Understanding electricity in the TPU.

[gyulasun]

Hi Loner,

I agree the resistance change of a bulb is nonlinear, so it is very easy to get fooled by them. I think it is best to use high power non-inductive resistors instead, unless you have a 'calibrated' eye for comparing brightnesses between two similar bulbs, one of them is run from a known input power, the other one is run from the device to be measured (or you use a dependable lux meter to compare).

Non inductive power resistors are available from several sources, here is one searched at random:
http://www.alliedelec.com/resistors/passive-components/?N=4294790368+4294818356

rgds, Gyula

[NickZ]

   Guys:
    In case you haven't seen the prototype that Itseung has come up with, check the 6 inch toroid JT with a secondary that he is using for tests.  It goes along with the same idea I had of using a working unit to as a model to experiment and build on.
                                                                            NZ

[Tito L. Oracion]

The real thing is.....

Tuned

amplify V.

charge caps

then discharge sequentially.

note: we only need volts to energize a caps 

[gyulasun]

note: we only need volts to energize a caps 

Hi Tito,

Unfortunately, to charge up a cap, you do need current too.

Please study this link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html

I wonder what is your OU device COP number is? Have you estimated it?
COP=output/input

Thanks,  Gyula

[wattsup]

@all (This will be a long post)

I took a little more time to get this post as complete as possible, with hopes that it will put us all back on a realistic TPU track without taking away any of the real accomplishments of SMs OTPU device.

I put up a video of the bulb brightness versus applied DC voltage using two 60 watts bulbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3uICYap92g
I will do another one using a 100 watts bulb because SMs other videos use that bulb format. (apparently but...)

Since the only real reference of any energy production in the SM TPUs has to be extrapolated from the brightness of the bulbs versus the shown voltage readings, I really needed to do this as a point of reference.

In my above video, when you look at a 60 watts bulb driven at 120VAC and another bulb driven at 91.2VDC, there is a definitive difference in brightness. If you look at the bulb at 91.2 VDC in real life, it has a definite yellowing whereas in the video you cannot see this yellowing, but, you can see the bulb brightness is lower and the peripheral reflections are less bright as well.

So, of course it is very difficult to make any 100% conclusion from his videos simply because any video of a bulb will never equal what you actually see in real life. But given that in the OTPU video SM plugged his bulbs into the wall socket before he plugged them onto the OTPU, this does give us some video basis of comparison to my video results. This mixed with the endless hours of studying the videos and the mannerisms in order to find flaws in the procedural logic and considering the dynamics of those times regarding discovery, business, government and MIB stories, I think the following is as close as anyone will get to the actual facts, otherwise it would have to come from SMs own future admissions, but don't wait for the last one.

So....... based again on this information, at the risk of sounding repetitive, given that from what I can see on the OTPU video as per the image grabs that were provided in previous posts, it would seem very definite that the brightness of the bulbs off the wall socket and off the OTPU are one and the same.

Now, this does not concord with the obvious expected differences given the different voltages applied, so, in actuality, they were the same brightness and hence the energy came from the same source that could only be from batteries hidden inside the lamp bases, or, a battery/inverter/loop-back system again inside the lamps.

Also, possible is that the OTPU itself then takes that lamp based battery power (hence hot coils) and pulses it so the bulbs stay bright but the battery juice depletion is the least possible. This extends the battery life to limits above standard battery technology. Like he said. Hmmmmm. He did mention the word battery many times. But there is more to consider here.

Our collective responsibility regarding SMs TPUs is to wean out as much observational information as possible and the bulbs just don't lie.

So in general, what I am beginning to concretely understand from the OTPU is that SM produced a higher voltage output (91.2) then he made for the FTPU (62 vdc), but this again is only voltage, like he only showed in the FTPU video. The OTPU only produced voltage and so when he put his meter on the OTPU speaker terminal outputs without the bulbs connected, he showed a reading of 91.2 VDC. This gives you the false impression that the bulbs are being run by the OTPU.

SM reinforces this impression or illusion by first plugging his bulbs into the wall socket. Funny though he did not leave both of bulbs lit off the wall plugs. That is because the top plug was still connected to the mains and he only shorted the bottom wall plug. He plugged the first bulb on the bottom wall plug, then he almost plugged the second bulb on the top wall plug but stopped dead in his tracks, removed the bottom one (throwing it aside) and plugged the second bulb again into the bottom socket. This manouevre in itself betrays his demo outright. He connected both of them on the OTPU plug box but did not do it from the wall plugs. Why??????????? Also, the way he manipulated the lamp cords was indicative of someone knowing those lamp cord plugs were live and if he touched the plug pins, he could get a shock. So he needed a shorted plug to do his demo because the lamps had batteries in them and by shorting the bottom plug, this connected the batteries and bulb internally and gave the plug realism when he pulled on the cord and the bulb went dead. Almost perfect but not quite enough.

