619-674-5620). Gold Peak Inc. Makes NiMH batteries and is a licensee of ECD. Greg Fritz says that ECD may be able to produce batteries with a specific energy of up to 150 W-Hour / Kg within several years.
 
Lithium polymer batteries are another promising battery technology. Battery Engineering is bringing out a 125 W-Hour / Kg battery this summer, according to Sal Piazza (619-830-5820), a battery engineer and spokesman.
 
Capacitors can also be used as energy storage devices. Maxwell Technologies produces a line of ultracapacitors that can achieve extremely high energy storage densities. Their ultracapacitors are used in electric vehicles to capture energy from regenerative brakes and store it for subsequent accelerations.
However, according to Ed Blank at Maxwell (619-279-5100) their capacitors can not possibly match the performance characteristics of the TPU
He said that if their capacitors could match the TPU then he would not be at work; he?d be at the beach.
 
A small Maxwell capacitive energy storage device system is about 18'x18"x6". It can deliver about 42 W-Hr. The unit described by Ed Blank is designed to deliver 5000 W For 30 seconds at 56 volts. I do not have the weight of the device, but the specific energy should be much lower because the box has 108 times the volume of the TPU.
Two characteristics differentiate the performance of the TPU from batteries. First, it has a 5000Hz AC output. Batteries are strictly DC devices.
Second, its output voltage is very high compared to typical batteries. Batteries are constructed from electrochemical cells with a small fixed voltage; a typical value is 1.5 volts. Higher voltages are achieved by stacking these small cells together in series. Typically the largest stacks are 12 volts.
These higher voltages can not be made arbitrarily large.
Battery cells have internal resistance; if a large number of cells are stacked in a series, each cell in the series will pass all the current delivered by the stack. Consider the concept of the weakest link in a chain.
For example, if ten 1.5 volt cells rated at 1 amp each are stacked together, the stack can only be operated at 1 amp at 15 volts.
Drawing higher current would result in each cell in the stack passing more then its rated 1 amp. This would cause internal changes in the cells which can lead to a cessation of the electrochemical energy producing activity or a buildup of gas with possible explosion.
To use many batteries to create the current and high voltage associated with the TPU would be out of the question.
 
AC voltages can be obtained from battery based power supplies using converters or actually inverters. However, inverters are built using capacitors and inductors that tend to be bulky. This means that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to build a 160 volt 5000 Hz power source by linking together a large number of low voltage batteries and the additional inverter electronics in a package with the small size and mass of the TPU.
 
In Summary:
No known form of battery or capacitor comes close to the performance specifications of the TPU as described. Even the best available lithium batteries would require almost triple the weight to deliver an equivalent amount of energy.
Whatever this device is, it does not seem to be a battery in the conventional sense of a self contained electrochemical cell that burns no fuel and requires no outside chemicals.
Another point to consider is; from what I understand 30 minutes may not be the limit of this device?s performance. If that is the case, it will be proportionally better in performance. For example, if the device is capable of operating at the same power for 60 minutes, this would equate to about six times its weight in the best available lithium batteries that would be required to deliver the equivalent amount of energy.
 
      Sincerely,
 
      Michael Fennell
      B.A. Physics, Swarthmore College1983
      M.S. Applied Physics, UCSD, 1988
       
I have worked on projects for NASA.
I have been a project engineer for ENERGY SCIENCE LABORATORIES, a senior technical associate with AT&T BELL LABORATORIES and have been a technical Writer for the HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS.
 
Lindsay, the following is another report that may be of interest to you . . .
 
THE ?TPU? POWER SOURCE
 
 I have been asked to prepare this document to address some criticism, which may exist in relation to the ?TPU? power source as developed by Steven Mark. I have seen the various videotapes and have attended live demonstrations of the device in operation. I have also received the feedback and comments of various engineers and experts in electronics and electrical power generation who have also seen the tapes and witnessed live demonstrations.
 
