Illusions strike deep.

I've made another version of my own TKTickler Reactive Power Generator. Below you can see the images of the device. It uses a 6-turn Tesla Bifilar output coil, two IRF3205 mosfets, and runs on DC input at 12.5 V and about 0.6 Amps. It draws less current than the wireless power transmitter version, I think because of the coil's impedance.

I measured the impedance of the coil in isolation on my Pro'sKit meter and it read about 5 microHenry. I measured the capacitance of the capacitor stack and got a measurement of 64.5 nanoFarad. I measured the oscillation frequency directly across the output coil with the scope and frequency counter and got 303.4 kHz.

Running these numbers through the Resonant Frequency Calculator I get very close to the theoretical prediction. The coil computes to about 4.26 microHenry, taking the frequency measurement on the Philips counter as correct to 6 sig digs.

Now... the output power. I measured directly across the coil and get a pure sinus waveform at 303.4 kHz and 82 v p-p. But what about current? Well.... the coil itself is actually dropping that voltage across it, it is acting as its own "current viewing resistor". But its DC resistance is too low to measure. However, at 303.4 kHz the 4.26 microHenry of inductance produces a reactance of about 8.186 ohms, if I did the math right. So I can state that the coil drops the full 82 V over the 8.186 ohms impedance of the coil. So the current in the coil is (82/8.186) = about 10.02 A p-p.   Right?

So the output power then is 1/8 x V p-p x I p-p = (82)(82/8.186)/8 = about 102.7 Watts. Right?
The input power is 12.5 x 0.6 = about 7.5 W. Right?

So the COP is 102.7/7.5 = only about 13.7. Damn, I was really shooting for COP 20.00. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

(Surely I must put a cosine theta correction in there somewhere, but what's the phase angle of a signal with itself?)

By the way, the mosfets stay cool. The only components that heat are the 100R resistors and the chokes. I'm starting to think that mosfet overheating in these circuits is caused by too much inductance in the load (other causes having been eliminated one by one). I think that if the load inductance goes up, the choke values also have to go up, because the operating frequency will go way down and this means the chokes aren't choking like they should. I fried one 3205 mosfet when the cheap RadioShack choke overheated and shorted. The insulation on the wire they use is a joke. So I rewound both chokes with some high-temperature magnet wire to keep that from happening again. The chokes are critical in this circuit.

I can haz cheezburger now?

Surely we can agree on those simple points.

1) On the charge phase the power dissipated by the resistors cannot charge the capacitors.

2) On the discharge phase the power dissipated by the resistors cannot be returned to the supply.

If we can not all agree on those two points, we have strange things to discuss. 

If anyone disagrees with the two points above please say so and explain why and how it can be different.

..

P.S. Basically these people are claiming that they can draw power from the supply and dissipate almost all of that power in
the light bulbs and then return that same power to the supply.

Our job as experimenters is to determine what is actually happening because what I just described cannot be what is going on.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

..

I don't think they are saying that. Jim Murray is just showing experimentally that the average positive and negative VA averages close to 0 (1watt).  If the power was produced by a generator/motor, half the cycle it is a generator/ half a motor , so average energy consumed is low. The current flowing through the resistance is always consumed in either current flow direction.


The effect of the resistor on the capacitor charge/ discharge is the RC time constant, so charge/discharge is slower with a larger resistance.  It effects the final charging voltage attained in the given charging (also discharging) interval.


So the bottom line is, do we know the circuitry to duplicate the experimental data that is shown?

@Garrett
The measurements I'm citing are steady-state; you can measure that same output power and input power until the battery goes dead. The output in the coil is a pure sine wave at 303 kHz (roughly) and the input is straight non-ripply DC, so there aren't any weird spiky signals that are controversial and difficult to integrate.
 

But... you are preaching to the choir here. My point is that it's not hard to come up with measurements on certain apparatus that can look like OU. The recent hoo-hah over QEG's "overunity in VARs" and the topic of this present thread motivated me to produce some "overunity" demonstrations of my own, using simple electronic means that demonstrate the same principles.

I will say again: If anyone has a genuine electrical OU device with a COP of at least 1.3, much less 20,  I can make it self-loop. I don't care if the input is 20 kV at 30 mA RF and the output is 3 volts and a hundred amperes AC or whatever. If the OU COP is genuine and the inputs and outputs are electrical, I can handle the conversions necessary for self looping. The _fact_ that these reactive OU systems cannot be self looped and in fact can't even power loads efficiently means that they are not, in any real useful sense, overunity at all.

And just as with my circuit which has all that power circulating in the coil and caps, if I take it out it will either collapse the resonant condition and the system will die, or I can take it out just as fast as I am supplying it from the battery. The fact that it's a lot of power circulating, or residing in a capacitor as stored energy, is just peachy keen, but it won't run your microwave oven or your electric scooter any better than the supply source will all on its own.

And of course what I (laughingly) and others (more seriously) call "output" in this kind of situation isn't actually output at all. It's not "output" until it actually gets put out of the system! Thanks Farmhand for making that little bit of trickery explicit.

