TPU - General Discussion

[acerzw]

@tao

I see what you are saying, but when you make and use statements such as this:

First off, Bedini, he is a great guy for sure, but rest assured, rest VERY assured, that even the people in his inner circle of replicators, and he does have one, even THEY, who talk to him regularly, even THEY don't have their devices operating in OU yet!!! I wouldn't expect you to know that information, not many do, but it is the truth, believe it or not...

which you must be aware cannot be verified or substantiated by anyone who does not have your inside knowledge or contacts, regardless of the amount of research they undertake, then you must accept that many, me included, are simply not going to believe you!

Can you prove any of the above? How come those who know this in his inner circle have not said anything? Are they covering up for him simply because he is a nice guy and he grants them audience? I hope you can understand my healthy skepticism in regard to that comment...

What would John have to say regarding that comment, since you have knowledge which you say is privy only to his inner circle, can you contact one of them, or perhaps him, and ask him for us?

Acerzw

No, I can't prove it, out of a respect for my 'word' to someone. That is why I ended the statement with " but it is the truth, believe it or not...". I don't expect ANYONE to believe my statement, without proof.

Why make the statement then? It was a adjunct to the rest of my comment, an additional 'truth' that you can choose to believe or not. It wasn't the basis for my last post, only an 'addition' that I thought some people, including you, might like to know, or at least 'tuck away' as a possible truth, and if the day comes that you hear something similar from someone else, maybe it can become a 'truth' to you also.

I completely understand your skepticism, and I would have the same skepticism as you. In regard to your question, about his inner circle covering up for Bedini, his 'inner circle' for lack of a better word, has spent a lot of money and spent a lot of time duplicating Bedini's setups, and they have results, just not 100% loopable (in the sense of taking the charged batteries and swapping with the running battery or powering an inverter off the charged batteries to restore the running battery) and repeatable results...

Once again, all I was trying to do was show you that I do know about all the devices you talk, yet, not even the devices you are talking about at 100% verified yet, and easily repeatable.

Hence, no CLEAR CUT OU plans are anywhere as of yet...

That is why we are here, you know that, we need to change that, WE need to duplicate, develop, rediscover, and engineer an OU device and distribute freely, PRECISE and CLEAR CUT plans for that device. I hope we are in agreement on that...

@tao, yes that we can always agree on... 

Frankly I have found this discourse probably the most interesting I have had to date with anyone on this forum...

I do play devils advocate a lot, and assume a lot, but I do tend to find if you shake the tree fruit falls out...

I have been somewhat shocked regarding your statements about John Bedini and by proxy therefore Tom Bearden. Are you stating that no-one has achieved OU using the simple BEMF principles in his book? What are the problems they have encountered? Surely once you have a simple test rig consisting of a single coil and a magnet the BEMF principle can be proven easily? Then it must just be a matter of scaling it up... the running of the device from its own output energy also appears relatively trivial once the you know how to produce BEMF. What am I missing....

Acerzw...

[Esa Maunu]

I'm realy stuck on this simpler LINEAR concept derived from the TPU, can't you tell?   LOL 

If this doesn't work, then we know it has to be the CIRCULAR nature of the TPU, that makes it work.


Here's a simpler setup then my previous one.   Just a rod with magnets attached at the end.  The magnets also BIAS the Iron. 

How much simpler can one get?

EM

If you use a helical coil around the magnetostrictive rod, it does not create linear lenght changes for this rod.
Helical coil creates a twisting  effect and torgue for magnetostrictive rod, this phenomena is also known as Wiedemann effect.
If you want to use magnetostrictive force this way, you should connect an other rod to   the ends of this magnetostritive rod, to be in 90 degree position. This way you can use a twisting moment from magnetostrictive rod, when this rod is turning .

Esa

[tao]

@tao, yes that we can always agree on... 

Frankly I have found this discourse probably the most interesting I have had to date with anyone on this forum...

I do play devils advocate a lot, and assume a lot, but I do tend to find if you shake the tree fruit falls out...

I have been somewhat shocked regarding your statements about John Bedini and by proxy therefore Tom Bearden. Are you stating that no-one has achieved OU using the simple BEMF principles in his book? What are the problems they have encountered? Surely once you have a simple test rig consisting of a single coil and a magnet the BEMF principle can be proven easily? Then it must just be a matter of scaling it up... the running of the device from its own output energy also appears relatively trivial once the you know how to produce BEMF. What am I missing....

Acerzw...

I too play devils advocate a lot, its a nice way to get to the truth of any matter...

Right, it does seem trivial. This is exactly what I have thought of Bedini's work for sometime now. I have done a lot of research and I do feel that Bedini's BEMF method DOES introduce OU, but it can be highly elusive.

Matter of fact, Bedini's work seems to be highly elusive in general. I don't mean to be harsh and I am not trying to put him down or discredit him. The facts remain that he has tested many OU devices, from the Tesla Switch to the Kromrey Converter, his supposed Gray tube replication, to his work with enhanced BEMF and battery charging. In almost all of those tests, he talks of OU and how it is possible and how he has measured (or should I say SEEN it, as Bedini doesn't like to see a lot of meters on his stuff, hehe) it in these devices.