 First of all, there has been some considerable speculation as to the origins of the ?TPU? technology and who actually owns it. It was conceived and developed by Steven Mark and is owned by Universal Energy Corporation and has been legally owned by that company since 1992. I have personally seen the various contracts and summary evidence myself to conclude that the ?TPU? technology is owned by Universal Energy Corporation. I have heard that someone named Brian Collins in Australia has claimed that he invented the technology and has used some of the videotapes to gather sums of money from would be investors. This activity is criminal and Brian Collins did not invent the technology and does not own it or have the right to sell any part of it in any way. Additionally, there have been others that have found a way to ?Cash In? by using the videotapes and claiming they own or represent the technology in some way. This is all very unfortunate because the ?TPU? is a real power source and deserves to be developed by legitimate means. These people in Australia and other places have taken advantage of, and grievously injured the inventor (Steven Mark) and legal owners (UEC) of the ?TPU?.
 
 The second point of criticism is that the ?TPU? is a fake and doesn?t really work. I have received the input of a variety of engineers and technical people. Most relevant is the feedback from two highly qualified individuals. The first of these is Chris Campbell, an experienced Radio Engineer from California, and the second is Roland Shinzinger, a well known authority on power systems, and a Professor Emeritus of Engineering, (UCI).
Mr. Campbell was selected by myself because of his well known expertise in radio and microwave transmission devises. Mr. Campbell was asked to be as skeptical and critical as possible regarding potential ways that these effects might be faked. Dr. Schinzinger was hired by an outside firm and presumably given similar instructions to examine the device for possible fraud or trickery.
 
 Mr. Campbell made it very clear that it was virtually impossible to transmit the necessary energy via radio or electromagnetic means of a magnitude necessary to light all the light bulbs seen lit in the demonstrations. This is especially true because of the inventor?s willingness to drive around town and perform the demonstration anyplace desired.
 
Neither Campbell nor Dr. Schinzinger, nor any of the other technical personal have been able to find any evidence of fraud or trickery. Nor have they been able to offer a plausible explanation of how the device actually functions.
 
 The ?TPU? units apparently heat up to a potentially dangerous level after a considerable period of time, and must be shut off at that point. This makes some people suspicious of a battery that is being depleted and which must be recharged after a few minutes. However, after having cooled down, the inventor has always managed to start the unit up again and light the lamps again for the same amount of time as before, until the unit heats up again, without removing the device from the observers sight to be ?recharged?. This can apparently be done any number of times, such as the cumulative ?ON? time can be extended to at least 30 or 40 minutes. This is several times longer then the theoretical limit of any kind of concealed battery pack that I, the battery experts or electrical engineers have yet been able to discover. I have personally seen this demonstration at least fifty times.
 
In point of fact, there is in existence a video tape showing a ?TPU? putting out over 1,000 Volts and lighting ten 100 Watt/ 120 volt light bulbs in series for ten minutes. (I have seen this demonstration in person several times). In order to light ten 120 Volt, 100 Watt bulbs for even five minutes, the size and weight of the batteries necessary would need to be quite large.  I have discussed this issue with a number of battery experts who have assured me that such a power supply made of batteries would need to weigh somewhere between 25 and 70 pounds or more.  When I asked if there is not some way, perhaps using Nickel-Cadmium or Lithium batteries or some other kind of exotic or extremely expensive batteries, to make such a unit that would weigh less than 20 pounds, they have frequently laughed at the absurdity of the suggestion, insisting that I am asking the impossible.  One battery expert told me that by using some kind of extraordinarily expensive new military spec Lithium batteries that he has heard of (but never seen), it might be possible to get closer to a figure of 20 pounds, but that he knew of no battery in existence that would actually power ten 120 volt, 100 watt bulbs for even five minutes that could possibly weigh under 20 pounds.  Since the total weight of the larger ?TPU? unit in the demonstration is only about 6 lbs., it seems impossible to do this even if the entire weight of the device consisted only of batteries.  The bottom line is; the ?TPU? ain?t a battery.
 
 I understand that an Engineer, Michael Fennell, has written a paper comparing the small ?TPU? in W-Hr / Kg to all the various battery types currently available. In this paper the ?TPU? has an energy storage advantage over the best (Lithium-iron Disulfide) battery of almost three to one!
So, even if the ?TPU? were nothing more then a battery, it must be some new kind of fantastic battery. Therefore, in itself very valuable, regardless.
 