(Trivia) In the 6TPU video, this time SM put a small night light in the top wall plug to not make the same mistake again. But that was for another reason. lol

Next he connected them one after the other onto his blue plug box that was connected to the OTPU. This time both lamps were plugged onto the plug box. Now in this case, I do not think the plug box was shorted. The short was right at the OTPU output that also looped through the outer rings. That's one reason the outer coils started getting hot. The bulb output of the OTPU is curiously not located at the same location as the output going to his volt meter. Why go through all the pains of having two dedicated outputs as per his speaker terminals and another output going to the plug box. Because both lines were not connected together at all. He could have easily put the meter onto the plug box to measure his output voltage but he did not. Then after the video he made a shorter video and this time he plugged the bulbs directly onto the OTPU output that went to the plug box, but this time without the plug box, saying "some may think the plug box is tricked", but this was a diversionary tactic on his part trying to pull your focus onto the plug box and away from the fact that his OTPU output was simply a short circuit for the lamp base hidden battery pack that lit the bulbs. Again I know this sounds repetitive but the angle has to be seen from many sides.

Now, some may say this is total blasphemy. But this is not total blasphemy, it is total reality. The reality is that because of the OTPU limitations, SM had to orchestrate his demo in this manner since it fits perfectly with the fact that the OTPU produced voltage but never produced enough amperage to light them bulbs. So SM had to find another way of letting you believe  the OTPU could produce sufficient output to light two bulbs, without the OTPU even varying in output voltage by 0.01 volts. Not even a flicker. If you took 10 fully charged car batteries in series and plugged one bulb onto them, you would see a voltage variation, then plug another bulb in parallel to the first and you will again see another voltage variation. Why would it not do it with the OTPU. Not even a miniscule variation. Some say it is a question of resistance. Sorry but resistance or not, you still have to have 60 watts then 120 watts of power available at the output but the real output would have had to be much higher then that for the voltage to not move. The only plausible answer is the bulbs were not connected to the OTPU output that was feeding the volt meter. The volt meter never saw the bulbs.

So here is my "official" observation of the OTPU.

SM first built the FTPU but it could not produce amperage. That is understandable given the limited amount of wire in the device and this concords very well with my own tests of FTPU mock-ups. So SM made a video and only showed voltage. This got some investors interested enough to put up some cash for a piece of the future action. But then, since SM was now in the company of investors, he was no longer a free researcher, but was continuously under the scope of others that had obvious expectations. SM knew this and came up with the OTPU video. Even though the video was 50% faked, that 50% was very difficult to prove. Any time someone wanted to check the OTPU all he had to do is put a volt meter on it and show it produced 91.2 vdc. If anyone asked him to plug a bulb on it, he would have simply made some type of excuse and the voltage reading would have been all the person would get. His biggest excuse was the 20 minutes life span due to heating. This gave him total latitude in how he could make more excuses for any operational limitations and one more reason to keep up the research and the required dollars.

(Trivia) The OTPU was the only device where SM kept the volt meter on while he applied a load. All other videos had the meter removed before applying a load. This change in modus-operandi is understandable because now SM was using light bulbs on small stands (except the 6TPU where the lamp was tall but thin (could still harbor batteries to assist the 6TPUs output) and this time the lower wall plug was not shorted but supplied a dc power source. But here we are getting ahead of ourselves so back to the OTPU.

My reasons for looking into this question are not to find SM as a downright fraud. I already went through that stage. It is only to put the reality into the devices. If I want to build an OTPU, why should mine have to really light up two bulbs when his was obviously using many batteries. Why should we keep the OTPU design as a solid reference for lighting up bulbs when his did not do it in reality but only after using outside means. Why should we spend another one or more years breaking our heads on such a design when it never did what he purported.

Here is a list of reasons why the OTPU cannot be deemed an authentic and irrevocable portrayal of its real power output.

