Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[z_p_e]

All builders and testers.

After examining the schematic a little closer, I noticed something odd, but I didn't say anything about it last post. I wanted to see if anyone else noticed it, and someone did....Tosky.

Albeit the "collector" coilset has a mobius twist, but this is not what I would call a coil. Why? It is simply two shorted loops of wire. I don't believe the loops are serving any purpose at all, and would propose to those testing to perform this simple test:

Once you have some luminous output, try removing (best) or at least breaking the wire loop such that they can not be considered part of the circuit, even though, technically, they are not part of the circuit even now. The wire loops as per the design are really transmitting antennas. At least that's how I see it.

Throw the power back on and you may see the same luminosity. The meters may read differently (either higher or lower) because the antennas will be out of the circuit, and have stopped emitting HF/RF energy. Or as Tosky mentioned, you may have to tweak the frequency again to achieve the same luminosity.

Look at the circuit again, it may become apparent why I say this.

Roberto was right when he said that the circuit looks simple, but there is much more going on, and I agree with him. There are many potential (no pun) electrical paths, all depending on switching sequence and kickback times.

Power is from the PSU (or battery) via switching through the 3 switches, and is a combination of "switch-ON", and CEMF spikes...all from the primary and secondary coils. Spikes and noise is getting back to the PSU or battery, because there is no shunt diode across the 3 primaries. Doing this however would partly kill the power making it's way to the load.

At any rate, I would say that there is no ou here, and no potential for it if this loopless test proves correct. CEMF has been amply tested in the past for ou potential, and thus far works only in Bedini's batteries as far as I know.

Regards,
Darren

[ronotte]

@Stefan,

Please post it to the FAQ thread

Thanks

Roberto

[Bruce_TPU]

Thank you Roberto, much simpler!  Good Job!!

@ Darren
Otto has already posted on his old thread that the ECD will not work without the mobius.
Did you know that they use Mobius turns for some particle accelerators?  If you re read SM's posts, or my thread you will understand the significance of the Mobius.  There may be other ways to wind the collectors in the future and I am researching this, but ONLY if they achieve the same purpose as the Mobius.

Cheers,
Bruce

[weri812]

again @ dave

point taken

leave it alone for now
this hole thing is about getting people to work to geather and to under stand the whole coil set up . not to achive overunity  at this time. this is a learning process once we get this part right  then move on to the next step.  dont wont no one to get crazy and get hurt  badley.  this thing is  deadley.  PLEASE  set back and watch for a wile it has taken this long to get this far. please be pashont.

wer

[gn0stik]

Hi all,

I must say, I am trying not to get carried away, something tells me this affect is not what people are hoping and that the power simply originates from the power supply. I do not think I will be replicating this for now! The tests done so far are not conclusive of anything.

Jason read the current on a digital meter at high frequency, no good. The digital meter on the power supply probably also got upset.

The unit is oscillating in the AM radio band, thus emission of RF, no surprise. I have had many problems in the past with my USB equipment disconnecting.

If the effect is one of conversion or gating of energy then why we need a few amps from a power supply, why not a 9v battery?

Jasons power suppy read 6 amps and 40 or so volts? It cannot go that high, so clearly something is wrong, however there is plenty of power there if you cross those figures. So Jasons supply has max 6 amps at 30v. It was reading 40v, clearly an artifact. BUT lets say the power supply was giving its max, 30v at 6 amps, thats 180 watts. Its a 40 watt bulb? The switching effect could easily convert that "power" to a higher voltage lower current and be enough to light that bulb.

Yes, the bulb doesn't light if you connect it to the power supply directly, but if you convert that same "power" to higher voltage lower current, it will light, the coil switching does this as the back emf converts the 30v higher current to higher voltage, lower current, but the power content is the same and is more than the bulbs rating.

I would say, we need to have a low current battery with a fast blow fuse. This way, no matter what the meter reads, if the fuse doesn't blow, we know we are not exceeding a certain current. We can also have a few diodes to prevent back flow to the battery if there is any.

Next, to place a bulb in a sealed box connected to the mains supply with a lux meter inside, compare proper known power to lux level. Now connect same bulb still in the box to the TPU and compare lux level. Even, using a Kill-A-Watt and a dimmer switch, chart known power to brightness levels from the mains source and chart this, then have a nice chart to compare from TPU brightness.

I know some of you will shoot me for saying this, but I think some people, including me on occasion are "too eager" to believe. We have high frequency spiking and the bulb can light from inductive heating effect. We have spikes on the leading edge and this can be caused by leakage inductance energy allowed to dissipate in the mosfet.  Pleak = 1/2 Ip^2 Lleak?

Scopes blowing up are not proof either, we have 500v spikes. Scopes have a max input voltage you can apply without damaging the scope, some are 600v, some 1000v, etc, nothing sinister here, just the fact you didn't use a resistive divider to drop it down and then multiply the measurement afterwards.

So my current thoughts stand, what would I be replicating exactly?  When I see proof of excess energy I will replicate it!  Its not on me or anyone to prove that for someone else by replicating it!  If someone else claims it, they have to prove it to others first!

So with respect to replicators so far, what exactly are you replicating?  It cannot be excess energy since it hasn't been proven by the originators yet in order to be replicated by someone else?


Dave.

Dave, did you not see my post a few, maybe two, or three, posts before this? I clearly state we ran from batteries, and the RF was sheilded, the meters were operating normally. We tested them by getting a current draw reading, and putting a fuse of that value in to see if it would blow, it did. Meters were correct. We tested the backflow assumption and it was correct. Jason's meters were not reading power OUTPUT. They were reading back flow.

If you are skeptical, then that is a reason TO replicate and test!!!

why the heck don't people understand this!!

What the heck is scientific about being skeptical, and therefor deciding to do nothing? Do us a favor and prove us wrong!! And don't give me that burden of proof garbage. We've made our claims and provided our evidence. If you disagree with the evidence, your making claims, that need to be backed up by data!!

Build it, please, do us a favor, prove us wrong. That way, we don't have to waste any more time on this insanity. My wife would appreciate it.

Rich