The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[EMdevices]

I don't bother any longer with basics, but I'm glad you got it off your chest.   I agree with you and your previous post about SM's intent and meaning of the word "kick", and how it's used.    A  few of us made videos a year ago showing the REAL kick in action.  We had wires and pulsed them from a battery and saw them MOVE under the influence of the earth magnetic field, yes it's weak but with enough amperage, quite able to move the wire.  Motion is key to the TPU performance perhaps.  But then again I've entertained so many theories that I don't know what the hell I believe anylonger.   I can see clues about all sorts of theories in the videos and the SM letters.  I give higher priority to the videos.   The "kick" description comes from the SM letters and one has to understand the context, and that's tricky and subjective so I don't concern myself too much with the true interpretation of the "kick" any longer.   Basicaly SM does not tell us how it's done, but gives us "clues" and "hints".  the best he has to offer is perhaps how the larger TPU is wound.  Anyway, there's better clues to get obsesed over.   He mentions that the devices act like RADIOS, and that you TUNE to a frequency, or that you inject harmonics of a frequency, etc.. etc...
     

no one has come forward and explained Paul's experiment as of today.

SM told us the kicks are overunity and that they are current kicks. the voltage kicks we see in Paul's scope shots are not overunity. they are a basic electrical reaction due to Lenz's law.

all things being ideal, the voltage kicks seen in Paul's post would have been closer to the 20V level, not 12V.

they are higher than the applied voltage--why?

because of Lenz's law, the inductor will produce a counter emf, and it is this cemf that we see as the 12V spikes.

the two concentric pancake coils is more complicated than it needs to be. wind a simple single air core inductor (solenoid) to give you about the same inductance as your pancake coil (about 20uH) and pulse it the same way. you'll get almost the same scope shot, with no ringing or resonance. the spikes will be there, both negative and positive as before.

every piece of wire no matter how long has some inductance, and every device that will drive this piece of wire has a finite output impedance (50 Ohm typical for function generators, and the crirical missing element in duff's model), so in theory it should be possible to produce these voltage kicks on demand. in fact in practice, it should be impossible to get rid of them.

so at the end of the day, what do we have? we have some transient cemf produced that exceeds the applied input voltage level, but current does not increase nor does the power, leaving us with exactly what we put in, minus some natural losses.

but we still don't have the kicks SM talked about, because the above kicks are not increases in current, and they aren't overunity.

so until now the peanut gallery has been mostly quiet about this. forgive me for breaking my promise of keeping quiet

[pauldude000]

@poynt99

I am somewhat at a loss. I know what cemf (counter or "back" emf) is. Yet this by definition could not be counter emf, in that the spikes are with the applied voltage (same charge), not against (opposite charge). You can see this in the scope shot at .2 per div.

We have seen cemf shots commonly too, these are the scope shots with a voltage spike in the opposite direction as the scope shots I posted. 

Please explain.

I ask as it seems amazing how much is tried by many to be lumped under the term "Back EMF", when what is lumped is not opposing. It seems as bad as transformer action.

Paul Andrulis

[forest]

I think this explanation made by SM may be the master key :

"Let us say that you have a magnetic field perhaps it is only a small permanent magnet.
Now, you have a single copper wire twelve inches long. If you move the magnet across the
surface of the wire from left to right at a certain speed you create an electron flow which is
DC and it has a power potential based on how strong the field is and how fast the magnet
if moved. So, if you increase the size of the magnet or the speed it moves you create a
larger flow of electrons, larger as in higher voltage or more current.
Everyone tells us that the earth's magnetic field is measured as being too insignificant to
generate any useable power, that is not so.
Let me give you something to think about... If you had a short wire and you moved a
magnet across it you would always have limited potential because the length of wire was
so short. OK now what if we increase the length of the wire to many miles in length even
with a very weak magnetic field moving across the wire you still have a much greater
potential flow of power available. If we put it into a perspective of power per inch it may be
easier to understand.
If you have a small magnetic field moving across a wire twelve inches long it can generate
an electron flow equal to lets say one millivolt per inch. If you move the magnet twelve
inches at the same speed you get 12 millivolts as you transgress the twelve inches of wire.
Understand that I am trying to convey a principal that you can understand for use in the
future.
So, you have a wire twelve inches long and you can make 12 millivolts moving a magnet
across it. If you have a wire 1000 feet long and you move the same small magnetic field
across the length of it you can create much more voltage potential perhaps 12,000
millivolts lets say.
So, you have managed to generate a significant amount of electric power with a weak
magnetic force.
OK, how does this help us? Where am I going with this?
Suppose you have 1,000 pieces of wire twelve inches long and you run the same weak
magnetic field over them all at the same time..... you get the same flow of electrons.
If the wires are run in series then you will get the 12,000 millivolts etc. If you connect the
wires in parallel you will get higher current but lower voltage. However, the power
potential is the same whether you run the wires in series or parallel.
If you know how to find the circuit potential, you tune into the frequency and you have
enough short pieces of wire you can convert as much power as you wish in a given space.
Things are more complex then what I have told you but I am just trying to give you an idea of
how the technology works."