1) SM could have used standard bulb sockets but decided to use lamps with bulky bases. You can see it in the way he moves them, the amount of stress on his fingers, the sway of the lamp all speaks heavy battery pack.
2) SM consciously always plugged the bulbs into the same lower wall socket.
3) SM connected his volt meter onto a specially located round speaker terminal when all he had to do is connect it just like he connected the FTPU, right at the output wires.
4) When SM plugged the first and second bulbs to the OTPU, the voltage on the OTPU connected volt meter never budged as if the meter was on a totally separate and/or isolated circuit from the bulbs.
5) The brightness of the bulbs off the wall socket and off the OTPU are the same.
6) The OTPU build included scrawny outer coils that are obviously not enough to produce the amperage and wattage required to light those bulbs, but enough to produce a 91.2 vdc at microamp output as reactive energy that could not do anything more then make those bulbs flicker at best.
7) SM then made a shorter OTPU video removing the plug box, knowing perfectly well that his short circuit was at the OTPU output.

From all the above and many more hours and hours of video observations, one can clearly understand a given time-line in the progression and maturation of his TPU designs. When he made the FTPU, he may have managed to produce a device that could provide 62 vdc on a volt meter but since it was a reactive power output, it could not handle any real loads. This would explain why he never put a light bulb on the device. This may sound mundane for many of us doing OU research since we have all produced devices that can do the same thing. But what I think is special in SMs case is that he did this with either no battery power or more likely using a small battery as a seed. So the actual FTPU accomplishment at best was producing a reactive output with no energy input. The 60 volts reactive power was maybe enough to light an LED to mid brightness but even then, this would have been a considerable achievement for any man to grasp. His volt meter did not know 91.2 vdc had or had not any amperage. But it sure looks impressive. This is basically all we should be shooting for. Light an LED with no input power. That would be step #1 towards the TPU reality, because then you stack them by threes to tens.

Now just the FTPU demo alone is a major coup and I am sure SM realized that from this first device, working without any battery input, he could attract some serious investors that would understand the devices potential. But once he had investors, the game changed, money was flowing but expectations grew proportionally to the amount of dollars invested. SM was under pressure to show something more substantive and his second video being the OTPU was the result of SM using his knowledge of producing reactive power from zero input, but he had to show some bulb lighting otherwise his investors would have either pulled the plug or thereafter been much more inquisitive of the real accomplishment. I do not think his investors ever really knew what the TPUs true accomplishment was or what was its limitations. The investors had engineers that see a video and say "in order to light them bulbs, you need amperage and voltage" and "he's got them both". Man oh man.

So now SM makes the OTPU video, knowing full well that the OTPU could only produce reactive power. OK, I am calling it reactive just to honor The Buzz. Just for the record, in the OTPU demo as well as all the other demos SM could have used standard 120vac bulbs or he could have used tricked 12-24VDC bulbs with 120VAC printed on them. I would have to do another test with DC bulbs but in the next TPUs, it would have been more logical for him to trick the demo with DC bulbs.

Again, at best the OTPU was producing this reactive output from zero volts input, to be able to produce 91.2vdc output as reactive or not, is a grand accomplishment and I do not want to take this away from SM one bit. But at this stage, SM could not openly explain the OTPU limitations even if the basic crux of the device was grand in itself, SM had to show the lights. This is why he decided to use bulky lamps with batteries, a shorted lower wall plug, two power outputs on the OTPU, one showing the reactive power on the volt meter and we thinking the second output that he plugged to the plug box had the same power and lit them bulbs. But they did not and that was the game. Show the device not connected to the bulbs and making 91.2 vdc, then plug the bulbs and you will automatically equate that the OTPU lit the bulbs. Smart, smart, very smart and smart again. But the bulbs do not lie.

I can accept all of this because it meant he then came up with the STPU. This is where the multiple wires and magnet analogy comes in. The paralleling of the real "useful" parts of the OTPU/FTPU design. Paralleling because the only immediate answer for SM would have been to make ten FTPUs in parallel driven the same single way. Whatever, it had to be paralleling as this would increase the amperage and maintained the same voltage. Also, if pulsing at high enough frequency, this will permeate the parallels with very little loss.

This shows how SM grew with his designs. The reason we need to just accept the fact that SM had to use some ruse in all his videos and part of that ruse was the two way flip in the OTPU. The STPU had some also but I can't talk yet cause I need to do a video of bulb brightness with 100 watt bulbs. Suffice to say that again, small design but the voltage reading and bulb brightness do not concord. SM is trying to make us think we are looking at 120vac reference, when it is not. Why did he "need" to show a bulb. Well.........this would increase commercial value by multiples, to show our every day light bulb being lit. The brighter he could make the bulbs in the video, the more dollars it could bring in. In a way, it's sad to have to live under such conditions. But, the STPU end of the design is brilliant just to make the output that is now less reactive given paralleling of the design into a compact toroid form.

