Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => Reactive Power usage => Topic started by: synchro1 on May 07, 2014, 07:25:54 PM

Title: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 07, 2014, 07:25:54 PM

Here's a video: They claim power's generated by the current, voltage out of phase 90 degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 12:44:54 AM
This video was placed by Gotoluc on his thread. I read the comments, some really very dumb, like Milehigh's:


"Luc,

I watched the clip.  I am going to read between the lines for you and I am not going to mince words.

The cost for the conference is $400 per person and they state that the attendance is limited to 150 people and they state that there are 72 seats left.  So they are only half-sold and the conference is less than two months away.  I am going to guess that if they sell out they will actually over-sell and sell 175 seats.  So that's 175 x 400 = $70,000 that they want to split up amongst themselves.

Reactive power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) is nothing more than power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) that you originally put into a reactive device, i.e.; an inductor or a capacitor, that is spat back at you by the reactive device.  Think of a training center for boxers where there is that thing where you punch a bag and it's on a vertical shaft with a stiff spring.  I just looked it up it's called a "speed bag."  You punch the speed bag and it punches you back.  That's all reactive power is, period.

Think of slowly charging a capacitor through a resistor, and then slowly discharging the same capacitor to ground through the same resistor - energy in then energy out.  Now replace that with a sine wave excitation and you more or less get the same thing - energy in then energy out.  "Reactive power" is not some "other form of power" - it's nothing more than the power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) you yourself supplied a fraction of a second before, just like the boxing speed bag.  In a sense, reactive power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) doesn't even exist.  Think of playing with a big spring, do you sense that there is some "new power" coming from the spring?

Anyway, here is the reality as I see it:  Aaron's clip is nothing more than a cynical ploy to sell more tickets so that he can hit his $70K target.  I have to believe that it is a staged clip where there are pitchmen for the fake setup, and the rest of the people are just casual observers who are not aware of what's going on.  I know saying that almost sounds crazy, but look at the model of John Rohner as an example.

All that we saw was a scope waveform and some boxes and a variac and a 100-watt resistor.

You want a clue that it is a fake?  That looks like a legit 100-watt power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) resistor in the setup.  It's supposed to be mounted vertically so the heat can be drawn away by the hot air flowing up the center of the tube like a chimney.  The bozos have it mounted horizontally.

When I see things like this sometimes I get offended.  That clip is an insult to every legitimate scientist and engineer involved in the electronics industry, and in a more general sense it's an insult to everyone.

Think about this:  If you were to scope the entire signal chain between the input to the load resistor, at some point you would have find a place where the voltage or current or both are much more than they are supposed to be.  Like somehow the average power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) or energy per cycle 20-fold like some magic energy is raining down like manna from heaven.  Do you get me?   Put your scope probes on point A and see 5 watts, then put your scope probes on point B and see 100 watts.  With your scope you should be able to see where the "magic power" enters the circuit.

Don't forget, these are the same people that at a previous conference projected a computer animation of a 10-coiler Bedini motor alternately charging battery banks back and forth while the unused bank was running an inverter and powering a house.  "Use a 10-coiler and you never have to pay for power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) again" was the message in that animation.  That's total crap and has never ever been proven and they had the audacity to project that at a conference".

MileHigh


Quote from MH:


"You want a clue that it is a fake?  That looks like a legit 100-watt power (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg401521/) resistor in the setup.  It's supposed to be mounted vertically so the heat can be drawn away by the hot air flowing up the center of the tube like a chimney.  The bozos have it mounted horizontally".


It's mounted horizontilly to demonstrate the accumulation of heat, not to dissipate it.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on May 08, 2014, 02:20:06 AM
I would have to agree with MileHigh's assessment.

It's a desperation move without doubt.

But, having said that, I would LOVE to be proven
wrong...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 02:58:22 AM
@SeaMonkey,


Milehigh's comparison of a spring to reactive power is completely false. A spring has real power stored in it. Reactive power is void of any real power. The claims of 20 times overunity may be false, but they have to be false for the right reasons. Milehigh really pumped way too much poop into his criticism.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: e2matrix on May 08, 2014, 03:11:42 AM
Yeah I agree he totally went off on that one.   He even said it might sound crazy and yes it does sound crazy MileHigh.   You have been affected by solar flares or something.    Actually that resistor looks exactly like one I've got which is 225 watts.   Whether it is 100 or 225 if it is a higher wattage than Murray said in the video only reinforces they are getting more power out if it's getting hot with a higher wattage rating than he said.     Murray has high credentials as well as a patent.   Is Aaron trying to make some money on the conference?   Sure.  So what.   That doesn't mean Murray and Babcock are thrown their reputations to the wind and lying.   They seem to have something valid and some explanations that sound right too.   
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on May 08, 2014, 03:37:48 AM
The spring analogy is actually not too bad.

