Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[z_p_e]

Earl.

Thanks for the heads-up on the DDS oscillator.

Unfortunately it doesn't output squares or pulses.

I suppose it one could interface it with their own zero-cross detector, and generate squares and pulses from that.

Regards,
Darren.

PS. @Dave,

They may not believe you if your results are negative, but I will. I know you will at least do the testing with an unbiased approach.

@All, a suggestion: In general, if and when you see something anamolous, be suspicious right away. Don't jump to any unfounded conclusions. Try to eliminate all possible reasons for these apparent anamolous results. Only when you have eliminated all possible sources of error and assumptions, can you correctly claim you are observing something anamolous, in this case excess energy.

[tosky]

Skeptic caused by the some not detail enough report:

(1) If you operate a MOSFET with a aluminium heat sink until it become heated, then turn off the power. After a moment, you will find the MOSFET cooler than the heat sink, because of the latent heat value of the AL and plastic is different. The experimenter should know the physics and void of this condition. If really anomalous happened, he should recorded that he measured the temperature while power on not off.

(2) Many years ago, I made a 27MHZ transmitter. Which was 5W not much power, but the RF signal jumped to its power suppy which made its output more power than the preset. Same situation as some ECD test. I knew that mistake was no Low Pass Filter. We should not just give it a low pass filter then finish the work. We should pin point the problem. I found the problem was from the feed back path to the control circuit. The RF signal lowered the feed back voltage, the controller thought that the output voltage was not enough. Then compensate the output voltage. I simply put a small capactor to the controller IC pin to fix it. Same effect as using low pass filter at the output but simpier. After that the power supply is robust enough to do every work. No mater expensive or home made power supply may have such mistake, because it is not build for RF stuff. If you don't fix your power supply, you better use a battery to do research. Avoid the false alarm and false anomaly.

I am happy Otto gave us a good entry point to research. I think it may have something good from it, but research logically avoid the false alarm.

[CTG Labs]

Cam/Rich,

SM said the TPU does not work inside a shield!  Presumably this is because it is tapping/converting energy from outside the device which now gets blocked by the shield.

Just something to bear in mind when testing as your copper shield appears to be an all encompassing one and if you do have excess energy from this device then it surely cannot be via the same method as SM if it is indeed working inside a shield?

If it was ZPE or something, or excess energy directly tapped from the vacuum then the shield would not matter.  I guess this is one reason SM came to the conclusions that he did about what the source of energy was.



D.

[gn0stik]

What the heck is scientific about being skeptical, and therefore 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

Hi Rich,

Burden of proof?  If someone claims something surely they need to present proof rather than tell everyone else to go build it and prove it for them?  I see no scope shots, graphs, heat or light power measurements tests?  Perhaps I missed them in earlier posts as I missed your post earlier, I am at work and very busy!

Very well, as its a fairly quick project I will build this device.

But let me ask you all this, if I provide real test data and my interpretation is that it is not OU but coming from my power supply, is anyone going to believe me?  I can no more prove you wrong at this time than you can prove me right.

Like I said, where are the measurements?  Power on the mains side of the power supply, power from the power supply itself with scope across the power supply with one channel and a low resistance shunt inline with the other channel across that.  Same for the bulb, same on each mosfet.

Lux comparison too a known source/power chart.  Temperature tests, perhaps use a 1 ohm resistor as a load instead and meausure the temperature, then connect same resistor to variable DC supply and adjust until same temperature is reached and compare the DC voltage and current to find the power used to heat that resistor to the same.

Circuit which will trip from the power supply once a certain voltage and or current are reached and equivalent on TPU output, if the TPU output one goes first then there is more power in the TPU than coming from the supply, then reverse the units and try again to make sure they are equal in construction.

There are many testing methods and so far I have seen a couple of digital multimeters stuck on that cannot be trusted to sample properly above 1Khz.  I dont think there is any burden on me!

I know its early days and I am sure all the testers have the above in mind to try during their testing, there is much more I have not mentioned.  But you cannot measure with some multimeters and then go claiming OU.

So let me ask again, how sure are you really?

My results will follow.


Regards to all,

Dave.