 As a final word, I must say that ?I saw what I saw?. As unbelievable to me as it is. From all I can see, and from all the things the various Engineers and technical experts that have witnessed in the video tapes and live demonstrations, so far the device appears to be most genuine.
David Doleshal PhD.
800-920-4292
PO BOX 5165
Balboa Island, CA.
92662
     29 September 1997
Michael Fennell  (Consulting Engineer)
8348 Menkar Road
San Diego, CA. 92126
 
To whom it may concern:
 
I have been hired by Mr. Green to evaluate the performance of the Toroidal Power Unit or TPU as has been described to me as a proprietary invention of Steven Mark who was until 1995 President and Chief engineer of Spheric Laboratories, a public corporation.
 
I have been instructed to compare the performance of the TPU with that of any known batteries and other storage systems.
 
As understood the device is universally observed to have the following characteristics:
 
 Outside Diameter:  6"
 Inside Diameter:  5"
 Height:    1 - 3/4"
 Weight:   12 ounces
 Output Power:   250 Watts
 Output Voltage:  160 Volts
 Voltage Frequency:  5000 Hz.
 Duration of Performance: 30 Minutes
 
To compare the TPU with commercially available and developed batteries I described its performance in terms of -Specific Energy-.
 
The power delivered by a battery or motor is the amount of energy delivered per unit time.
A 250 Watt device delivers 250 Joules per second. The total energy delivered is the power times the amount of time that the device is on. A 250 Watt power supply that is on for 1 second delivers 250 Joules. Since the TPU was on for a half an hour, it delivered (250W) x (0.5 Hours) = 125 Watt Hour of energy. In Joules that is (250 W) x (1800 s) = 450,000 J.
 
A convenient way of comparing two energy sources is to compare their specific energies.
The specific energy of a battery is the total power it delivers divided by its weight. For the TPU that would be 125 W-Hour / 0.34 Kg or 367 W-Hour / Kg.
Specific energy is a useful number for comparing power supplies for vehicles and portable electronics, because a battery may deliver a large amount of power, but weigh too much to be useful. If the batteries constitute a large fraction of the vehicle mass, much of the power they supply is used just to move their own mass.
 
I have included a table comparing the specific energy of the TPU with that of other batteries. Generally, batteries are defined as self-contained electrochemical cells: they burn no fuel and require no outside chemicals.
 BATTERY    SPECIFIC ENERGY   COMPANY
             W-Hr / Kg   REFERENCE
 
TPU      367    As Observed
Lithium-iron Disulfide    130    (2)
Lithium     125    Battery Engineer(3)
Sodium Sulfur     100    (2)
Nickel-metal Hydride      75     Energy Conversion Devices.(3)
Zink-Bromide       70    Electro Energy(1)
Nickel Cadmium      56    (2)
Lead-Acid(Experimental)     50    (1)
Lead-Acid(Conventional)     35    (1)
 
(1) ?Electric-Vehicle Batteries,? H. Oman and Gross Feb. 1995
(2) ?Solar Dome,? Robert Q. Riley
(3)   Phone conversation.  See text.
______________________________________________________________________________
 
For electric vehicle applications, the most promising near term successor to conventional lead acid batteries are Nickel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) batteries. These are currently used in laptop computers.
Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) has a large number of patents on NiMH technology, and has licensed the technology to GM in the U.S. and other manufacturers in Europe and South East Asia. To obtain more information on these batteries contact Greg Fritz at ECD (248-363-1750) or John Dunbar at Gold Peak (619-674-5620). Gold Peak Inc. Makes NiMH batteries and is a licensee of ECD. Greg Fritz says that ECD may be able to produce batteries with a specific energy of up to 150 W-Hour / Kg within several years.
 
Lithium polymer batteries are another promising battery technology. Battery Engineering is bringing out a 125 W-Hour / Kg battery this summer, according to Sal Piazza (619-830-5820), a battery engineer and spokesman.
 
Capacitors can also be used as energy storage devices. Maxwell Technologies produces a line of ultracapacitors that can achieve extremely high energy storage densities. Their ultracapacitors are used in electric vehicles to capture energy from regenerative brakes and store it for subsequent accelerations.
However, according to Ed Blank at Maxwell (619-279-5100) their capacitors can not possibly match the performance characteristics of the TPU
He said that if their capacitors could match the TPU then he would not be at work; he?d be at the beach.
 
