First electrical power output from a Pyramid

[skywatcher]

somehow it seams to me that the capacitor or pipe frame has different sizes then mine because if you compare my picture there is more room at the sides for the coil's which should be 25mm in diameter.

Yes... i said this as you posted the pictures of your converter the first time... my converter has exactly the specified dimensions (100 mm width, 120 mm height, measured on the outside of the 12 mm tubes). The capacitor is also exactly as specified, 35 mm x 70 mm (plus the contact area).

Back to the capacitor: yesterday was the question about getting the right capacity. I think there is always a 5% or even 10% error to expect, because although you can make the area of the plates quite exactly, but the spacing between them also influences the capacity directly, and with a specified spacing of 1 mm you can never get it with an absolute error of 0.05 mm or 0.1 mm. So the plate spacing is the biggest source of tolerances in the capacitor. But even commercial capacitors have tolerances of 5% (if they are good) or even 10%.

I don't think that someone gave TT a plan with all the dimensions, so i'm sure they developed 'by chance'.

He didn't use 20 mm steel pipes because this is the only dimension with works, but because it was the only dimension he had in his garage.  
If he only had 25 mm steel pipes, he would have used them as well, and they also would have worked as well. Same with all the other materials, i think. He used 1 mm copper plates for the capacitor because he had them. Of course there might be optimal values for some of the dimensions, which lead to more or less output, but the effect itself (if there is any) will remain the same over a wide range of dimensions and permutations of them.

He stated that e.g. the height of the pyramid is not much important, and only leads to a few % change in the output.

I think, if the effect is for real, then it depends only on some (very few) basic configurations. TT even used different configurations for the converter, and they all worked. V4 looks completely different compared to V6, and both configurations work. V12 would have even another configuration (which we don't know yet), and it worked too. And it worked even better than V6, so we know that V6 is *not* the optimal configuration.

So i think that it's an advantage to slightly vary TT's description of the V6 to get success.

If we all would build *exactly* the same construction, then it would be quite senseless, because then *all* of us would be successful (this would be the best, but most unlikely result), or that *all* of us would be unsuccessful.

But when everybody has a slightly different construction, the chance that one of us will be successful is much higher.


Then the others could change to the exact construction parameters of this person and move forward.

I think this is the best strategy in the given situation, now that we don't have anyone to ask how to do the details.

We don't even know if the 'V6 white paper' is correct in all aspects. As i understood, it was written by more than one person, and TT only authorized it. He might have overlooked some errors. I remember one occasion in his forum where i asked him about the focus point of the pyramid, gave him a drawing i did, and he said this was OK. But it wasn't, as i discovered later. He got so many questions that he didn't have enough time to look closely to each questions, and so he might have 'confirmed' some things that have not been correct.

[skywatcher]

Some remarks to duff:

You are right: replicating exactly an existing prototype is the best way to be successful.

But: to do this, you should have access to this prototype, enough informations about it, and someone to ask.

All this is not the case. We don't even have photos of V6. We have almost nothing, only a text which TT not even has written himself.

I also don't understand, if he HAS a working V6 prototype, and had working on it FOR YEARS, how can it be that he doesn't have photos, and he doesn't have posted them ?  It would be the first thing i would do, because making some photos is much less effort than writing a text, and one picture's worth is more than thousand words, as you know. 

There is no excuse for making no photos. Today everyone has digital cameras with sufficient resolution. It only takes seconds to make a picture. I'm documenting all steps of my construction work with the camera, not only for the forum, but also for ME.

Not doing this would be highly unprofessional.

[skywatcher]

Here is a photo of my converter where you can see the dimensions much better:

[skywatcher]

Has anyone tried different types of graphite rods and looked for differences ?   

I have read once again the V6 spec which was posted by TT himself in his own forum.
I'm refering to the german version, because as TT's native language is German, in would expect less errors in the german version. 

In his V6 spec, he writes that graphite rods of 2...3 mm diameter should be used, and he especially mentions pencil rods (german: Bleistiftmine). Also in 'skizze2.pdf' (made by TT ?) pencil rods are mentioned. But in a later posting, he talked about using graphite rods used for motor coals, and that pencil rods would not work.



At the moment i only have pencil rods, so i will try using them...

[georgemay]

Has anyone tried different types of graphite rods and looked for differences ?   

Here is another source for graphite rods - woodless pencils.
http://www.pearlpaint.com/shop~ocID~5999~parentID~5992~categoryID~5988~layoutIndicator~vertical.htm
Check you local art stores.
George