A capacitor or Inductor within an AC circuit
is continually absorbing energy (charging)
or releasing energy (discharging) in much the
same manner that a spring would be compressed
(charged) and expanded (discharged).

As the slope of the applied AC voltage is increasing
the reactors charge; as the slope of the applied AC
voltage decreases the reactors discharge; alternately
storing energy and releasing energy.

Y'all see something different than that?

So long as the reactive charging and discharging
are taking place without losses none of the
energy will be dissipated as power.

In truth there are some slight losses (IIR) so the
reactors are less than ideal.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MileHigh on May 08, 2014, 04:03:33 AM
SeaMonkey sees it too so now we have two crazies!  lol

Think about your experiences pumping up a bicycle tire to 70 PSI by hand.  When the pressure starts to get very high it takes a lot of physical work to pass a little puff of air into the tire.  The capacitor is doing the same thing when it's at a higher voltage.

You have to try to grok this one and commune with Yoda and take some Spice and get electric blue eyes.  Then perhaps you will see into infinity and understand.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Dave45 on May 08, 2014, 04:04:30 AM
http://makeagif.com/i/mqXzyk
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MileHigh on May 08, 2014, 04:12:44 AM
When it comes to the resistor, if you knew what you you were doing, if you wanted to get across to your audience that you possessed the minimum skill set to demonstrate you were "in the know" about electronics, you would mount the big pretzel resistor vertically.  Some may find that picky, but a lot of others would share my opinion.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 09:04:20 PM

Quote from e2matrix:

"Milehigh you are right you sound crazy.   You've gone off the deep end on this one.  It must be difficult keeping up with crushing all the new things that seem to be coming out faster and faster every day.   Firstly if that is a 100 watt resistor rather than a 50 watt resistor like they said in the video and it's getting hot then they must be getting even more power out so that sort of defeats your purpose of trying to call this fake.   It actually looks just like a resistor I've got that is 225 watts.   Whether it's 50, 100 or 225 if it's getting hot on 5 watts input they are onto something good IMO.  I also disagree that it should be mounted vertically.  IMO heat dissipation would be better in the horizontal position.   Heat comes more off the outside of that type resistor than it does the inside.  If it was vertical the heat from one end would be adding to the heat of the middle and the top end would be getting extra hot.  I would have liked to hear your honest evaluation on this but you are sounding like a raving lunatic in your last post".
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 09:12:58 PM
Reactive power: Reactive power does not do any work, so it is represented as the imaginary axis of the vector diagram. Real power does do work, so it is the real axis.

A better analogy would be like rolling a ball along an inclined plane. A force compared to reactive power holds the ball in position but delivers no force to the forward trajectory.

Real work is done when a spring is compressed, and real power released when it springs back!


@Dave45,

Thanks for the GIF!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 09:59:52 PM

Pay close attention to this fact:

"Engineers care about apparent power, because even though the current associated with reactive power does no work at the load, it heats the wires, wasting energy".


                                                             Reactive waste heat equals reactive watts!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 08, 2014, 11:08:08 PM

Consider this:



"Capacitors and inductors (which are sometimes called reactors) are passive devices that generate or absorb reactive power. They accomplish this without significant real-power losses or operating expense".
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 09, 2014, 12:21:39 AM
The transmission line itself is also a source of reactive power. A line that is open on the other end (without load) is like a capacitor and is a source of capacitive (leading) reactive power. The lengthwise inductances without current are not magnetized and do not introduce any reactive components.

On the other hand, when a line is conducting high current, the contribution of the lengthwise inductances is prevalent and the line itself becomes a source of inductive (lagging) reactive power. For each line can be calculated a characteristic value of power flow Sk.

If the transmitted power is above Sk, the line will introduce additionally inductive reactive power, and if it is below Sk, the line will introduce capacitive reactive power. The value of Sk depends on the voltage: for 400 kV line is about 32% of the nominal transmission power, for 220 kV line is about 28% and for 110 kV line is about 22%. The percentage will vary accordingly to construction parameters.