So then you would ask, why make the STPU lighting one bulb when you already had the OTPU lighting two bulbs. And again, the answer has to be, because the OTPU was only 1/3rd real. The STPU was 2/3rds. The 6TPU was also 2/3rds real. The MTPU does not count for anything. And the LTPU was again 2/3rds real. I will have to get into the other devices in time but from where I stand today, I can now in clear conscience confirm that SM faked his videos not to fake his discovery, but to enhance it. His discovery was shown in the voltage readings but never shown in the bulbs lighting. Talk about hiding the discovery, how better can you do that?

I think what the final result on what I am trying to say here is simply this. SM was in the same damn boat we are in right now. We can make reactive power any day of the week (I recently made 800 vdc) and this is what the OTPU really showed. If we can make an abstraction between what SM intended as trickery with his OTPU demo and the real powers involved, this gives all of us a real basis to then consider the other TPUs in a more realistic light (pun intended).

You see, I don't think SM was so stupid to have faked his videos for reasons of greed per say. He did discover something that was evident in the FTPU. That small effect was in that device to start. But again, even thought that effect was tremendous in its own right, he had to start making embellishments and because of this, he started to become more and more of an expert at the art of deception then on the real discovered effect. Also, all these tactics he used in his videos was perfect for him and his main reasoning would be, the more I cover up the design and workings, the safer my discovery will be well hidden within all these actions. This puts some sanity in the madness.

When you go to see David Copperfield do one of his amazing illusions, you know you will see an illusion. You expect you will see an illusion and yet, right when the final act takes place, you are still in amazement at the grandeur of the moment. Yet you know deep inside that it is faked, tricked, manipulated, but regardless, you are amazed because you don't know how he did it. This is part of what we have been witnessing from SM videos. If David Copperfield made a TPU video, you will expect and look for the trickery. But since this is SM doing it, the inventor of this grand TPU, we let down our guard and let SM permeate to the ultimate level of believability. And this has cost us dearly because all we are really left with is this feeling that we have just witnessed the salvation of the world that is one grasping effort away from becoming a reality. But unfortunately, I can now explain the function/trickery of all of SMs designs, even the LTPU.

Just think of this on the LTPU. 800vdc, ??? amps, 10 x 100 watts bulbs = leaves how many watts to drive each bulb???. Then look at a 100 watts bulb driven at that voltage/amperage/wattage and tell me what you see. I will show it soon enough. lol

So for me, the quest for a truly working TPU is not over. But now I have freed myself of the tangling web of lies on which I had based my initial efforts and will now go into wattsup-mode. If anything we come up with in the near future is in any way SM related, then good for him, but I doubt it. In my book, SM was just as smart as anyone here doing OU research. He only pushed it to a level that none here would both legally risk and morally stomach.

Last thing. I am very very sorry for this post may hurt some members here. When you follow the evidence, you have to accept the outcome. Let the evidence speak for itself. I know it hurts, but better to get real about it now then to realize this in a few more years. Whatever you guys work on is your own works. You do not spend your days and nights figuring out how to trick a video or some investors that are only led by their greedy noses.

Just realize this. There is no way in heaven or hell that a scrawny built OTPU will produce 120 watts and light up two bulbs. There is now damn way this is possible without resorting to some form of trickery. If you consider what Jack Durban has said a long time ago, and when you consider which of the two, Jack or SM, has worked years and years to achieve an honorable, trustworthy, productive, sought after and intelligent reputation, why would he put this on the line and risk libel or slander based on what he said on open radio about SM. Guys, we have to wake up. SM may have found something but it was small. His ego blew it up to what we have seen in the videos. The guys in his videos were totally mesmerized and most did not know their ass from their elbow about the technical. SM was in the same boat we are in, but in actual fact, we are in a much better boat because we have not wasted time resorting to producing fakeries. We have been learning with the real stuff, the real effects and together, we will make the future of the world a better place. We just have to believe in ourselves and stop being fed false hopes and especially faked videos. All of SM videos were faked to enhance the effect. The voltage we saw was real. The amperage we saw was not real, or partially real.

All the best.
Now, @Mk1, I can get back to the bench. Also, thanks to all those that replied on @GKs thread.

wattsup

PS: Hopefully, the next time you look at the OTPU video, you will see it in a new "light".