ETA: Scopeshot below. This is directly across the "output" coil with a 10x attenuated probe, API 510-10-1-A. The horizontal scale is 1 microsecond/division and the vertical scale is 20 volts/division, and the center graticule marker is the baseline. Input is 12.4 V at 0.64 A.

All,

Apologies for the crude schematic. This scheme is in alignment with slide 41 of the  just released Babcock Murray presentation. This doesnt need the caps to be be series linked for discharge.


Barry

I see, this is their circuit.. They discharge the positive cap charge in the negative half cycle, and vice-versa.
Worth trying to experiment.


Comment about classical analysis: OU cannot be computed with classical analysis? since it has been distorted to not have OU. No?


/Wayne

If you go to this page we can see the crazy claims made by these guys, using Tesla and a misuse of Tesla's words to try to make
claims for Tesla he did not make. http://teslaspowermagnification.com/

Power can be taken at a small wattage and then the energy from that power can be delivered at much higher powers, that has
nothing to do with OU and the energy is still the same and no claim of more "energy" is ever made by Tesla. Power is not energy.

From link.

In layman's terms, energy is supplied by a power transformer to run the lights and then is stored in a capacitor. The capacitor is then discharged back through the lights again to the power supply in a way that neutralizes the load seen by the power supply.

The consequences of this energy oscillation is that the load (bulbs) can be powered twice while the net energy supplied by the power supply is reduced to a very small value. The implications of this technology for energy use in the future is absolutely astonishing!

Here is an example of the input compared to the output as measured by a Tektronix scope... What this graph shows is that the SERPS device is drawing 1.1 WATTS net from the power supply but the light bulbs are actually burning 52.7 WATTS. 52.7 watts divided by 1.1 watts = a COP or coefficient of performance of 47.90, which is 4790% more energy than is required to run the machine.

The input represents the difference between the energy provided and the energy returned. The output represents the work accomplished as this energy oscillates in and out of the system.

They are misrepresenting Tesla's words.

..

I'll say it again .

1) The energy dissipated by the bulbs as light and heat and the power consumed on the charge phase does not charge the
capacitors.

2) The energy dissipated by the bulbs as light and heat and the power consumed on the discharge phase does not get returned
to the supply.

This leaves only one possibility, the power is not being measured correctly.

..

The text says,

Here is an example of the input compared to the output as measured by a Tektronix scope... What this graph shows is that the SERPS device is drawing 1.1 WATTS net from the power supply but the light bulbs are actually burning 52.7 WATTS. 52.7 watts divided by 1.1 watts = a COP or coefficient of performance of 47.90, which is 4790% more energy than is required to run the machine.

http://teslaspowermagnification.com/images/serpsscope.jpg


But the image shows only the misuse of scopes. That oscilloscope can provide a full, comprehensive, straight-on image of its full screen including all settings, which are necessary to interpret the traces shown. Instead these bozos display a photo of a screenshot of a powerpoint slide or something, that doesn't show what's needed to make a proper interpretation. I know from that that these folks are from the "numbers in boxes" school of scoposcopy: they do not know what traces actually can indicate, they can only read the numbers in boxes. Or perhaps they Do know and just don't want YOU to know. And they are deliberately obfuscating the real information in order to push their fantasy "discovery". I show you more actual information in an analog shot from my Tek 2213a than you are getting from these claimants with their fancy expensive Etch-a-Sketch scope.


I say it yet again: If you have a device that has electrical input and electrical output, and it makes a _genuine_ overunity COP of 1.3 to 1 or greater, I can make it self-loop, no matter the form of the electrical inputs and outputs.  Any competent electrical engineer could do the same. If a device with COP of 1.3 or greater cannot be made to self loop... then the measurements and interpretation that lead to the high COP claim... are wrong.

And the standard error is clearly evident all throughout the claims: Power is multiplied! Great, so what. I have Tesla coils that, when measured like they are doing, provide COPs in the thousands, too. But POWER IS NOT ENERGY... and these folks know that. That's why they have to sell books and CDs in order to make enough money... to pay their electric bills!

Garrett, Don't you mean to say that it looks all reactive to the meter ? The supply will see the power consumed and the energy
delivered regardless of what the meters and scopes say.

To all.

The supply cannot deliver energy to the load and also not deliver it. If the energy is dissipated by the load, and power must be
consumed to do that. Then the supply will have supplied the energy and real power will have been consumed in the process.
The meters and scopes will only tell us what they can or are designed to do. Meters can be tricked and scopes misused.

Basically the supply delivers energy to the load and real power is consumed which does not get returned to the supply.
The only thing left to do is understand how they get the wave forms and power readings.

One thing is for sure, the energy dissipated by the bulbs is lost to the system and the power consumed to cause that is
real power which is consumed.

Just because claims are made that appear to show evidences that the power is not metered does not mean that the supply did
not supply the energy or that the power was not consumed. We can see energy was delivered to the load (the lights light up)
that energy does not get returned to the supply.

Now if the experiment was done with a 300 Watt inverter we would soon see that battery supplies real power to run the system.

..

Does someone have a link to the Steinmetz Reflection Criteria? I see his books are on archive.org. Which one goes over that particular topic?