I'm not sure at all, and I didn't mean to imply that burden was on you, only that there are only a couple replications at this point, and help testing is needed. We've provided our evidence, and we plan on continuing to test based on suggestions from this forum, however, the reactions are still negative in the light of what we have done.

The power measurements were not false on his PS, they were measuring current, but it was not current output, it WAS backfeed as suggested by Jason, someone else can explain this test better than I can. I took very little notes as I had a guy repairing my hot tub at the time, and my wife kept interrupting. We have eliminated RF from equation by shielding the device, and made sure cam's instruments were reading correctly. We have provided a level of isolation to the power supply, we have used a battery, these were all suggestions from here.

And to imply that we would not accept your results is patently ridiculous, we would need to replicate your testing of course, to ensure you built your tpu the same way cam, jason, and roberto did, but evidence speaks for itself. That's the beauty of science.

Different people have different equipment. we cannot test heat or lumens at the moment.

I've seen scope shots across the power supply, both battery, and PS, shielded and unshielded. No you didn't miss them, you just weren't there, so missed it, and I didn't take screen shots. With Cam's tests, all he had was one of those little velleman digital hand held scopes, last night, so I didn't think it was worth it as the resolution was low. And we need to redo the tests with a better one in order to get good scope shots. We have conducted many of the tests suggested, but more suggestions keep coming, it's hard with limited people, limited time, and limited equipment to test every scenario. Yet they keep rolling in with no help being offered from the "unbiased" crowd  . We barely have enough time to perform the tests, much less document all the results in anything but a post on this forum.

So far, the "believers" as we have been labeled, are the only ones performing any testing, and the only ones who have produced any empirical data at all (incomplete as it may be). Why we feel the need to separate into camps I have no idea. I guess people that believe the technology is possible are the ones who are more willing to build and test? And the ones that are skeptical, don't feel strong enough an urge to shove this down our throats, to build and test. Thing is JL Naudin, who your site kind of emulate in it's purpose, would test this in an unbiased manner and present the results positive or negative. Regardless of if he thought it worked or not BEFORE he built it.

If you want charts and scope shots, look at roberto's doc. True, it only shows one side of operation, but there's some good data in there.

We're gathering more.

I'm tired of feeling like I have to wade into battle to get people to help out here. There's a huge double standard going on. I keep seeing people to ask us to test this, and test that, but are not willing to perform any tests, and don't accept any results, OR EVEN COMMENT ON THEM, when we provide the results to tests that were requested. Seriously, at some point, one has to wonder, why would we bother reporting back? The really annoying thing, is that building this device and testing it would be childs play for many of the people who are calling for the tests.

I have sort of unofficially taken on the task of being the whipping post here, until I have all the room/time/parts/energy, to build and test, and document myself. At this rate, I don't know if it'll ever come.

Finally, I would like to say thank you for making the commitment to build, and thank you EM. I look forward to seeing your guy's results. Marco, you too. Guys like you can perform a test in the time it takes you to type it in a post. Same with YOU Z_P_E. Koko, you seem very capable as well. That's why this is so frustrating for me anyway. It just makes no sense with something that is so easy to build. Heck, Take one of your existing TPUs, (dave and zpe) and remove a control, wind secondaries on it, rewire it to a control unit, and you're good to go. It won't be exactly like otto's but hey, see what happens. Logical transofrmations are good too, and produce empiracle data as well, even if that data is "it doesn't work".

So that's it. Please, step up and help us. Or slow down on the requests.

Nice point on the shield by the way dave. I had forgotten about that. That's a real thinker. I wonder if there was shileding on the bottom.

Rich

[gn0stik]

In thinking about your post about the shielding Dave, and going over our tests, I have to point out, that the lions share of RF happens when the second frequency is introduced. That's when Jason's cams would freeze up, and his keyboard/mouse would stop working.

Cam never introduced the second frequency last night. So perhaps that's why we didn't see the RF bursts. Third frequency stabilizes, and reduces RF considerably. And hence, since only one frequency was used, shielding was probably for nothing last night..


Can someone speculate as to why this is? I have no idea.

Rich