HI MACEDONIA CD I MADE SOME LIKE TPU IS FORKING MORE THEN INPUT

[Mannix]

hi stefan and ather

FIRST  STEFAN  IS ANSFER  FOR YOU
this first my video is not eny conection whit this second video

whit first video i have like to test how is posible to increase the frekfency  and amplitude only whit  simple magnets   and i have provet

i thing is good  thing to have this kind of circuits for only  doing this increase frek. and amplitude of out enrgy 
i have long time explane to marco how is posible to encrease the frek only whitout eny kind elktronics parts whit this test i have provet that if i have lets  say  i put one single hz  i whill simple increase the frek out to what i whant and is true this 
you can only thing like moving magnet to two coils and then i have whit one half frek of one hz i whill have  2 hz impulses if i have complete one hz input then iwhill have 4 hz to exit coils
AND I HAVE PUT 50 HZ  AND I HAVE 200 HZ TO MY OUT  BUT MAGNETS IS FOR ATHER THING FOR AMPLITUDE  OF OUT COILS
THIS ID NO ENY KIND OF CONECTION WHIT THIS  SECOND VIDEO
WHIT SECOND VIDEO I HAVE NO NEED MAGNTES  BUT I WHILL SHOW YOU THAT MY DEVICES IS NOT NEED THE MAGNTE AND MAGNETS DONT EFFECKT TO DEVICE
AGAIN I SAY IM ONLY HAVE SMALL ELKTROMAGNET FILD  TO PRODUCED THIS  SPARKS AND FLAME 
I HAVE PROVET TO MY SELF THAT IS NOT ONLY SOURCE MAGNET  OR ELKTROMAGNET TO PRODUCED  TO  MOVE ELKTRONES 
THERE IS SOME ATHER FORCE LIKE MAGNET HO IS ABLE TO MAKE EASY WAY AND SMALL ENRGY TO MOVE  ELKTRONES   
<<WHIT SMALL ENRGY LIKE ELKTROMAGNET FILD  IS  POSIBLE TO MOVE MORE AND MORE ELKTRONES IN OUT WIRE AND TO PRODUCED SO MORE ELTRONES TO MOVE IN OUT COILS

IN THIS I SAY IF YOU NEED MORE ENRGY TO CREATED ELKTROMAGNET FILD  THAT FILD WHILL PRODUCED  ENRGY TO OUT COILS  BUT  WHIT MAX<<1 < 0,8  COP
BUT  WHIT THIS WE MAST PUT MORE POWER IN THEN WHILL BE GET TO EXIT
BUT WE HAVE DONT KNOW THAT THE ELKTRONES IN WIRE  WHILL MOVE WHIT ATHERE TYPE OF ENERGY   <INPUT ENRGY>
AND IS GREAT THING BUT IS NEED TO SEARCH THING AND DISCOVER THIS STRANG ELKTRICYTY MAYBE THIS IS  ONLY JUST SMALL SPARKS AND AMPERS  I HAVE TO MY DEVICE MAYBE  I WHILL PRODUCED MORE AMPS THERE WHIT THE SAME INPUT ADAPTER
THANKS  FOR  SUPORT ME  I WHIL CONTINUE WHIT SEARCHING FOR MAX  OUT  MAYBE THISS IS I LITLE ENRGY
THANKS

Hi Mac,

Would you please show people what you have done using as many diagrams as you can do,or lots more closeup  pictures .
I , and others have extreme difficulty with the language problem.

other will help if they know exactly where you are up to

Perhaps there is somebody who speaks your language who will help  also.

Lindsay

[EMdevices]

Yes, many thanks to Mac for the info.

@mac,   I'm wondering if you use a pulsing scheme like in this diagram.   This circuit should amplify the current very similarly to your video demonstration.  There are other related buck or boost type of DC2DC converter circuits, and if you feed their output into a transformer, like the TPU,  you will get a reduction or an amplification of current, but if you get an amplification of voltage as well, then that's wonderful, it means power amplification is occurring, but we need exact measurements first to be sure.

anyway, these are my thoughts at the moment.

-EM

[plengo]

@EMdevices,

I see that you are showing a "copy" of Tesla coils circuit. Can YOU show a similiar setup with that circuit with the same effects that MACEDONIA has? (to think this is what he is doing?!!)

I see the difficulty with MAC's demonstrations but none from US of validating anything, just sitting and asking for things and worse, discrediting with more questions and guesses.

