Ok, another "quick" post for ION!
@ION
This is the right attitude, as you say, nothing is set in stone unless proved on the bench. That's why I get a little frayed when you matter of fact state you are 100% sure of the power line harmonic capture but cannot demonstrate that level of power capture on the bench.
That was a rhetorical statement ION, I proved my theory on the bench and you guys have to prove your theory(s). I am 100% convinced of where the power comes from, but you or everybody else doesn't have to share my conviction, and I don’t expect you to. I’m not here to convince anybody of anything and I don't believe I can do it either, except perhaps with a demo very similar to SM's, nothing short of that will suffice. I never had the time or the patience to build something like that because what matters to me is that I have proved the concept to myself and now I am at peace. I now have answers and it no longer bothers me that I don't know how he did it. I learned a lot in the process and I’m truly grateful for undertaking this journey. But, like I said, there are still open questions. I don't claim to know all the details of his device just the part about the source of energy.
For people that say SM had 800 volts and 10 amps, can you do that? This is what I have to say:
If I show you a circuit that produces 80 volts and 1 amp, so 10 times less, from an artificial power line, or transmitter, and this transmitter operates at 10 times LOWER voltage than a normal power line, would you be convinced that I have something similar? If you are not than you don't trust circuit analysis and Ohms law. Everything scales up very nicely. I in fact have achieved something very similar that convinced me that IF I SCALE IT UP IT WILL WORK like SMs TPUs. To have this kind of faith requires training and experience, and I don't expect people on this forum to understand and take me at my word. I just don't have the time these days to build something just so I can convince the skeptics, what would I get from this waste of energy? More ridicule? more skepticism? cries of, “you faked it”? No thank you.
Here's what I built to prove to myself and to an engineer coworker, that LOW FREQUENCY RESONANT MAGNETIC COUPLING IS THE MECHANISM USED BY STEVEN MARK: I built a loop 1 m by 1 m, held it vertical about 6 feet off the ground on a camera tripod, and fed it about 200 V AC (not 60 Hz, it gets very hot, don't do this at home, other safety components were used) Than I built a simple LC tuned loop about 10" diameter with a Q of about 100, and received about 3 volts at ..... get this .... 12 meters away ! Can you picture the proportions? OK, let's stop right here and see what this means. Some of you will say, ah that's nothing, 3 volts at 12 meters, that's worthless! Well, for those trained with experience, they know what the important factors are in scaling up this scenario, here they are:
1 ) Loop Area of the Transmitter Coil
2 ) Loop Area of Receiver Coil
3 ) Separation Distance between the loops normalized to the transmitter diameter.
4 ) The Q of the receiver loop
5 ) OrientationGiven these parameters, I was able to transmit significant power, in my opinion, at a distance of at least 10 times the diameter of the loop just by RESONANT MAGNETIC FIELD COUPLING! Those that have not played with this technology do not have an appreciation for this number. We can obviously achieve much farther power transfer with other technologies like directive power transmission utilizing for example radar beams (Sandia has shown they can transmit Kilowatts of power at distances measured in miles at efficiencies of 85% or better. )
Now, how does this relate to Steven Mark and the Power grid?
Well, if we look at a power grid in southern California from space, or normal to the surface of the earth, i.e. a top view, we see MILLIONS OF LOOPS of wire formed by the grid and carrying AC current with high voltages and low frequencies. Keep proportions in mind for this discussion. If we have a high Q receiver and walk around anywhere in southern California we will always be in the near fields of these loops of wire. If we compare the TPU sizes with these large loops across southern California, we have a ratio of loop diameter to receiver diameter that is very large, so naturally I carried out experiments of this type on the bench utilizing large transmission loops and small, or rather miniature receiver loops, something like 20 inches to 1 inch diameter ratio. To my amazement it worked just fine, and being closer to the transmitter loop relative speaking, I was able to transfer much more power than at larger distances with a much larger receiver loop. The mini loops worked beautifully even up to 30 inches away from the TX loop, which would be analogous to Steven Mark taking his TPU up in the air in an airplane above southern California and receiving power from the huge loops formed by the grid on the ground.
So once again, it’s all about proportions, everything scales up or down to within reasonable limits dictated by conductivity, skin effects, etc.
The only thing that I did not test extensively and I regret not having done it, is DC2DC conversion of the received power output. I did the analysis and I became convinced that I can scale the received voltage for any of the scenarios I described above, and better match the impedance and extract even more power than with a simple LED or resistor connected across the coil, which will disturb the Q of the coil. Impedance matching is very important. In the case of the 3 volts at 12 meters away, if I remember correctly, I could pull about 100 mA, so about 300 mW of power. I estimated that if I design a proper impedance matching circuit I could extract about 3 watts.
Another area I did not explore to my satisfaction is REGENERATION, where I can now drive the receiver in phase to extract even more power, but all this does is translate in a higher Q receiver. My methods of improving Q were low ESR capacitors and proper design of the coil, with lots of strands. But regeneration is something quite important to be explored.
In conclusion, I proved TO MYSELF with math, with circuits, with tests and with experiments I witnessed with my own eyes, that this technology works and how it works and how it scales up. The key words:
TO MYSELF I invite everybody to test their own theories and see if they are valid. I for one have no desire to scale things up at this time. I might do it later and might surprise you guys with a nice video but don't hold your breath. I would much rather spend the time investigating the DC creation mechanism of the TPUs and the high Q acoustic vibrations and how magnetostriction plays a part in the TPUs. Like I said, there are lots of open questions still remaining about the design, not source of power. By the way, the lowest frequency I managed was 20 KHz, and SM was down at 5 kHz. I have a lot of respect for Steven Mark as an engineer and for his TPU designs, he achieved something quite impressive! A wonderful energy harvesting technology! So I defend the guy and say his TPUs are very REAL and something that can transform our society and usher in what Tesla has been dreaming of: GLOBAL WIRELESS POWER !
EM
@e2matrix
lol
Author
Topic: The TPU: Was It Real ? (Read 254738 times)