The ball across the incline plan moves faster as voltage rises, hence the the higher the reactive force per second to keep it in plane. Also, one can see the higher the voltage and applied reactive power the greater the percentage of reactive power generated in the transmission line itself. 32% at 400KV!

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 09, 2014, 01:01:15 AM
They must reduce the phase angle on the reactive power back to zero after spontaneously generating it in conjunction with hundreds of Kilovolts between the capacitors and inductor. This would no longer be reactive power but real power after phase conjunction. Looks like a genuine overunity device to me, and not a hoax!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: forest on May 09, 2014, 08:24:28 AM
I know nothing about reactive power but ...I believe it is resonant power trying to escape every way it could. Second , I found very interesting information that reactive power IS USED to keep stable voltage at the end of the transmission line which means it may be related to standing wave resonance.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 09, 2014, 05:26:06 PM
@Forest,

That's correct. Every power engineer masters the vector formula conceived of by Nicola Tesla. Reactive Power has to be generated and fed into the transmission line in proper amounts determined by the cosine for the (S) Apparent power leg of the triangle. (See below). The COSINE is the phase angle of the power factor. The (Q) Reactive Power signal see saws between the source and load while the high voltage current directs itself in tandem towards the load. Reactive Power is merely a carrier signal, and can do no work. It is needed to help the high voltage travel in the transmission line, and costs money to generate.

The video track shows the narrator discussing Maxwell, and his equations concerning electrical and magnetic fields. Then he goes on to say that people learned that current itself generated power. This was explained by Lorentz: The electrons bend when Reactive Power passes the voltage at 180 degrees. This creates magnetic fields around the electrons, like a partial loop in a coil. The fields intersect and power is generated on the Reactive side. This extra power has to be bled off, and is closely metered and disposed of. That's why the narrator goes on to explain that Tesla forecast that the transmission line grid could deliver 1000 times more power, for the same input cost, if Reactive Power line output were looped back into the grid. The OU Reactive Power factor for 400KV at the proper Power Factor Cosine is 37% in the transmission line from the Lorentz force. This is exactly what the experimenters are succeeding at in the video

Farmhand mentioned that the fact that the narrator mentioned Tesla a few times spoke "Volumes" about the hoax nature of the demonstration. This is absolute nonsense from a guy who uploaded a few videos and acts like some kind of savant.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 09, 2014, 06:26:50 PM

The power generated in the line by Lorentz force is termed "System Gain": From A.C. power wikipedia:

Generator_MVARs + System_gain + Shunt_capacitors = MVAR_Demand + Reactive_losses + Shunt_reactors

"The ‘System gain’ is an important source of reactive power in the above power balance equation, which is generated by the capacitive nature of the transmission network itself".


The video demonstrates "System Gain" on a test bench!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 10, 2014, 07:05:15 PM

PDF from member avalon; The Stepanov Reactive Power Transformer COP 9.4:



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on May 10, 2014, 10:10:09 PM
OK the patent application EP2429071 makes this disclosure and these claims below.

Quote
Disclosure of Invention
[0004] The technical result produced by the claimed
invention is that a single direct current source increases
significantly the continuous operation time thereof to the
length of the service life of the battery
.

Quote
Claims
1. A rechargeable autonomous power supply in a single
storage battery comprising a direct current source
and an inverter
having its output connected, via a
bridge rectifier, in parallel to a real load, said power
supply further having a second bridge rectifier, a
matching transformer, and two electronic transistor
switches with a control system, a diode, and a capacitors,
the input of the second bridge rectifier being
connected in parallel to the secondary winding of the
matching transformer that has its primary winding
connected in series to the inverter output and the
input of the first bridge rectifier having its output connected
in parallel to the capacitor and, via one electronic
switch, to a load with a capacitor, the output
of the second bridge rectifier being connected to the
capacitor and, via the second electronic switch and
diode, to the direct current source, and the control
electrodes of the transistor switches being connected
to the control circuit.


Now call me suspicious but I see a pattern, guy makes patent application which shows energy returned to the battery or in the case of Tariel he showed a supply disconnect switch and claimed it could power itself.