For someone completely new to OU, this seems great, all these potential and seemingly sure fire OU devices to pick and choose from, to replicate and use for your own energy needs. Yet, the more you dig deeper, the more you see that in many, if not all of the above cases, no concrete conclusions were ever reached by Bedini about their OU capabilities. No sure fire OU device seems to be forthcoming from all his tests.

For instance, his Tesla Switch seems so easy right? Until you see that even he had implementation problems with it, as have countless others. His Kromrey converter too, he measured OU with it, but upon further research into Bedini's further research into it, and a test replication I've seen that it isn't what it was cracked up to be, as in, it MIGHT be OU, IF you can get it just right. This right there seems to be the problem, the IF you can get it right part. Bedini talks about helping others all the time and there was a time he got completely fed up and stop answering emails and such because no one 'got it'. I guess one of the most annoying things you see is that he gives these circuits and shows these simple setups and then says, 'well this circuit isn't going to show you OU, just a process'. He even said that about the Bedini_SG, about their replications, that it wasn't meant for OU, but you KNOW that the only reason people were building the devices was FOR OU. The point is, he is saying that no one is making working devices because they aren't listening, but on the flip side he isn't telling anyone the TOTAL truth so that they can reach OU. Maybe he just wants people to EARN their OU devices through self discovery? Or keep his secret company IP secret until he finally hits the marketplace?

If you have seen his recent video series with Bearden, you see that he is still testing all his devices and methods even today, looking for that sure fire OU setup. I don't know about you, but if you had a sure fire OU setup, and you could EASILY replicate, wouldn't you make a couple first, to make sure they were 100% replicatable, then isolate the OU mechanism and work on enhancing it, all the while staring at your many OU replications in sheer enjoyment at what you have already accomplished, as you attempt to up the OU outputs ad infinitum?

I have no problem with Bedini having a company, wanting to patent his OU devices, or anything like that. More power to him, I hope he becomes a multimillionaire many times over. What I am after is OU, plain and simple, as are you all, this I am sure about...

If any of Bedini's complete works are viable, it is certainly the SG type BEMF setups he uses. These do exhibit OU in the form of mechanical and 'potential' extraction via making Lenz Law work for us, BUT, even with this OU mechanism, there are so many little nuances and issues with the devices and how they are setup, that they are extremely hard to duplicate. The OU is subtle, and the OU mechanism isn't clearly utilized. I can go into this in another thread or something...

Needless to say, I have seen the replications for the Tesla Switch, the Kromrey, the Bill Nelson Scalar battery charger, and even the SG, and it seems that none of them to date have without a doubt enabled consistent and repeatable OU production. A lot of time has gone into these, for the sole purpose of a simple OU output verfication, something, anything.

So, from the outside, Bedini's and Bearden's talks of 'easy OU' and the like, seem to be just that, 'talk'. (Don't get me wrong, I KNOW that they mean well, and want OU as much as us). Will that make me not buy Bearden's new material or stop following Bedini's works, hell no!

Because at any moment, some key element could be found, some key replication done, some key circuit given, that changes everything! So, I will continue to closely follow them and EVERYONE else in the OU world, and I will continue synthesizing ideas and devices, noting similarities and differences, and experimenting, until the day we all have OU...................

[Mannix]

I have stated this before but it might be helpful to restate it here again.as this has been a good discussion
these things  are specific and as accurate as it is possible to have at this stage.

The heat generation means safety....the more heat the less danger of runaway.

Heat is a by product of operation not  load

The less heat the more dangerous they are. Again , counter intuitive for some, a vital clue for others.

Please stop arguing about this as it wont go any where towards getting there.

If you can ,try ignore those who seem interested in something other than building and contributing towards this understanding with a positive attitude.

Pessimism offers less than nothing to this discussion.


@ marco....exactly ...please try as hard as you are able.


Digital meters ...and even analogue are useless at measuring hf noisy signals on ac or dc.


Ac range is generally filtered and is designed to measure mains frequency  ...on most meters.

some or all of the tools we have are only designed to measure specific things that we use everyday..its far from science.
another reason to use the most rudimentary devices.

Back to basics!

Here is a test ..from apprentice schooling..get some kicks...or sharp pulse dc of 5k or so  on your scope ..de couple load it a little so that it has a rough known impedance.measure it with your  digital  multimeter... see which range works best.

[Esa Maunu]

One big benefit with the use of earth`s magnetic field in a tpu is it`s equal strenght on a small area like tpu is.
Because electron precession frequency is directly proportional to external magnetic field strenght, so this gives a very coherent photon emission, when electron precession wobbling is caused by a phonon field.  In fact, when we use composite material as a core material, mixed with magnetostrictive and ferromagnetic powder, we have thousands of small photon transducers that radiates evenly around the tpu, with the same wavelenght. This is not like a conventional dipole antenna, but like all antennas, this antenna is reciprocal also ( can both send and receive energy ).

Esa