Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[b0rg13]

ive watched the videos from SM many times now....first to make it clear befor i get bashed here, i have noidea what so ever how this could work, but from what i see and hear in the videos it all looks very simple, i dont see any power or battery input from any where at all, he seems to simply add a magent here and there to start from what i understand is an electron flow.....now when i read the many many many pages here in the forums it look more and more confusing than ever..much more so than what i hear in the videos...maybe its time to look over the videos many many times and just pull out the facts SM is talking about and get back to the basics ? ... id like to see pics and plans of basic models that any one can follow....not complicated circuts.....from what i see in the videos its not complicated at all .. OR is it ?, like i said i hae noidea, and yes im expecting to be bashed and made fun of by some of you....but if your going to do that , explain why you would need to...to make your self feel better ?....this thread says **Successful TPU-ECD replication !**...WHERE is the success , where are the open source plans that any one can follow , the pics the instuctions ?.....whats really going on here ?.

[acerzw]

@borg13

This thread was named a bit prematurely, there are several diverse groups of people involved in this effort, and the TPU is being replicated, behind closed doors and also on this forum in the open. No one has confirmed that they have a completely working device, i.e. that produces excess power at this point. While the device appears simple, there is a lot more going on under the hood than most could imagine.

The device relies on a very finely tuned set of frequencies, produced in a very exact manner. The nature of how the device works is only now becoming apparent after much very very hard work by people on this forum. Considering that the effort here is reverse/back engineering a device that uses very simple principles in a new complicated application, based on some grainy videos and few cryptic words of advice from the inventor it is going remarkably well.

I think everyone here would like to see it ready for Xmas! but there is a lot of work left to do, the device if constructed incorrectly could be very dangerous, so there is a certain amount of healthy caution being exercised, and when it finally is completed I think the first plans released are likely to be for a version which the nintendo generation will be able to build without getting killed...

So be patient read a little and stick this on your wall...

Acerzw

[MarkSnoswell]

What do you understand under the therm of  "Lamp wire"?
Is this a 2 stranded kable or can this be something else???

Otto,
   I have just asked the same question on this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2300.msg47754.html#msg47754

I have a seen a number of the older "lamp cables" which are made of a pair of multistrand tinned wire. I suspect the exact copper plating may be a significant factor. Modern electrical wiring is not normally tinned -- this would make a significant difference. Bob Boyce specifics Mill spec silver plated and teflon coated wire for his collector coils. I have reasons for suspect the composition of the wire may also be a significant factor in other devices.

I agree -- the more information the better. Practical details like wire type are important.

Mark,.

[Humbugger]

To the "skeptics".... Yes, you are smarter and wiser than the US government! Hunh? Steve Mark was given a patent... that is all I should need to say, but maybe you dont have a clue about getting a patent. IT HAS TO BE PROVEN TO GET A PATENT. In the case of "free energy devices", "over unity devices", etc. etc. etc. you have to prove your concept extremely well, since patents are not generally given in these areas. Generally speaking, in these specific areas, you have to have affidavits from legitimate scientists/engineers agreeing that your device actually does what you claim.

Scamsters can't get patents on verbal statements, hearsay, or videos. Inventors get patents upon explained and demonstrated working prototypes with descriptive working theory. Patents are not like stamps, you can't just "slap your money down" and get one, and in these areas even legitimate devices are rejected.

Steven Mark recieved a patent, period, end of story.  The TPU concept is as real as the air you breathe. Since steven sold the patent, and therefore all rights to it, then YES he does have to worry, unless he desires to be broke, spending a good portion of his life in court, and possibly a good number of years in jail if convicted. I think I myself would be quite circumspect in what I said, and to whom myself, being extremely carefull not to breach contract.

Paul Andrulis

Hi Paul...

I think you are badly confused about patents.  I have two of them myself.  There are many many patents which have been granted which describe machines and processes which have never worked and are as foolish as can be.  The patent office in no way acts as an invention testing or authentication agency.  A patent does not act as any kind of proof of an invention's efficacy. 

As far as I understand, Steven Mark has a patent only on some totally conventional electronic control circuitry and not on anything like the TPU itself or any other machine which claims to extract free energy.  Do you have the patent number, by chance?    I'd suggest that you read the patent in question before proclaiming it as proof of anything!  I could not find it in a quick search.

I am not using these facts as arguments that the SM devices never worked.  I don't pretend to know one way or the other.  You should not use the patent argument as proof that the Mark devices worked.  Tom Bearden's MEG has a patent; it doesn't work and cannot be reproduced; he's tried for years and years!  Bearden never showed any working model to the patent office. 

Here's a link to a recent discussion of a completely ridiculous granted patent which claims that chemical catalysts can be replaced by a weak RF signal.  In the patent, there are several clearly false premises including the ridiculous idea that no one understands how catalysts work! 

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2396.msg47496.html#msg47496

Look up Jesse McQueen, both here on ou.com and at the USPTO...he has a granted patent that describes a system that does not work and he publicly admits he has no working prototype right here on ou.com.  The patent office never tested that!   There are hundreds of cases I can show you to prove my point.  Yours is a really bad argument full of gaping factual and logical holes and easily disproven. 

If there was a valid patent describing the TPU, we would all understand how it works and be building working replicas.  That's what a valid patent enables!  By law and by definition.  A patent is published to the world as a description of what is being claimed as protected intellectual property.  Once published (a.k.a. "granted"), the inventor is free to disclose the information to anyone...it's already out there!

Any patent that does not describe a device or process well enough so that those skilled in the art can reproduce it successfully is a legally invalid patent.  Many of those have been granted.  Any with real commercial value have been challenged successfully when they fall into that category.  Only those bad patents without any commercial value are generally left standing.  Who is going to shell out money to challenge them in court?

Humbugger

[bolt]

That what i read too an over unity device normally has to be proven and demonstrated to get a patent. Meyers had to take his water split to the patent office before they granted him one. It would have saved himself much time and trouble to state his device was 400% more efficient than using conventional DC electrolysis but no he rushed in stating he got something for nothing.  So where does that leave the MEG? i have no idea maybe it put out a few volts once before it died. However you can apply for one because you made a spiraling toilet flush that used half the water and should be granted without a second glance. The application becomes less murky when one applies for an increased efficiency device rather than over unity. Motors etc fall into this likewise devices which may give a few more MPG's to your car. In most related cases i read about its easier to state an increase in efficiency rather than mention getting something for nothing because the later is harder to prove.


BTW even if the use of the sinewaves gives a spark of life before the end of the year for the  TPU it may take at least another 1 to 3 years to control it correctly. In case anyone was thinking my order from Walmart was real in time for XMas it was actually a joke. Even SM's TPU's are not without problems. The output was unstable and sank when loaded. Larger models had much higher than wall socket voltage  and the DC is an issue as cant run motors without going through inverter so even if we caught up to one or two lower power replicas there will be much work to make it truly viable.