A small Maxwell capacitive energy storage device system is about 18'x18"x6". It can deliver about 42 W-Hr. The unit described by Ed Blank is designed to deliver 5000 W For 30 seconds at 56 volts. I do not have the weight of the device, but the specific energy should be much lower because the box has 108 times the volume of the TPU.
Two characteristics differentiate the performance of the TPU from batteries. First, it has a 5000Hz AC output. Batteries are strictly DC devices.
Second, its output voltage is very high compared to typical batteries. Batteries are constructed from electrochemical cells with a small fixed voltage; a typical value is 1.5 volts. Higher voltages are achieved by stacking these small cells together in series. Typically the largest stacks are 12 volts.
These higher voltages can not be made arbitrarily large.
Battery cells have internal resistance; if a large number of cells are stacked in a series, each cell in the series will pass all the current delivered by the stack. Consider the concept of the weakest link in a chain.
For example, if ten 1.5 volt cells rated at 1 amp each are stacked together, the stack can only be operated at 1 amp at 15 volts.
Drawing higher current would result in each cell in the stack passing more then its rated 1 amp. This would cause internal changes in the cells which can lead to a cessation of the electrochemical energy producing activity or a buildup of gas with possible explosion.
To use many batteries to create the current and high voltage associated with the TPU would be out of the question.
 
AC voltages can be obtained from battery based power supplies using converters or actually inverters. However, inverters are built using capacitors and inductors that tend to be bulky. This means that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to build a 160 volt 5000 Hz power source by linking together a large number of low voltage batteries and the additional inverter electronics in a package with the small size and mass of the TPU.
 
In Summary:
No known form of battery or capacitor comes close to the performance specifications of the TPU as described. Even the best available lithium batteries would require almost triple the weight to deliver an equivalent amount of energy.
Whatever this device is, it does not seem to be a battery in the conventional sense of a self contained electrochemical cell that burns no fuel and requires no outside chemicals.
Another point to consider is; from what I understand 30 minutes may not be the limit of this device?s performance. If that is the case, it will be proportionally better in performance. For example, if the device is capable of operating at the same power for 60 minutes, this would equate to about six times its weight in the best available lithium batteries that would be required to deliver the equivalent amount of energy.
 
      Sincerely,
 
      Michael Fennell
      B.A. Physics, Swarthmore College1983
      M.S. Applied Physics, UCSD, 1988
       
I have worked on projects for NASA.
I have been a project engineer for ENERGY SCIENCE LABORATORIES, a senior technical associate with AT&T BELL LABORATORIES and have been a technical Writer for the HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS.


THE ?TPU? POWER SOURCE
 
 I have been asked to prepare this document to address some criticism, which may exist in relation to the ?TPU? power source as developed by Steven Mark. I have seen the various videotapes and have attended live demonstrations of the device in operation. I have also received the feedback and comments of various engineers and experts in electronics and electrical power generation who have also seen the tapes and witnessed live demonstrations.
 
 First of all, there has been some considerable speculation as to the origins of the ?TPU? technology and who actually owns it. It was conceived and developed by Steven Mark and is owned by Universal Energy Corporation and has been legally owned by that company since 1992. I have personally seen the various contracts and summary evidence myself to conclude that the ?TPU? technology is owned by Universal Energy Corporation. I have heard that someone named Brian Collins in Australia has claimed that he invented the technology and has used some of the videotapes to gather sums of money from would be investors. This activity is criminal and Brian Collins did not invent the technology and does not own it or have the right to sell any part of it in any way. Additionally, there have been others that have found a way to ?Cash In? by using the videotapes and claiming they own or represent the technology in some way. This is all very unfortunate because the ?TPU? is a real power source and deserves to be developed by legitimate means. These people in Australia and other places have taken advantage of, and grievously injured the inventor (Steven Mark) and legal owners (UEC) of the ?TPU?.
 
 The second point of criticism is that the ?TPU? is a fake and doesn?t really work. I have received the input of a variety of engineers and technical people. Most relevant is the feedback from two highly qualified individuals. The first of these is Chris Campbell, an experienced Radio Engineer from California, and the second is Roland Shinzinger, a well known authority on power systems, and a Professor Emeritus of Engineering, (UCI).
Mr. Campbell was selected by myself because of his well known expertise in radio and microwave transmission devises. Mr. Campbell was asked to be as skeptical and critical as possible regarding potential ways that these effects might be faked. Dr. Schinzinger was hired by an outside firm and presumably given similar instructions to examine the device for possible fraud or trickery.
 
