Bob Boyce TPU thread

[eldarion]

@Jason,
Good to see the one-wire stuff working yet again!   I am convinced that this is the way to go.

@All,
I'm sure many of you have seen this link before, but this probably explains what is going on in a 2D (solenoidal) TPU-like device:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051210210627/http://www.gyogyitokezek.hu/fe/studyexp.htm

A 3D TPU device (toroidal) would, as Bob has said, have greatly enhanced power output due to the larger, more complex interference pattern.

It would seem that we are building an RF device here, one that is highly dependent on propagation delay, pulse width, wavelength, etc...

[Earl]

Hi Bob,

well, I understand yes and no. 
No because half my (traditional) brain says this is opposite to everything I learned and have experienced in life.

Yes, because my RE brain half says the T.T. Brown and Biefeld modified their environment by using high voltages, e.g. electrostatic potential can cause (aetheric ??) deformation similar to deformation caused by the presence of mass.

No, because Biefeld Brown used voltages upwards of 25kV, usually around several hundred kVs, not tens or hundreds of Volts.

I do understand that this is definitely far "outside the box".

I had another idea, which I will float to you.  Since an antenna can be fed anywhere along its length, left side, right right, top side, bottom side, corner, or anywhere in between - with no effect on its radiation performance (yes, you must match impedance) why not the same with a catalytic coil?  By feeding it in the middle, just like any dipole antenna, and using a FET driver with differential output you get TWICE the excitation voltage for essentially no increase in complexity or cost.

Your comments on attached drawing?

EDIT 1: replaced JPG by GIF drawing.

Regards, Earl

PS   I will be traveling this week and may not be able to access the Inet.

Hi Bob,

thanks for your reply.  What you are saying is that not only can three primaries serve in a catalytic action each primary with a wire hanging in the air, connected to nothing, but that the secondary can output appreciable power with one lead hanging in the air, connected to nothing.

Did I understand this correctly?

Regards, Earl

When you have DC bias potential applied to that secondary, it is no longer connected to nothing. It is coupled to the surrounding environment. The higher the bias potential, the larger the bubble of environment it is coupled to. I am hoping that you understand.

Bob

[eldarion]

For some time now I have been trying to prove that the DC potential actually does something to enhance the output--I finally have proof, small though it is!

Attached are three pictures.  The first one is my thought on what the TPU is when reduced to its most basic fundamental state.  This fits perfectly with SM's comment on a garden hose, Bob's comments on, essentially, pulse superposition, etc.  (By the way, a marked difference was noted at the output when the phase was varied from 0 to 120...)

The second picture is the output across a 4.7K resistor without the bias supply engaged (it was connected the whole time so as not to cause a false positive result) and the third picture is the output with the bias supply engaged.  I know it may not seem like much of a difference, but the mere fact that there is a difference is intriguing.  Also interesting is that the output was aided, not loaded down, just like Bob is saying should happen.

Here's a little bit about the setup.  I think that the TPU is a far more refined and enhanced version of this basic idea, which goes back to the link I posted earlier.  The two rods on the bottom of the apparatus are the inputs; they are driven single-ended (no return wire); one is hooked up to phase 1 and one is hooked up to phase 2.  The top rod is the "output coil", which is connected to the HVDC bias and the load in exactly the same way as the schematic that was posted earlier.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Criticism?

[Earl]

@reply to myself

It now appears to me that the price to pay may be doubling the length of the coil winding.
e.g. if the end-fed coil has a wire length of 3m, then the center-fed coil must have 3m on
each side of the feed, for a total of 6m.

Double the voltage, but double the coil length still gives the same V/m gradiant.  However, my
gut feeling still prefers differential circuitry compared to single-ended.

By feeding it in the middle, just like any dipole antenna, and using a FET driver with differential output you get TWICE the excitation voltage for essentially no increase in complexity or cost.

[Bob Boyce]

@ Earl
If you center feed like that, will you not be injecting 2 out of phase energies? Coil wind direction on the toroid, as well as which end of that coil is being fed, are factors here. E-field propagation through a winding is not instantanious, so it does matter a little bit which end is driven. If you reverse the wind, or reverse the direction of feed, while maintaining the same direction of rotation as per hemisphere, you would have to invert your potentials and swap from a positive E-field bias / negative primary E-field pulses, to a negatve E-field bias / positive primary E-field pulses. Since free electrons tend to outnumber free holes, you should expect to see a corresponding drop in collectable energy.

@ all
Sorry, I've been busy getting parts in, and having a heck of a time with a fruitless search. i have been trying to fing my g-strain energy absorber. It was on the bench in my shop, and it apparently grew legs and ran away. Right after I finally had managed to locate and obtain a few sets of new old stock triple mesa transistors for it. I had some new plans for that old board, oh well. I have parts on the way to build a replacement or two.

Bob