The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[Grumpy]

no one has come forward and explained Paul's experiment as of today.

SM told us the kicks are overunity and that they are current kicks. the voltage kicks we see in Paul's scope shots are not overunity. they are a basic electrical reaction due to Lenz's law.

all things being ideal, the voltage kicks seen in Paul's post would have been closer to the 20V level, not 12V.

they are higher than the applied voltage--why?

because of Lenz's law, the inductor will produce a counter emf, and it is this cemf that we see as the 12V spikes.

the two concentric pancake coils is more complicated than it needs to be. wind a simple single air core inductor (solenoid) to give you about the same inductance as your pancake coil (about 20uH) and pulse it the same way. you'll get almost the same scope shot, with no ringing or resonance. the spikes will be there, both negative and positive as before.

every piece of wire no matter how long has some inductance, and every device that will drive this piece of wire has a finite output impedance (50 Ohm typical for function generators, and the crirical missing element in duff's model), so in theory it should be possible to produce these voltage kicks on demand. in fact in practice, it should be impossible to get rid of them.

so at the end of the day, what do we have? we have some transient cemf produced that exceeds the applied input voltage level, but current does not increase nor does the power, leaving us with exactly what we put in, minus some natural losses.

but we still don't have the kicks SM talked about, because the above kicks are not increases in current, and they aren't overunity.

so until now the peanut gallery has been mostly quiet about this. forgive me for breaking my promise of keeping quiet

Paul showed differentiated pulses - whoop-de-doo.

Had anyone here done an ounce of study they would know that the primary and secondary of a Tesla Transformer (the two pancake coils) is a differentiator.  The transformation ratio is not related to turns but to frequency - shall we say "air core" or "electrostatic"?  You can get a good square wave with the right coupling coefficient...hint hint

Got off thine ass and use these pulses to drive a separate coil by impulse excitation and you might save your ass after all - or not... 

[Grumpy]

There seems to be some odd concepts. Volatge is no more separate from the electrons it represents, as one aspect of their movement, than is amperage.

I guess you never heard of "virtual charges".

By the way, the Earth's magnetic field has "three" components - try and apply that to your bar magnet.  Go ahead - look it up.

[Grumpy]

Simply put, you grumpy do not desire to communicate, you wish to declare without any debate allowed.

Yet, we are still communicating...

You misquote Tesla, then when shown HIS EXACT WORDS deny it as true.

When did I ever misquote anyone, Tesla or otherwise?  I am very precise, even when cryptic.  I posted Tesla's exact statement and it's source - and hence - resonance is NOT required.

Take for instance innovations arrogant statements made in the last couple of posts. I intend to check the quoted source EVEN IF I HAVE ALREADY READ IT, again, to see if what he says is true.

Everyone laughs at I_H, but he is an information magnet and knows more about free energy than most on this forum - fools.  Instead of picking his brain, people just laugh like silly little girls. 

[/quote]

[Grumpy]

Tesla designed what was commonly called a "death ray", which has a common definition today..... a particle accelerator.

How can you have a "particle accelerator" without particles?   The charged region of space around the elevated terminal of a Tesla Magnifier is not particulate in nature and grows (expands) as a log periodic spiral - the Golden Ratio - non-verbatum quote from Eric Dollard and confirmed by Builders who shall remain nameless. 

Once again you make assumptions.

[Grumpy]

The magnetism of the earth is not comparable to gravity, which cant be seen as eminating perpendicularly from the surface of the earth.

Wrong.  One of the three components of the Earth's magnetic field is "vertical".

Again, you make assumptions.

Magnetism is a 2D field - magnetism is 3D.  Might want to write this down.