 Mr. Campbell made it very clear that it was virtually impossible to transmit the necessary energy via radio or electromagnetic means of a magnitude necessary to light all the light bulbs seen lit in the demonstrations. This is especially true because of the inventor?s willingness to drive around town and perform the demonstration anyplace desired.
 
Neither Campbell nor Dr. Schinzinger, nor any of the other technical personal have been able to find any evidence of fraud or trickery. Nor have they been able to offer a plausible explanation of how the device actually functions.
 
 The ?TPU? units apparently heat up to a potentially dangerous level after a considerable period of time, and must be shut off at that point. This makes some people suspicious of a battery that is being depleted and which must be recharged after a few minutes. However, after having cooled down, the inventor has always managed to start the unit up again and light the lamps again for the same amount of time as before, until the unit heats up again, without removing the device from the observers sight to be ?recharged?. This can apparently be done any number of times, such as the cumulative ?ON? time can be extended to at least 30 or 40 minutes. This is several times longer then the theoretical limit of any kind of concealed battery pack that I, the battery experts or electrical engineers have yet been able to discover. I have personally seen this demonstration at least fifty times.
 
In point of fact, there is in existence a video tape showing a ?TPU? putting out over 1,000 Volts and lighting ten 100 Watt/ 120 volt light bulbs in series for ten minutes. (I have seen this demonstration in person several times). In order to light ten 120 Volt, 100 Watt bulbs for even five minutes, the size and weight of the batteries necessary would need to be quite large.  I have discussed this issue with a number of battery experts who have assured me that such a power supply made of batteries would need to weigh somewhere between 25 and 70 pounds or more.  When I asked if there is not some way, perhaps using Nickel-Cadmium or Lithium batteries or some other kind of exotic or extremely expensive batteries, to make such a unit that would weigh less than 20 pounds, they have frequently laughed at the absurdity of the suggestion, insisting that I am asking the impossible.  One battery expert told me that by using some kind of extraordinarily expensive new military spec Lithium batteries that he has heard of (but never seen), it might be possible to get closer to a figure of 20 pounds, but that he knew of no battery in existence that would actually power ten 120 volt, 100 watt bulbs for even five minutes that could possibly weigh under 20 pounds.  Since the total weight of the larger ?TPU? unit in the demonstration is only about 6 lbs., it seems impossible to do this even if the entire weight of the device consisted only of batteries.  The bottom line is; the ?TPU? ain?t a battery.
 
 I understand that an Engineer, Michael Fennell, has written a paper comparing the small ?TPU? in W-Hr / Kg to all the various battery types currently available. In this paper the ?TPU? has an energy storage advantage over the best (Lithium-iron Disulfide) battery of almost three to one!
So, even if the ?TPU? were nothing more then a battery, it must be some new kind of fantastic battery. Therefore, in itself very valuable, regardless.
 
 As a final word, I must say that ?I saw what I saw?. As unbelievable to me as it is. From all I can see, and from all the things the various Engineers and technical experts that have witnessed in the video tapes and live demonstrations, so far the device appears to be most genuine.
David Doleshal PhD.
800-920-4292
PO BOX 5165
Balboa Island, CA.
92662
 
 
Roland Schinzinger
Ph.D.
29 Gilman St. Irvine, CA 92715-2703, Phone & FAX: (714) 786-7691
 
Dear Steven,
 
Thank you for your kind words of sympathy regarding my loss. We both share similar feelings.
 
In your letter you asked my opinion:  I think it is a miracle that your device works. Exactly how it converts energy is elusive to both of us at this time. That does not mean we shouldn't apply ourselves to know for sure. My offer to work with you still stands. I understand your difficulties with the gentlemen you work for and I will not take your decision personally. I will be glad to talk to you and help you all I can. My offer to work on the project was made with the greatest respect and not as some kind of justification to the Foremost Corporation. I told them that from what I could see of your units they did supply substantial amounts of both voltage and current. I told them I could not give any indication of the value of the discovery without knowing more about it. I did recommend that they invest necessary funds to continue working on the discovery and that I was interested in working with you. That is about all I said to them on the subject. Anything you may have heard to the contrary is not true.
 