Using the patent application as some kind of validation they proceed to claim any number of devices that can self run and produce excess power, in Tariel's case he makes money with dodgy demo's where no one can check anything out, and takes investors money I guess. Who knows what Stepanov's angle is. I don;t think it helps anything for a lot of people to declare what he shows is legit and promote it without any real proof.

So we can see the patent application does not claim free energy, it only appears to, to some people. However I don't think it is as novel as he thinks it is.

As far as the demo with the light bank goes, he made a point to show there was no extra wires to the actual bank of load bulbs but made no effort to identify all wires into the box or the meters.

Simply put a video is good if all is shown and it makes some sense. But if the video raises more questions than it answers then it is not much to go on.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 11, 2014, 12:18:55 AM
@Farmhand,


What do you make of this German Certificate of Measurement reporting a COP of 9.4 from Stepanov's transformer? A sneaky wire like the one you imagine would have been noticed by the inspector, don't you think?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: avalon on May 11, 2014, 09:22:08 AM
OK the patent application EP2429071 makes this disclosure and these claims below.


Now call me suspicious but I see a pattern, guy makes patent application which shows energy returned to the battery or in the case of Tariel he showed a supply disconnect switch and claimed it could power itself.

Using the patent application as some kind of validation they proceed to claim any number of devices that can self run and produce excess power, in Tariel's case he makes money with dodgy demo's where no one can check anything out, and takes investors money I guess. Who knows what Stepanov's angle is. I don;t think it helps anything for a lot of people to declare what he shows is legit and promote it without any real proof.

So we can see the patent application does not claim free energy, it only appears to, to some people. However I don't think it is as novel as he thinks it is.

As far as the demo with the light bank goes, he made a point to show there was no extra wires to the actual bank of load bulbs but made no effort to identify all wires into the box or the meters.

Simply put a video is good if all is shown and it makes some sense. But if the video raises more questions than it answers then it is not much to go on.

Once again, you are looking at / quoting a wrong patent. The one that you need to read is titled 'Resonant transformer'.

~A
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: synchro1 on May 11, 2014, 03:52:42 PM
Here's a schematic of Stepanov's transformer from his patent:
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 09, 2014, 08:04:55 PM
It seems this Murray 2000 % device is pretty easy to do.

You only have to make sure that you run your load via a capacitor that is charged and discharged from the grid
AC potential.
ANd then you just switch the current so the input power always stays reactive or the input power
always go negative all the time.

So in simple words it is just a RLC phase shifter with switching integrated .

Have a look like it is explained here. Makes a lot of sense.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/16966-cop-20-0-2000-demonstration-2.html#post256412

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 10, 2014, 12:36:30 AM
Here are 2 scopeshots of the Math function of the device from Babcock/Murray from the recent
Bedini Conference:

http://energyscienceconference.com/?attachment_id=208 (http://energyscienceconference.com/?attachment_id=208)

There you can see, that the input power into the circuit, ( the lower red Math function on the left)
is mostly pure reactive, as the areas over the ground line are equal to the amount of area below the ground line...
So power is going into the circuit and coming out of the circuit....

If you look at the waves at the lamp at the right side you see, that there are the waves just switched in polarity so
the power at the lamps are real and not reactive.

So the currents that generate the Watts that are dissipated at the lamps , are going back again to the grid and
reduce there the input power...

So the input power is oscillating back and forth between the powerstation and your circuit and is not used up, but
your circuit is still powered by real watts by it...
And only using an LCR phase shift and the right polarity switching.

Pretty easy principle, but you first need to realize this...

Regards, Stefan.

P.S:

Here are a few pics from Jim Murray and Paul  Babcock's presentation on the SERPS showing COP 50.0 (5000%) -  Jim Murray & Paul Babcock SERPS COP 50.0 (5000%) Presentation | 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference (http://energyscienceconference.com/2014/07/09/jim-murray-paul-babcock-serps-cop-50-0-5000-presentation/ (http://energyscienceconference.com/2014/07/09/jim-murray-paul-babcock-serps-cop-50-0-5000-presentation/))
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 10, 2014, 01:03:41 AM
If you look at the complex pointers arroy diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/dlattach/attach/138224/

to produce 52.7 Watts at the lamps you need to supply at least then about 55 Watts of
Aparent power and also about 53 Watts of reactive power , while the real active input power is
only 1.1 Watts...

