Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[acerzw]

@paul

I do understand R & D is hard, my point is there is no useful R & D on this thread anymore, the overdriving and the over emphasis on the Mobius are pointless, the theories here are heading in the wrong direction. I have even seen people suggest using the excess heat as a power source!

I agree with your point that other's have done useful work based on work done in this thread, I also follow all the other threads, and have read many from the beginning, and I have seen some of the Google videos...

But the claims for the mobius and this particular replication are simply not justified and as I keep saying nothing has been proven here, no energy conversion, no COP > 1, nothing but excess heat generation and dangerous ionic charging of objects in the environment. God forbid someone should fire one of these up near someone with a pacemaker... SM's coil exhibits none of the harmful attributes of this replication..

This design has lost its way, it is past its sell by date. I know R & D is hard, but this R & D has lost its direction, it has departed so much from the thing it seeks to replicate as to be useless...

I just think we need to get back to basics... no mobius... no over-powering...

Acerzw

[pauldude000]

Not trying to toot my own horn, but try to gently guide the concept back into the direction necessary. You catch a lot more flies with honey, than with vinegar.

Actually, the mobius design may well BE overunity, but not in the desired manner. If it is putting out and amount of appreciable electricity that is.

Why do I say this? Overunity is more energy out than is put in. However, energy has many forms, of which electricity is only one of many.

If the mobius strip is putting out heat, the important question is HOW MANY WATTS? (Heat is produced energy)

If the mobius strip is producing an ionizing field, what are the equivalent watts? (Ions are produced energy.)

If his coil is using say 150 watts of electricity to produce 130 watts electricity, 30 watts heat, and 2 watts ionic field, then it is still overunity, as the combined total work output in watts is 162, for the input of 150.

Something to consider.

Paul Andrulis

[HopeForHumanity]

Dudes!

They explained that they found the seed, or point of conversion. They were never sure if it was overunity. They explained they have successfuly accomplished a step toward the full TPU. Thats why he called it a TPU-ECD. They have scope shots of the seed and point it out. I think that was the entire point of the ECD, I mean it standed for Energy Conversion Device. And they said the seed was the point of conversion.

[acerzw]

@HopeforHumanity

yes they did, but that was a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away... one small step for man, one mediumish goat sized step for TPU...

aeons ago.

Acerzw

[pauldude000]

@hope

I know! I watched and paid attention to Joes and otto's video's, the effects demonstrated, as well as the observations they stated..

Jason (joe) is so dead on in thinking I almost felt like doing cartwheels. His lines of approach to trial testing using the scope were pure genius.

However, after reading the posts here, I noticed that what was lacking generally is fundamental understanding of why. If you understand why an open wire spikes voltage at a given resonance and why to pick a particular frequency and why specific frequencies interact in a specific way in said scenario -> then building coils and choosing frequencies are no longer guesswork, they become understood and therefore computational.

If someone builds a coil, for instance, and uses the scope to find the main "sweet spot", then the other two frequencies become a matter of pencil and paper, which should be verifiable through scope and function generator.

However, I quite literally do not think these coils are the coils shown in marks video's or described in his papers. I think they are similar in concept, but not the same. This is not necessarily a bad thing either. Whatever works ehh?

Just as there is more than one way to wind a working transformer, there is guaranteed to be other ways to wind working TPU's.

Jason is dead on in his concept of a rotating magnetic field. He is bang on in his concept of using open circuit control coils.

(THAT IS HOW YOU POWER SUCH A CIRCUIT OFF OF A 9v Battery, or a couple of AA's)

Jason should have hooked an ammeter up to the lead of his function generator, as he would have found probably an initial surge to saturate the coil, followed by almost no amperage draw.

"-------"
Otto's was semi-working, and I am not being fascetious. You should have noticed something in otto's video which was not present in either joe's or marks....... that horrid audible whine. His circuit was oscillating in the low khz band (audio <25000khz), and excited air molecules were therefore vibrating in the audio frequency.

What is awesome is that you could tell, because of this whine, that his coil was definitely producing a rotating magnetic wave!

Why? Because as the field traveled around the coil, it left a path of ionized air, which also gave a warbelling "beat" to the audible sound.

The problem is that you could tell that his wave was not rotating near fast enough. The amount of current and voltage produced is going to be directly relative to the speed of rotation of the wave in relation to the collector. That is why his stalled completely, and glowed dimly with only a fourty watt bulb. HE IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK THOUGH...

"---------"
For everyone whom knows anything about transformers or generators... which produces greater wattage with the same unit, faster or slower change in magnetic field? (The answer is faster, for those who don't)

In a transformer a higher frequency input at a given number of turns is more efficient producing higher wattage. In a generator, faster armeture rotation speed yields greater wattage. Both for the same reason, namely that the change in field over time is greater.

Surface area of the conductor, strength of magnetic field, and rapidity of change of the magnetic field in relation to the conductor over time, are the mainstays of current production.

This is still true in a TPU........ Imagine the current production at perfect resonance, when the limiting speed should be at least close to C (speed of light, which is only applicable in superconducting wire)!

Even with ordinary non-superconductors, extremely high rates of wave propagation should be possible.

1. Much would depend upon the size of the TPU (smaller TPU faster rotation as less distance per rotation.).
2. Core materials (higher reluctance slower rotation).
3. Wire (higher resistivity due to material and surface area yields slower rotation and slower field peak times, and lower voltage peaks.).
4. Individual Coil resonance with the applied frequency (the closer to resonance the greater the amplification and wave propogation)
5. Overall TPU resonance to the applied frequencies (same as 4)

As they are being built now, by everyone, it is kind of a hit and miss. Two experimenters may build coils that seem identical to each other in construction, yet have seemingly anomalous results, IE one works great, the other barely works, or even refuses to work, and no one the wiser as to why.

The answers are always simple. What is always the most difficult is discovering the right question to ask.

I am hoping by my observations and proposed methods of thought and calculation to put everyones attempts at least in the same ballpark, preferrably a homerun. Somewhere early next year, I hope to be making TPU's myself (after tax time). I need some gear first, as I want to know exactly what is going on with each aspect as I build. However, I can start designing now.

Paul Andrulis