To further our discussion, the reason you can not use small transformers within or at close proximity to your unit is because of the leakage fields of magnetic flux. They induce currents into nearby circuitry and most likely cause frequency changes in the operating point of the control unit. Remember when you inject even a small frequency component into sensitive frequency dependant equipment you can have a disaster. That is exactly what I believe is occurring when you try to use a transformer close to your units.  There will be all kinds of harmonics present within this field extending past the radio frequency range. If I were to compare the two I would say that toroidal transformers would be more susceptible. This may be contrary to common thought. Toroidal transformers have all their flux aligned with the grain of the steel used in them. This is the reason for their reduced size as compared with E I cores. When operated at higher flux density you can permit a smaller core. Toroids will always saturate quickly, however, E I transformers ramp up to saturation levels slowly. If anything, I would suggest you work with E I rather then Toroids. In either case I believe you will find that you will have to place the inverter well outside the collector coils.
 
You may also leave a message for me at my office at the University of California Irvine.
 
Sincerely,
 
Roland
 
RESUME   ROLAND SCHINZINGER

Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering  (UCI)
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering  (UCI)
PhD, Univ. California, Berkeley    1966
MS,   ?      1954
BS,   ?      1953
Westinghouse Design School / U. of Pittsburgh  1955
Apprenticeship (Technikum), Bosch Co.   1947
High School (Doitsu Gakuin, Tokyo, Abitur)  1945

Academic Appointments:

(UCI) Associate Dean 1979-83, 1985-86
(UCB)Teaching Fellow 1963-65
Robert College Istanbul Turkey:
Associate Professor 1962-63
Associate Professor 1958-62

University of California, energ. & Mgt. (Grad Program) 1991-92
California State Polytechnic University    1978-80
University of Santa Maria, Brazil     1993
University of Kariruhe, Germany-
Power and High Voltage Institute     1986
University of Manchester Inst. Of Science and Tech.-
And Imperial College, London:     1972-73

Honors:

Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Eng.,(IEEE)
Fellow, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering
Award for Contributions to Professionalism (IEEE)
1983 Centennial Medal (IEEE)
Science Faculty Fellow (Natl. Sc. Foundation)   1964-65
Sangamo Prize Fellowship (Sangamo Electric)   1953
Honor Societies HKN, TBN, Sigma xi
Listed in ?Who?s Who, Am. Men & Women in Science and Engineering

Publications:

Over 70 technical papers, plus numerous reports and commentaries.
Also four books: Ethics in Engineering   McGraw-Hill
   Conformal Mapping   P.A.Laura
   Emergencies in Water Delivery Davis Pub.
   Electrical Laboratory   SIMA Ltd.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 11:57:11 AM by Mannix »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2006, 10:33:13 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2007, 09:33:16 AM »
Gee Whiz... I'm almost convinced!  But not quite.

First consideration to think about for you remaining Mark skeptics out there (of which I am one as well) is the simple fact that what these experts are comparing are the capacities of practical commercial and military batteries and capacitors to the SM devices' energy/size/weight for the same power/time (energy output).

We also hear them acknowledge this little problem of overheating in the SM devices, such that it cannot be run continuously for even half an hour and the total energy output time of 30 minutes used for all the comparisons has to be chopped up into a plurality (unspecified number) of shorter periods with rest/cooloff periods between which on-times are then added up to make 30 minutes but which occurs over an unknown unstated longer period.

Here is a clue for those who might still reasonably argue that SM contains a battery or other exotic energy-storage device.

It's absolutely not fair to compare using only available battery technologies and fuel cells and exotic capacitor structures which are practical and designed for normal continuous use by their own very design constraints.  It is quite possible and even very likely, I would expect, that if the normal commercial or mil-spec temperature rise limitations were removed entirely as design constraints, there are probably a whole slew of much higher energy storage capabilities available in technologies that simply get way too hot way too fast for consideration in any commercial or standard military battery specificied application.  Thus, they are not used, despite their likely existence.

These super-dense but way too hot too quick battery or capacitor technologies may well exist but have simply not appeared due to their technologies being unworkable in a battey for any general application.  I would bet there are chemical reactions that could easily produce the energy densities of the SM if only they are also allowed to get way too hot for any normal practical use if left discharging for more than a brief period; thus they have been rejected for battery usage and do not appear on these lists. 

In other words, if a battery technology could "cheat", like the SM apparently does, and be allowed to rapidly overheat to destructive levels after just a couple of minutes in its "normal" use, there would probably be much denser energy capacities available
.

