Otto`s replication of Steven Mark`s TPU

[Earl]

[snip]
Since there is an INPUT and an OUTPUT power that can be measured, the COP can easily be calculated.
Darren

Daren, All,

Let us just imagine that in device xyz, which looks like a black box, there are two inputs and an output.  The black box itself however only has one physical input and one physical output.  The second input can not be seen, felt, or smelled.

Now I put in a catalyst signal and I measure the power consumption.  It is 10 Watts.
I measure output power as 50 Watts.  Frequency is f1.

Now I do nothing but change the frequency to f2.  Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 150 Watts.

I change the frequency to f3. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1500 Watts.

I change the frequency to f4. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1.5 MegaWatts.

Is this device overunity or underunity?
(Hint: answer can be: UU, OU, both, or neither)

If overunity, what is its COP?  How do you calculate COP, and do you include the input power that you can not smell?

For such a device does talk about input or output power make any sense?

Perhaps, one should place more emphasis on the term:  excess power and forget about COP???

Regards, Earl

[Earl]

[snip]
You forgot something: The MOSFETs MUST be inside thr TPU. Why??
Otto

Sorry Otto for being so exact, do you mean inside the 6" outer ring or inside the 4" ring?

I can very easily see some experiments where I want to put the FETs and ALU between the two rings.

Regards, Earl

[hartiberlin]

Roberto just emailed me and asked to be patient.
They saw much higher output, but due to risk they have not
shown the pics and measurements.

Otto and Roberto have to rest first
from their enourmous work and then will
try to build a FAQ thread or PDF file.

So others, if you try to rebuilt it, be cautious not to
open the gate too far and not exactly hitresonance.
Only do this, if you have a scope and see the  pulses.

Regards, Stefan.

[CTG Labs]

[snip]
Since there is an INPUT and an OUTPUT power that can be measured, the COP can easily be calculated.
Darren

Daren, All,

Let us just imagine that in device xyz, which looks like a black box, there are two inputs and an output.  The black box itself however only has one physical input and one physical output.  The second input can not be seen, felt, or smelled.

Now I put in a catalyst signal and I measure the power consumption.  It is 10 Watts.
I measure output power as 50 Watts.  Frequency is f1.

Now I do nothing but change the frequency to f2.  Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 150 Watts.

I change the frequency to f3. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1500 Watts.

I change the frequency to f4. Power input stays at 10 Watts, but output power is now 1.5 MegaWatts.

Is this device overunity or underunity?
(Hint: answer can be: UU, OU, both, or neither)

If overunity, what is its COP?  How do you calculate COP, and do you include the input power that you can not smell?

For such a device does talk about input or output power make any sense?

Perhaps, one should place more emphasis on the term:  excess power and forget about COP???

Regards, Earl

Hi Earl,

The terms free energy, overunity and COP do require some more definitions I think!  What does free energy mean, just that, no cash required?  Solar panels and wind power are "free energy" they are also COP>1 since COP only is caring about what you have to pay for on the input.  The solar panel is 15% efficient, but the COP is greater than one.

The term overunity to me is meaningless.  We cannot create something from nothing, if we have an excess it must have been converted from some other source by our device, so with the TPU we do not get more out than we put in, in total.  We get out the battery source to the oscillators and the amount of energy we freely converted, minus losses.  Its just that part of this source we had to pay for the other source was free, but we dont get out more than 100% of the total input, ie the battery power and the "aether" input combined, one part is free the other is not.

The TPU would therefore be COP>1 since we can get out more than we PAY for ie, the battery source.  We can therefore calculate the COP of the device by comparing the output power to the battery source power taken.  But the overall officiency is not greater than 100%.

The term by SM "these are not free energy devices they are conversion devices" is also meaningless and just designed not to scare his employers or investors off.  Do you have to pay for  the power you are getting?  NO, then its free energy.  Are you greating something from nothing, NO.  Are you converting an unknown form of energy to electricity, YES.  The conversion happens for free.

So this is a FREE ENERGY DEVICE, with COP greater than one, but overall efficiency well below 100% due to heat losses.  This is how I would sum it up and indeed ANY free energy device since it must always rely on the free conversion of another source.  You can never convert from nothing, so this one definition fits all free energy devices!

I just see no evidence of COP greater than one in this case.  I hope that when Otto and Roberto feel safer handling it they will crank it up and show this to be true.

I do not know why you all believe there to be COP>1 when it has not been shown in the document with any tests!  If it can be shown, I will be more than happy to spend yet more money on this project and wind yet another TPU and duplicate the conversion process to produce excess energy, but while NONE has been shown yet, I dont see the point.  I have other projects that I am working on at the moment and I cannot just give them up when no excess energy has been proven or shown yet!



Regards to all,


Dave.

[Hoppy]

@ Otto

Thanks for your replies, much appreciated. I think your answers to my questions have given me enough to have a stab at replication. I'm sorry that I've had to ask so many questions but things were not clear enough for me to start building.

You ask: -

"You forgot something: The MOSFETs MUST be inside thr TPU. Why??

I presume to make it work properly! I'll let you know when I've built it.


Regards
Clive