@All,

Would be possible anyone here is working on these ideas and showing ANY signs of ANY results whatsoever?


I just re-started reading SM pdf and it seams, now after 2 years, that it is very reasonable and logical. Even better, it seams that MAC is showing signs of real science with pratical results that corroborate with SM's sayings. Does anyone here believe SM is for real? Anyone???

Where is Jack Durban showing his intelectual expertise with hands-on and sighs on SM's devices??

I like Stefan approach always polite and inquisitive, but you guys (the guys I have seen for over 2 years) only asking not showing?

COME ON!

Lets work on this puzzle. I really think MAC is on the right path. SM is on the right track. We are on the wrong track.

Drop the EE conventional. It has proven itself to not work at all in at least 100+ years.

Fausto.

[poynt99]

@EMdevices,

I see that you are showing a "copy" of Tesla coils circuit. Can YOU show a similiar setup with that circuit with the same effects that MACEDONIA has? (to think this is what he is doing?!!)

I see the difficulty with MAC's demonstrations but none from US of validating anything, just sitting and asking for things and worse, discrediting with more questions and guesses.

@All,

Would be possible anyone here is working on these ideas and showing ANY signs of ANY results whatsoever?


I just re-started reading SM pdf and it seams, now after 2 years, that it is very reasonable and logical. Even better, it seams that MAC is showing signs of real science with pratical results that corroborate with SM's sayings. Does anyone here believe SM is for real? Anyone???

Where is Jack Durban showing his intelectual expertise with hands-on and sighs on SM's devices??

I like Stefan approach always polite and inquisitive, but you guys (the guys I have seen for over 2 years) only asking not showing?

COME ON!

Lets work on this puzzle. I really think MAC is on the right path. SM is on the right track. We are on the wrong track.

Drop the EE conventional. It has proven itself to not work at all in at least 100+ years.

Fausto.

Huh?
ahhhhhhhhhhh, the reasons that questions are being asked and measurements requested, is because the scientific method IS NOT being used, otherwise there would be no need to ask.

Fuasto, please explain what exactly MAC has and how to replicate it. please explain what the "real science and practical results" are here..............................right, didn't think so. you can't do it because it is not possible with only a video showing big slow sparks. where is your device then?

i don't have one because i don't need to build a DC to DC converter to know how one works. if MAC wants some serious attention, he is going to have to show how and why it is different than a DC to DC converter, and proof that it is OU. why should i rush into building a device to duplicate his "results" when i don't even know for sure what his "results" are, because they are not posted. a picture or video showing big slow sparks is inconclusive, it proves only that one has made a big slow sparker. i can do that too, and a dozen other people here can do as well. but i don't need to build a DC/DC converter to prove to myself that it works and can convert voltages and currents. i already know this. a picture or video of sparks is nice, but it has little meaning. numbers are what is needed to give meaning to anything....numbers! why are so many afraid to test their devices and post numbers come on MAC you have the know-how. a simple test if done correctly can tell so much. this is the scientific method!

come on MAC, you can do it!

[plengo]

@poynt99,

yes this is the scientific method, measure, test, repeat, theorize, and so on. We are here to build expand and create. He IS doing something. Let's work upon it not just ask and "give me give me".

If you have a device that shows DC to DC good, show it too, but not showing and just asking is not good either, is it?

I think MAC has pointed enough theory (good or not) about his ideas and I think he even showed one very good example with the magnets and the toroid. Have you tried and demonstrated that he is "not scientific" enough, or even mistaken?

THAT'S MY POINT. He is doing it, we are not and we are ALL complaining and saying: "WE know better, we have done it. He must be wrong".

He showed a very good point about amplifying the frequency using resonance (aka Tesla primary coil) and magnetic induction although not in the ordinary sence. Have you tried and disproved him?  That is the role of science:
- he demonstrated a theory that must be falsifiable. (The frequency amplification via magnets)
- we must falsify it, not just repute it with words but facts.

Show it that he is wrong on that one point before disputing his next demonstration with videos (which people already complained that he did not have any and now that he has and still people complained).

We MUST approach this at a very positive and scientific method via not only theory and inquiries but also by each one's experiments and data analysis. Where is your data to refute him?

I have not been saying anything "against" him so far because I dont have anything to dispute him so far either even in my labs. SO I stay quite. BUT this time I think he  is onto something extra-ordinary.

Let's build it.

Fausto.