To produce 55 Watts of aparent power with about 53 Watts of reactive power you don´t need much
power, just a low power LC circuit on its own resonance frequency with some feedback transistor circuit...
As the Babcock/Murray circuit delivers all the AC current back that is feeded into it, the load on the driver
LC circuit will not be big and thus the power only oscillates back and forth...You only
need to use low loss wires, so bigger diameter stranded of litz wire copper cables with low I^2R losses...


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 10, 2014, 05:00:29 AM
Well, if you believe that indicates real OU performance, then you really should award the Overunity Prize... to me, based on the device and measurements I showed in the QEG thread. Because I am measuring the same kind of power in basically the same manner.
And after all, mine is battery powered and fits inside a small box, too.

Electrical devices that take electrical input and produce electrical output can most definitely be self-looped if they produce a _real_ COP of about 135 percent. If someone claims a COP of 9 or 20 or something silly like that from a device with electrical inputs and outputs, but cannot self-loop it... you can know _for sure_ that it is a mismeasurement or misinterpretation of measurement.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 10, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
Hi All,
How to have a complete schematic for renewable and testing this device?

Regards
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 10, 2014, 08:20:09 AM
If you look at the complex pointers arroy diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/dlattach/attach/138224/

to produce 52.7 Watts at the lamps you need to supply at least then about 55 Watts of
Aparent power and also about 53 Watts of reactive power , while the real active input power is
only 1.1 Watts...

To produce 55 Watts of aparent power with about 53 Watts of reactive power you don´t need much
power, just a low power LC circuit on its own resonance frequency with some feedback transistor circuit...
As the Babcock/Murray circuit delivers all the AC current back that is feeded into it, the load on the driver
LC circuit will not be big and thus the power only oscillates back and forth...You only
need to use low loss wires, so bigger diameter stranded of litz wire copper cables with low I^2R losses...


Regards, Stefan.

The problem is Stefan that the 55 Watts apparent power includes the 53 Watts reactive power and the power consumed by the
lamps is real power as soon as it powers a load, so the output (real power) is 52.7 or 53 Watts dissipated by the load and the
reactive power is that which is returned to the grid.

Remember "energy" is actually what is dissipated by the load and if energy is dissipated then power is consumed and it takes
energy to furnish that power.

Somewhere there is a mistake or it's a con. All real and reactive power in a grid powered device is supplied by the grid and if that
reactive power is not returned to the grid then it is paid for or stolen.

If these systems are meant to free us from the grid then why do they always use the grid ? It makes no sense.

If you do the search below and click on the link to the "Alternating Voltage Control Apparatus" PDF it shows a system I think is very similar and likely superior.
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Patent%203%2C735%2C673

Having said that, if they actually show any real over C.O.P. =1.0 performance then I'll use it if I can. I'm waiting but not for them
to show OU, I'm waiting for several years to pass with nothing coming of it.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: forest on July 10, 2014, 12:10:00 PM
If you look at the complex pointers arroy diagramm
http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/dlattach/attach/138224/ (http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/dlattach/attach/138224/)

to produce 52.7 Watts at the lamps you need to supply at least then about 55 Watts of
Aparent power and also about 53 Watts of reactive power , while the real active input power is
only 1.1 Watts...

To produce 55 Watts of aparent power with about 53 Watts of reactive power you don´t need much
power, just a low power LC circuit on its own resonance frequency with some feedback transistor circuit...
As the Babcock/Murray circuit delivers all the AC current back that is feeded into it, the load on the driver
LC circuit will not be big and thus the power only oscillates back and forth...You only
need to use low loss wires, so bigger diameter stranded of litz wire copper cables with low I^2R losses...


Regards, Stefan.

Good confirmation that there is no law of conservation of work. The same amount of ENERGY can do MUCH more work in some circumstances, limited only to the friction ! Limit the friction and you got apparent overunity and REAL MORE WORK DONE (compared to more wasteful methods)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 10, 2014, 06:52:55 PM
.... based on the device and measurements I showed in the QEG thread.

Where exactly ?
Please post exact URL to the posting. Sorry as I am very busy I can´t read all threads...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 10, 2014, 07:00:12 PM

.... and if that reactive power is not returned to the grid ...


Indeed it is returned. that is why it is only using 1.1 real active Watts in this case
and the reactive power oscillates back and forth between grid and your device.

And in the device it is used as Real Active power...!

