Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[kokomoj0]

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

Aussie?
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/search_index.shtml
Russia?
http://patentsfromru.com/
Britain?
http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgw/patent.htm
Japan?
http://www.jpo.go.jp/
http://www.ptranslation.com/find-japanese-patents.htm
Philipines?
http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/PatSearch/
China?
http://www.wanfangdata.com/patent/advanced_search.asp
Africa?
http://www.svw.co.za/et-sa-patent-office.html
New Zealand?
http://www.iponz.govt.nz/pls/web/dbssiten.main

The world:
https://www2.delphion.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/IPN/IPNmandreg.d2w/report?regfrom=funlim&referal=freetrial315

The rest:
http://members.pcug.org.au/~rossco/patentsearching.htm

good luck man!

[Jdo300]

Hello Everyone,

Sorry I have been so long getting back with you. I have been very busy with other non-TPU related stuff and haven't been keeping up on the thread. I am still working on some modifications to my control circuit to make it more efficient, and thought I would respond to ZPE's response to my recent post since he makes some important points:

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

Darren,

You make some valid points about the on-time being important to the amount of power induced from the primary to the secondary. But there is one important point that a lot of people miss when talking about the pulse transformers. It is true that we only want to supply enough energy to load the magnetic field of the coil, and only that amount of energy. Any more on-time from the square wave and it will simply be wasted to ground since the magnetic field can only hold so much. BUT what we need to do is load the magnetic field completely, and then capture the collapsing field spike when the field diminishes. It is common knowledge that one can get 50-90% of the input energy back just from the BEMF spike that results. But this is only true if we input only enough energy to saturate the magnetic field and no more.

If we do this, then we can produce the required high voltage spikes on the secondary coil and ultimately pay only for the resistive losses in the primary coil. There is much more to this and I have spoken extensively about this in earlier threads. For those interested, please see this link:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,712.msg33712.html#msg33712

The other thing we all need to remember is that there is another event that takes place when the sharp rise time happens Before the current starts to flow to even load the magnetic field. There is a sharp E-field gradient produced when the voltage suddenly switches high on the coil, and there are effects in the space of the coil and on the electrons in the coil as a result of this. So it is really not just a simple matter of loading and unloading magnetic fields to transfer energy.

God Bless,
Jason O

[chrisC]

kokomo:

Thanks for the links. It wasn't that I can't be bothered to find the links. My point was, if indeed the controller or whatever else has been patented, then it is the public's right to know. It's not even about copying patented technology. Every invention should have been an improvement (supposedly distinctive & unobvious) over prior art.

Hence, whether it is UEC or SM himself or that lawyer, there is only one truth and that truth should not be "secret" if indeed patented. That's all really.

Thanks
chrisC

[Mannix]

Rich,

Thanks ..you saved me ..twice!

All,
Im not surprised that some want to  crucify me , I expect it!

It still hurts a bit though..

Lindsay

[z_p_e]

As an aid in helping me determine the theory of operation for Otto's and Roberto's device, I drew their circuit out in a manner that seems a little simpler....for me anyway. It's not too pretty, but it is hopefully clear and makes sense.

Just thought others might benefit by seeing it drawn a different way.

I won't go into the theory of operation, but one may notice that all 3 primaries, and all 3 secondaries are in parallel.

Any one of the 3 switches will energize all 3 primaries, somewhat in an "OR" fashion.

Darren