Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[chrisC]

Lindsay:

I know you don't want to go down the "patent" path since you asserted it's already been discussed much. Somehow, I have not been able to find (at least in the USPTO public pair database) anything related to UEC as the assigned company and the only probable reference to SM is the patent on the semiconductor equipment patent (6,015,476) assigned to Applied Materials, if this is the real Steve Marks of the renown TPU!

The point is in any patented technology is for the inventor to publically disclose the invention in exchange for exclusivity of 15/20 years. So what is the big deal of disclosing where and what the supposedly patented technology is? If it is indeed patented?

This is why I am at a loss why this secrecy is in place, especially coming from you! Aren't you on the side of peopel fro free energy?

cheers

chrisC

[z_p_e]

Jason wrote:

Anyone who knows anything about transformers (especially pulse transformers) will tell you that the power is only transferred to the secondary coil when the square wave is switched on and off. In my case, ANY power the bulb would get from the power supply would HAVE to be transferred in the 46 ns that it takes for my MOSFET drivers to switch on the FETS, and an additional 46 or so ns to turn it off! the other tons of ms that the square wave is on (and drawing loads of current) is all a complete waste of the input power! I am driving my FETs with a 50% duty cycle square wave and this will be the first thing that I correct.

Jason, this is not correct.

If you recall, the RMS value of a 50% duty-cycle square wave is the Vpeak value.

If you did not have those ms of "ON-TIME", then the power transferred to the secondary would be diminished by the ratio of the duty cycle. So anything lower than 50% will decrease the output accordingly.

You may be wasting power, but ONLY if your coil is being fully energized BEFORE the pulse goes LO again. This time constant is determined by the inductance and series resistance of the coil you are driving, and the ON-TIME can be optimized by using 5X that time constant tau.

Darren

[Bruce_TPU]

@ Rich

My replication is coming along fine, unfortunately I live in a VERY rural area and have to Order everything online.  We have parts arriving tomorrow and wire coming in Monday for my last control coil.

The document does give metric and it is difficult (impossible) to find those EXACT sizes here in the US. 

Okay, I found the problem.  In the first download I have it states that the control coils are the stated gauge, copper stranded.  In the Otto Roberto pdf it states that it is simply copper enameled.  Well that would have made my life easier finding magnetic wire over the wire I have, but Oh well.  So Com, my apologies for my wire confusion! LOL


Cheers,
Bruce

[gn0stik]

Lindsay:

I know you don't want to go down the "patent" path since you asserted it's already been discussed much. Somehow, I have not been able to find (at least in the USPTO public pair database) anything related to UEC as the assigned company and the only probable reference to SM is the patent on the semiconductor equipment patent (6,015,476) assigned to Applied Materials, if this is the real Steve Marks of the renown TPU!

The point is in any patented technology is for the inventor to publically disclose the invention in exchange for exclusivity of 15/20 years. So what is the big deal of disclosing where and what the supposedly patented technology is? If it is indeed patented?

This is why I am at a loss why this secrecy is in place, especially coming from you! Aren't you on the side of peopel fro free energy?

cheers

chrisC

First the patent is for the control unit. Not the entire unit. Which would amount to a triple headed pulse generator, with protections built in, such as heat and overvoltage. Possibly a way to measure and monitor, and auto adjust frequencies in order to keep the unit stable.

With time we'll have this.

Second, Patents rarely give enough info in order to replicate. Most of the time, just enough to prove it's unique, and what it does. With a few drawings in order to provide prior art, in the case of patent infringements.

Thirdly since it's just the control unit, we probably wouldn't have any idea how it closes the loop or self-powers since very little, if any reference to the coils will be present. And since the coils determine the frequencies, it probably will not mention any specific frequencies. No help there.
Moot point.

I'm sure it will come out eventually. Just no need for it, and most likely, some kind of solemn oath was sworn in order to stay on their good side in order to be able to perhaps get more info out of them from time to time. No point in burning bridges. It's likely, more beneficial to us for lindsay to NOT tell us, and NOT burn that bridge at the moment.

However, if you still wish to find out the patent, US patents would NOT be the place to look.

Regards,
Rich

[gn0stik]

@ Rich

My replication is coming along fine, unfortunately I live in a VERY rural area and have to Order everything online.  We have parts arriving tomorrow and wire coming in Monday for my last control coil.

The document does give metric and it is difficult (impossible) to find those EXACT sizes here in the US.  But it does say, stranded.  If it does not matter, then it should perhaps be made clearer.


Cheers,
Bruce

I just did a search for the word "stranded" in their PDF, and you know what? In 55 pages, it doesn't come up one single time.

The collector is stranded, not the controls. Controls are mag wire. Good luck finding stranded in those gauges.

Collector is Lamp wire, or speaker wire. Controls are 24 and 27 gauge, primary and secondary respectively MAG WIRE. Wound BIFILAR until the primary runs out, then finish winding the secondary.

NOW, Roberto, DID say that perhaps Litz could be, and perhaps would be, beneficial, if used in the controls instead of this arrangment, due to the many strands in parallel, and them being tightly compressed into a small space. However, it was untested.