But the grid sees it coming back as reactive power, so you don´t need
mechanical power in the generator to produce it, it just oscillates back and forth..

So you don´t need to burn oil or cole to produce it...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 10, 2014, 10:35:19 PM
Well for energy to be transferred to the load then power must be consumed, if the power is returned to the grid then it is not
consumed and so it did no work that is reactive power, if the power does work then it is consumed and therefore cannot return to
the supply.

There must be a mistake or a deception at play. We cannot use power then return it to the supply, it's as simple as that. Once we
use it as real power then it is gone out of the system. If it does not leave the system then it isn't dissipated and so it is not output.

I treat those guys like politicians, unless there is hard proof of what they say you can bet it's all lies. There must be a play on words
which means not what it says.

Of course time will tell, but that is what they all prey on, it goes on forever with never any real useful info or anything just a baited hook.

None of it makes any sense at all, there is no logic to it and absolutely no reason to believe anything that any associates of Aaron Murikami say.

I've said my piece so I won't argue any more. to put it simply Energy cannot be created and we can only dissipate energy from a
system once, as soon as any energy is dissipated as work it is no longer in the system. We cannot dissipate energy out of a
system as work then miraculously have it back again to dissipate once more.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: forest on July 10, 2014, 11:01:18 PM
Farmhand

Are you sure that the electrical energy inside wires is converted into heat and light on bulbs ?
I know you can imagine a resonant system wih a perfect bulb which do not change resistance during time...how is that powered by less input power .... got the idea ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 10, 2014, 11:02:49 PM
And as for Eric Dollard, In my opinion he is doing his reputation irreparable damage by associating with them and contradicting himself.

In a recent posting he claims that a distribution transformer can be used to create a VLF Tesla system and compares pole
transformers to Tesla coils, saying that a 1/4 wave resonant distribution transformer at resonance will act like a Tesla transformer.

And after all his postings about how the Tesla transformer is special and all, then he comes out and says a pole transformer will do
the same at low frequency. Go figure. A Tesla coil is not required for ground wave transmissions. It can be done with about any transformer.
Nothing special about the Tesla transformer as far as energy transmission goes. Nada. Eric made himself obsolete with that posting.
He is full of contradictions.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 10, 2014, 11:55:07 PM
Forest your post makes no sense to me. If you are trying to tell me we can dissipate energy as output then still have it in the system
then you're wasting your time.

Power is not energy.  C.O.P. > 1.0 means more energy out than we put in.

Now How much energy is input and how much energy is output over the entire period from startup to shutdown ?
If you don't know then you can hardly determine the efficiency. Energy is energy and power is the rate of energy application
dissipation ect. To get an efficiency figure we must compare "real" power in to "real" power output or compare energy input to
energy output. There is not enough information given to make any determination ourselves, we are only getting what we are told.

I still say that we are not shown the entire story, and until we have it we can only speculate, nothing is proven.

The power dissipated by the load is output (real power) and the power returned to the grid is reactive power. Reactive power is not used as by definition reactive power is unused power returning to the grid, any power dissipated by a load is real power by definition.
..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 11, 2014, 04:46:35 AM
Farmhead , you have not understood the principle.
Surely WITHOUT switching the quarter waveforms in polarity it will not work.

Only if you use the trick to switch the polarity of the caps in the circuit every quarter wavelength or so it will work that you have many negative input power curves.

Look at the red MATH traces of the posted device .
But you are probably not used to interpret these waveforms.
Forest your post makes no sense to me. If you are trying to tell me we can dissipate energy as output then still have it in the system
then you're wasting your time.

Power is not energy.  C.O.P. > 1.0 means more energy out than we put in.

Now How much energy is input and how much energy is output over the entire period from startup to shutdown ?
If you don't know then you can hardly determine the efficiency. Energy is energy and power is the rate of energy application
dissipation ect. To get an efficiency figure we must compare "real" power in to "real" power output or compare energy input to
energy output. There is not enough information given to make any determination ourselves, we are only getting what we are told.

I still say that we are not shown the entire story, and until we have it we can only speculate, nothing is proven.

The power dissipated by the load is output (real power) and the power returned to the grid is reactive power. Reactive power is not used as by definition reactive power is unused power returning to the grid, any power dissipated by a load is real power by definition.
..
Surely without a good block or circuit diagram it is hard to grasp.