The other thing I deeply distrust is the lack here of any of these endorsing scientists clearly stating that they personally measured the actual real power/energy output.  It is instead repeated numerous times that 250W or some other number for the bigger devices was the "as understood to be universally observed" specification.  That doesn't sound like real hard science somehow.  Nor does load testing using only a bank of light bulbs running at other than their specified voltage. 

I don't see where any scientist states that he himself accurately measured the actual real power, power factor and total output energy using anything but the observation that some unspecified light bulbs "lit up". 

Again...this is totally not the kind of good solid technical scientific reporting I would expect from a world-class-credentialed scientist reporting on an earth-shattering physics-law-defying energy "quantum leap" breakthrough discovery/invention.

The following excerpt also reeks of "poor evidence" of clearly disproving battery use:

"I have discussed this issue with a number of battery experts who have assured me that such a power supply made of batteries would need to weigh somewhere between 25 and 70 pounds or more.  When I asked if there is not some way, perhaps using Nickel-Cadmium or Lithium batteries or some other kind of exotic or extremely expensive batteries, to make such a unit that would weigh less than 20 pounds, they have frequently laughed at the absurdity of the suggestion, insisting that I am asking the impossible.  One battery expert told me that by using some kind of extraordinarily expensive new military spec Lithium batteries that he has heard of (but never seen), it might be possible to get closer to a figure of 20 pounds..."

Apparently there is not much actual concensus among the various consulted experts.  The first one's low end best estimate is 25 pounds, the second group breaks into frequent ridiculant laughter at the absurd and impossible figure of 20 pounds and the last expert says 20 pounds might be possible to closely approach.  These figures are only a small percentage apart for such a huge variation in "expert" opinion, and these batteries, remember, are not allowed to be made from impractical technologies that overheat rapidly...

I'm still from Missouri on SM, but I give it high marks for being the best brain teaser out there with the best fakery method if it ain't the real McCoy.  Whatever it is, it did take some doing and it remains somewhat of a mystery device.  Compared to the rest of these transparently obvious non-working idiotically impossible Rube Goldburg devices we see so often, Mark is the "gotcha" winner, at least for my money.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2007, 10:11:37 AM by Humbugger »

Offline Mannix

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 563
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2007, 02:08:49 PM »

Personally, I think the battery idea is much less fun than the idea of  high speed rotational fields combining to have un documented effects from the local environment.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2007, 02:08:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline dustinthewind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2007, 04:22:47 PM »
Personaly I think the speculation seems kind of pointless.  Not saying it shouldn't be talked about though.  Important thing is some one who knows how to build it has built it.  And it has been demonstrated to a few people from what the letter says.  Thats progress however 3 people isn't enough.  It needes continuous demonstration if its going to succeed.  Eventualy some one will come along who will be able to work out the over heating issues if it is legit.  Also demonstrations and building more than one model will help the repetability of the experiment and allow other models to be build which is (needed) if any success is to be gotten from the device.  So far if the info I read above was legit it looks like you are making progress.  Hope you make progress in the future. 

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2007, 11:11:52 AM »

Personally, I think the battery idea is much less fun than the idea of  high speed rotational fields combining to have un documented effects from the local environment.





"fun" was not my objective.  mine is a simple refutation of what seemed to be offered as "proof" that the Mark device could not possibly have been a fraud due to internal batteries.  I believe what I have offered provides a possible explanation of the Mark device and debunks those who would rule out the possibilities of an internal energy storage device.

it would be rather illogical to rule out an advanced and little-known energy storage device or chemical energy conversion device yet, at the same time, accept the possible nature of the purported theory!

in terms of my personal belief regarding the Mark devices i would only say they are a mystery.  If i had to bet, i'd bet on fraud.  I do not pretend to know.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2007, 11:11:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mannix

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 563
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2007, 01:04:25 PM »

Personally, I think the battery idea is much less fun than the idea of  high speed rotational fields combining to have un documented effects from the local environment.





"fun" was not my objective.  mine is a simple refutation of what seemed to be offered as "proof" that the Mark device could not possibly have been a fraud due to internal batteries.  I believe what I have offered provides a possible explanation of the Mark device and debunks those who would rule out the possibilities of an internal energy storage device.

it would be rather illogical to rule out an advanced and little-known energy storage device or chemical energy conversion device yet, at the same time, accept the possible nature of the purported theory!

in terms of my personal belief regarding the Mark devices i would only say they are a mystery.  If i had to bet, i'd bet on fraud.  I do not pretend to know.

