Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[pauldude000]

@acerzw

I am not trying to be offensive, but by your own statement you have not built anything, so how precisely do you "know" anything? ??

These guys have been trying to duplicate a machine, off of information which might as well have been written in a novel, instead of an instructional constructional manual. Have you even read Steve Mark's description for the purpose?

This is not a "heathkit" project. THIS is true R&D, in every sense of the word.

I have, and can tell you that sketchy is doing Mark's descriptions justice, since little actual build informaton is present, which by his own mouth was on purpose for two reasons. A. He was legally obligated not to, due to sales of his patent, and B. He wanted those doing it to learn through trial and error. I can understand why for both. Therefore these guys are in essence working completely from scratch, taking a step at a time. Was this test replication successfull?

YES! 

Is it the final working product?

NO!

I haven't even read one post to that effect.

I had to build many partially working models of a Tesla coil, experimenting with various aspects, until I learned what I needed to know to build one like tesla would have. They are doing the same.

What have you designed and built from scratch? Anything? (I am not talking about breadboarding a circuit already designed for you out of a book or magazine either. I am talking ground up theory and design.)

I tend to doubt so, since if you had, you would understand what these boys HAVE accomplished.

There is a reason criticism is easier than accomplishment. To accomplish anything requires both sweat, and actual thought. Criticism requires neither.

Paul Andrulis 

[acerzw]

that is my point, I have built nothing yet accomplished the same, nothing... oh and I have given much thought prior to posting this... and I am aware of everything is this thread, and the original thread.

My point is that everyone was told build, build, build, before there was any proof of energy conversion by Roberto and Otto, those who questioned it were flamed, yet here we are in exactly the same position...

No observable energy conversion, lots of wasted energy and plenty of dangerous ionic wind and plenty of excess heat... and output that can be duplicated with a 9volt battery...

but remember build, build, build, or should that be wind, wind, windup...

acerzw

[pauldude000]

@acerzw

You have then peformed thought models on the subject? You have then performed tests of any kind?

Hmm, by your statement, you have done nothing, and therefore accomplished nothing. If your words are true, then let mathematics decide.

They have accomplished a little. On a scale of zero to ten I will even be overly critical and give them a 3, with 10 being a finished product.

On the same scale, you have accomplished zero.

Therefore, you say you have accomplished as much as they. You state  0 = 3.    No, it is simply an unbalanced equation, caused by an unbalanced statement not reflecting truth.

Paul Andrulis

[acerzw]

as you say, but neither 0 or 3 are 10, look at the title of this thread, it reflects a 10 yet is not.

And once again I say, nothing has been proved or replicated...

3 is not high enough to name this thread as it has been, and does not justify all the praise that has been heaped on its originators...

3 to me on your scale would involve some minimal proof of energy conversion, yet there is none...

My contention would be that 1 is a more realistic score, the mobius design looks good initially because it is novel, but all it does is generate noise and heat from RF interference with itself... and still does not produce output that can do more than a 9v battery despite the power that it wastes heating the room and charging all the metal objects in the room with ions... might as well stick ones head in a microwave it will give you a headache more efficiently and not charge all the objects in the room...

Show me SM's mobius where does it figure in his design which is rather grandly being claimed as partially replicated here... the standard defence is there are many more ways than SM's to build a TPU, yet only SM has a working one, so maybe there is only one way to build it, which is not a mobius I would vouch...

Watch SM reel from the shocking headaches that his devices gives him in his videos, oh and the sparks from the metal objects that it ionizes. See him get struck by lighting when he goes outside with his TPU because of the ionic cloud that it gives off... Maybe, just Maybe I missed that video...

The main area where it demonstrates any efficiency is blowing up scopes...

As Sun Tzu said: 'Every battle is won or lost before it is joined'.

This battle of Mobius is lost, you are defending nothing, just as I am attacking nothing...

All there is hot air, or should I say ionic wind 

acerzw

p.s. here's hoping that the next post is someone showing proof that energy conversion is taking place here, or the aether energy is being tapped, or the output power is more than the input power...

[pauldude000]

@acerzw

I came down on you too hard, and I apologize. I should not have done that, and do not uisually respond in such manner.

It is simply that everyone and their uncle seems to think R&D is an easy, fast, cheap one step process. None of these is true. It is difficult, painstaking, expensive, step by step process. It is the process of invention by trial and error.

I want you to understand, I have been following not only this thread, but others here and eslewhere. I have also been watching the new experiments performed at youtube and google. Many show definite and interesting evidence.  Before you flame them back, research what is going on, as many are working off of ottos work, with REAL and interesting results.

Check out joe300 or joe200 (I dont rmember offhand which). Do a simple search on TPU on video.google.com and you will quickly find his videos.

One problem I know of for a fact, with the current misuseage of marks presented evidence, is that marks small 6" coil HAD NO WIRES COMING OFF OF IT, except the connectors for the power takeoff. IE No external power source.

Due to the written and video evidence presented, as well as the letters by an examining engineer, and an examining professor, that the power source was not even possibly batteries for the output, and that the working coil which was cut apart had no evidence of anything in the toroid itself, except wires and a "cork like substance". 

On the 6" coil, this means that the only place for Marks input power, and regulatory circuitry, was a small taped over package approximately 2" X 2" X 1/2" located in the center of the coil. Since this contained both the circuitry for the control coils, and the battery power source to drive the circuitry, the driving power had to be one of four.

1. AAA batteries (prob nicad)
2. AA batteries
3. Watch batteries (prob lithium)
4. 1 9Volt battery

You are right in that they are trying to "overdrive" the units, and that they are still underunity. However, from what I have seen, the circuits used do not feed back in any manner into the control coils, or to the driving circuitry, except for maybe Joe's newest TPU. Even joe is overdriving it though.

Steve's coil was using pulsed DC in the milliamp or maximum fractional amp (9v battery) range. This is a finesse coil, not an amerage sledgehammer coil.

Here is an experiment for all. You assume a magnetic field will not produce electricity in a wire, unless it cuts a wire right?

Here is something to try. Take your VOM, put it on the milliamp scale, and take the magnet of your choice and quickly slide it linearly down the positive lead. I DONT CARE HOW THE FIELD IS ALIGNED. (hint, hint)

I was getting 3.0 to 6.3 or even higher millivolt spikes, no matter the orientation of the field to the wire. My magnet source? A steal shielded POJ tiny mabuki type motor out of a vcr. Even with the miniscule field present, I was attaining this, not cutting the wire by swiping across, but sliding linearly WITH the wire. I tried it both with the field, and against the field, and the effect was the same either way.

Notice something else. Nowhere did I say you had to conect the leads together either... Try it yourself.

This is important to a milliamp driven Q resonant hamonically pulsed coil, which is its own drain through inherent electrical resistance, and needs only one connection........  (positive pulse no ground)

Paul Andrulis