I hope that they will post something like this pretty soon....
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 11, 2014, 07:31:58 AM
With a properly crafted capacitive switching system it
may be possible to "fool" the digital power meters into
thinking that power is being delivered to the grid.

Charging capacitors parallel connected through the load
at certain points in the AC cycle, then discharging the
capacitors series connected, through the load, back into
the grid at certain points in the AC cycle may do the trick.

It would depend on the sampling algorithm employed by
the firmware/software within the meter and how it determines
the direction of power movement and its magnitude.

Working out the needed timing for the switching events
would be fairly easy to figure out.

The "secret" to the device, from what has been revealed
thus far, seems to be well timed high speed switching.

If indeed it is a device which utilizes high-tech trickery
to accomplish what seems to be over-unity, it will be
decreed "illegal" by the authorities.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 11, 2014, 08:40:44 AM
I don't need to be an engineer or be able to interpret wave forms (that may be generated in a way not stated), to be able to
understand the basic principals of energy delivery and reactive power.

Real power delivers energy to a load and we do not get it back.

Reactive power does not deliver energy to the load and we do get it back.

Any power dissipated in a load is real power, and we do not get it back, reactive power we do get back because it was not consumed.

I explained in the QEG thread the basic method that could be employed with switches to show a returning power to the load
greater than the applied power for a time. EDIT: During the time the reactive power is being stored the input would be much
greater than the output, this could be done in a fraction of a cycle and on a cycle by cycle basis in order to out speed the meter.

Basically the device is started showing a less than 1.0 power factor then the reactive power is stored locally in the device for a time
before being applied back to the grid at a higher voltage and in phase to show for a time a greater power in than out, but it is not
sustainable indefinitely or with all loads.

That's just one way, another is as SeaMonkey said the switching scheme may be "engineered" to fool the meters, or just as simply the circuit could be configured to show improper measurements.

Truth is we do not know if any of those are in play and neither do we know if they are legitimate or more scams or just mistaken.

I say without a schematic we have no choice but to design our own schemes or just wait to see if in several years anything
comes of it.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 11, 2014, 03:36:06 PM
Well Seamonkey and Farmhand you are both wrong.

Have again a look at this below picture.

Look at the lower RED MATH traces.

THESE ARE POWER WAVEFORMS where above the groundline
areas mean positive input power and below the groundline means
negative input power, that means returning power to the
grid !

Left scopeshot shows the grid input ( here labled: Transformer output power)
You clearly see a sinus like wave
so  power is delivered to the circuit, BUT also almost the same amount of power again returned to the grid,
so the average input power is only 1.1 Watts !

At the right scopeshot you see the Math trace only above the groundline,
meaning, that at the lamp only positive real active power is lighting up the lamps.

I guess Seamonkey and Farmhand  should wait with further postings, until a block circuit diagramm
is posted, so further antipostings without discussing the switching technology behind it
are considdered as Trolling....

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 11, 2014, 08:09:57 PM
Well Seamonkey and Farmhand you are both wrong.

Have again a look at this below picture.

Look at the lower RED MATH traces.

THESE ARE POWER WAVEFORMS where above the groundline
areas mean positive input power and below the groundline means
negative input power, that means returning power to the
grid !

Left scopeshot shows the grid input ( here labled: Transformer output power)
You clearly see a sinus like wave
so  power is delivered to the circuit, BUT also almost the same amount of power again returned to the grid,
so the average input power is only 1.1 Watts !

At the right scopeshot you see the Math trace only above the groundline,
meaning, that at the lamp only positive real active power is lighting up the lamps.

I guess Seamonkey and Farmhand  should wait with further postings, until a block circuit diagramm
is posted, so further antipostings without discussing the switching technology behind it
are considdered as Trolling....

Regards, Stefan.

Has anyone seen any power measurements taken directly at the line input?

In the OP video, as they adjust the Variac, the voltage reading on the meter used to read the power to/from the line varies.  This indicates that the line input power, at the least, is being measured after the variac (even though the demonstrator in the video states what is being indicated is line input power).

In the image posted above with the two scope captures, the input power capture is labeled "transformer output".  The voltage trace is omitted on the "transformer output" capture, and cannot be assumed to be line voltage (in the OP video, there is a large power transformer near the load resistor).  It is possible that, as in the OP video, the input power is being measured after the Variac and/or transformer output, and again, not directly at the line input.