Nikola Tesla was able to create 200kV field using small coil and probably no more then 10kV-20kV .What if SM is doing the same but counting current not voltage ? 700V at 1A from small power source.
Now look at TPU ? How much coils are there ? How much should be connected in PARALLEL to get such current ?
The obvious answer is that each coil is not constructed like a common coil  but probably in MANY SECTIONS.

Many pancake coils connected in parallel ? How it would looks like ?Don't forget about controls coil, it's probably very important to limit current flow...

[pauldude000]

@all

There seems to be some odd concepts. Volatge is no more separate from the electrons it represents, as one aspect of their movement, than is amperage.

Water is easily used as a comparison, as the concept of "flow" is the same for each.

"Amperage" is the amount of electrons passing a given point at a given time. This is a measurement of volume of flow.
"Voltage" is the amount of pressure in the pipe, so to speak.
"current" is somewhat confused, as depending upon how it it used, it can mean either "amperage", or electron flow.

However, you can have neither voltage nor amperage without electrons. Both are just measurements of "how many" (volume flow) or "how strong" (speed or pressure)

Now, consider the concept of "ability to do work".

When you consider voltage as incapable of doing work, that it is just a "potential", that is similar to stating that a hydraulic jack cannot do work since it is based upon pressure, or that pressure in a pipe does not do work. It is constantly exerting force upon the pipe, so even in a static or non flowing scenario, it is always doing work.

Consider a Van-DeGraff Generator. Nothing but voltage right? Get your finger too close and see what a lack of work will do. Especially if it is a nice Van-DeGraff...... That 12 inch long arc contains BOTH current and voltage, though the voltage far outstrips the amperage. However, it is the combination of voltage AND amperage that determined the work.

One cannot be considerable without the other.

Another thing I wish to cover is the concept of the earth's magnetic field. Just like in a bar magnet, the "lines of force" exits the Earth at a magnetic pole and enters at the opposite pole. This means that the "lines of force" are horizontal to the surface of the earth. The magnetism of the earth is not comparable to gravity, which cant be seen as eminating perpendicularly from the surface of the earth.

I have heard many speaking in this manner, so I thought I would clear that up.

Paul Andrulis

[poynt99]

Paul,

most people think they know what cemf is, but really they're only aware of or consider half of the equation so to speak. also, they get confused about polarities.

why do people think that Lenz's law only applies when current is shut off 

the fact is that it applies both when current is applied and when it is removed.

in either case, the induced changing magnetic field produces an emf called cemf that opposes the applied voltage. the voltage opposes so as to make the current "flow" the direction opposite to the original applied current.

in the case for our function generator, when it goes to +10V, the voltage across the inductor also goes positive with respect to ground. so now we have two positive voltages head-to-head. in order for current to "flow" in the opposite direction, VL > VFG, and this is why the voltage measured on the output side of the generator resistor jumps up in voltage. if you were to go inside the FG and measure right at the low impedance output before the 50 Ohm resistor, what would you expect to see? +10V of course.

now the same thing happens when the generator is either removed, or if it goes to -10V. there is little difference as far as the Lenz effect is concerned. the inductor will again develop a voltage across it to oppose the applied voltage, and since we are either going negative, or removing the voltage completely, the inductor voltage will be negative wrt ground.

i took duff's lead and modeled the circuit correctly, both with the opposing coils, and with only a single coil. the dual-coil results look identical to yours Paul. let me know if you would like to see them.

@ EMD, you seem annoyed. No one was coming forward with the answer, so i did. if it was "basic", why didn't we hear from you earlier?