That's great! i will keep looking and trying to find out and you can keep doubting.
I will have have much more fun with a goal and a mystery to solve  and it will remain interesting wether I am successfull or not.


I do wonder how that doubt works for you...as long as you are content I guess there is no reason to look.


Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2007, 01:57:53 PM »

Personally, I think the battery idea is much less fun than the idea of  high speed rotational fields combining to have un documented effects from the local environment.





"fun" was not my objective.  mine is a simple refutation of what seemed to be offered as "proof" that the Mark device could not possibly have been a fraud due to internal batteries.  I believe what I have offered provides a possible explanation of the Mark device and debunks those who would rule out the possibilities of an internal energy storage device.

it would be rather illogical to rule out an advanced and little-known energy storage device or chemical energy conversion device yet, at the same time, accept the possible nature of the purported theory!

in terms of my personal belief regarding the Mark devices i would only say they are a mystery.  If i had to bet, i'd bet on fraud.  I do not pretend to know.

That's great! i will keep looking and trying to find out and you can keep doubting.
I will have have much more fun with a goal and a mystery to solve  and it will remain interesting wether I am successfull or not.


I do wonder how that doubt works for you...as long as you are content I guess there is no reason to look.



The doubt keeps me from wasting a lot of time going on wild goose chases.  That leaves more time for developing actual working sellable products.  From what I've seen here on ou.com, the SM has the largest following of all the claimed devices, more replicators, more posters, more diagrams and theories and more obscure jargon than the rest combined.  But none of it seems to be getting closer to what SM showed on his videos. 

You and several others seem to enjoy a sort of guru status...handing out tidbits of wisdom and cryptic hints as if you knew some big secret.  SM seems also to enjoy that same game, speaking through you in obscure and cryptic terms.  It's all such drama and mystery.  Can you blame me for being skeptical?

Humbugger


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2007, 01:57:53 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline leeroyjenkinsii

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2007, 08:35:31 PM »
I don't see a single frequency generator in any of Mark's videos.  If it does work, why the hell do people keep putting exotic waveforms in it.  He isn't doing that unless it's being transmitted wirelessly to the device.  He's just sticking a couple of magnets in it and blammo....success.  I'd stick magnets up may own ass if I thought that'd do it.  Shoot I may as well give it a try.  I'll post the results here with pictures and videos so everyone knows it's real.  :D

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2007, 03:44:54 AM »
I don't see a single frequency generator in any of Mark's videos.  If it does work, why the hell do people keep putting exotic waveforms in it.  He isn't doing that unless it's being transmitted wirelessly to the device.  He's just sticking a couple of magnets in it and blammo....success.  I'd stick magnets up may own ass if I thought that'd do it.  Shoot I may as well give it a try.  I'll post the results here with pictures and videos so everyone knows it's real.  :D

Watch out for stray "kicks".  You wouldn't want to get your ass kicked!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2007, 03:44:54 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline brnbrade

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 126
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2007, 05:28:46 AM »
  Shoot I may as well give it a try.  I'll post the results here with pictures and videos so everyone knows it's real.  :D

hummmmm!!!!  ::)
I don't not know...

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2608
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2007, 03:36:56 PM »
@all

This post is only to put up a pdf of a patent I think may have been by SM, but not 100% sure it is or not. It is also to tell those guys who are on Ottos thread to migrate here so they minimize the clutter there.

Offline Humbugger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Steven Marks 'Device'
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2007, 05:23:50 PM »
I can see how people would glance at that front page and immediately think this was the SM toroidal power unit patent.  I don't think so.  1998 is the first problem.  Steve Marks is the wrong name; it's Mark, I believe.  Then there's the lack of any "collector coils" or discussion of driving the many filaments with different frequencies.  Finally, this is a device for magnetically shaping a plasma, something well outside the realm of the TPU device.

Why don't the TPU guys just ask Mannix to ask SM what the patent number is?  Is that supposed to be some big secret or something?  I mean, if he has a granted patent, it's all published and no secret!  All this mystery and speculation and misinformation seems awfully silly to me.

Humbugger

 

OneLink