The point is, I have not seen any data that directly shows the line input power (not even a simple kill-a-watt).  Possibly I have just not seen it.  If line input data has been posted, could someone please direct me to it?

Thanks,

PW
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 11, 2014, 09:48:46 PM
Without reference to the input AC Wave
it is rather difficult to interpret the
depiction of the scope displays.

In any case, attaching a device to the grid
which extracts many times more power from
the grid than would be registered on the
Power Meter would appear, to the power
provider, to be theft of service.

If the device, when attached to a portable
generator, does indeed deliver more power
to a load than is actually provided by the
generator and without loading the generator
then it may have merit.

Any surplus power provided to the load must
come from somewhere;  from some phenomenon
which can be easily understood.  Reactive Power
is not an answer.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: bugler on July 11, 2014, 11:09:46 PM
Anyway, here is the reality as I see it:  Aaron's clip is nothing more than a cynical ploy to sell more tickets so that he can hit his $70K target. 
Aaron is a dishonest person. Just look at the ASEA scam he is supporting.



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 11, 2014, 11:54:07 PM
There is a lot to be said for "credibility" and Aaron has none in my view. Time and time again he shows his true colors, which is
money money money. Eric Dollard bad mouthed Aaron and Peter and John Bedini vehemently claiming they were fraudsters.
Now he sits at the bench with them. Why, Money.

We ought to be able to consider peoples claims based on "credibility", people who continually make false and silly claims don't have it.
People who may not be highly trained but are honest and have life experience a plenty can see easily when people that have no
credibility are making a bogus claim.

I don't think I've been wrong about a scam job yet. At least no one that has claimed OU that I have asked for better evidence
can produce any legitimate results.

The wave forms could be produced any old how, I noticed the Transformer output power shot was missing a trace but chose not to
dwell on that as I was unsure as to why. SeaMonkey cleared that up. I don't miss much, and I've lived around deceptive people
for so long in my life i can pick a scammer in seconds. A skill that helps a lot in real life.

It's difficult to believe anything said by a man who claims a bouncing ball is OU, it's just as difficult to believe his associates when
they don't correct him on it, because that indicates they are prepared to allow lies in the name of money or they also believe
a bouncing ball is OU. Either way it harms the credibility of all his associates. Thick as thieves, lay with the dog you get fleas
kind of thing.

I would not be hanging waiting for a schematic from them on this device, I would look to the patent and only one that is granted.
If they give a schematic how can we even know the schematic is the same as the device ?

The Shimada guy has a patent on this kind of tech., I would bet they are simply copying his principals but with a slightly different
switching scheme, different enough to patent maybe or maybe not, many people lodge patent applications just to get some
street credibility, it works for some too, at least for a time with some people.

I did post the Shimada paper here didn't I, that contains a lot of relevant info on the principal and some switching schemes.
That's a technical contribution to the discussion. But no discussion on that.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 12, 2014, 01:21:31 AM
While I was at Mobile Technical Unit 7, U.S. Naval Station,
Yokosuka, Japan, in the 70s, I repaired our AC Voltage Stabilizer
Unit which functioned much as the device Shimada patented.

The device we used was the Ferro-Resonant version with SCRs
to accomplish the switching.

It was intended for use with 60 Hz power but someone inadvertently
connected it to the 50 Hz Japanese grid power and blew the SCRs.

We did have a small 60 Hz distribution system in our shop where
all receptacles were clearly marked as either 60 Hz / 120 Volts or
50 Hz / 100 Volts.  Apparently, one of our technical representatives
was not aware that the device was frequency sensitive or accidentally
plugged it in to the wrong receptacle momentarily.  That was all it took
to render it in need of repair.

The device weighed about 50 pounds and was capable of 1 Kilowatt
output of Voltage Stabilized 60 Hz AC.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 12, 2014, 02:06:00 AM
Should I assume that no power measurements or waveforms have been provided that are taken from direct measurement of the AC line input, but are instead after the variac and/or that large transformer seen in the OP video?

The variac and/or the xfmr could represent a significant amount of inductance in series with the AC line.

It is a bit odd if no direct measurements of the AC line input have been provided.

Thanks,
PW
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: tinman on July 12, 2014, 02:24:13 AM
Quote FarmHand: Well for energy to be transferred to the load then power must be consumed, if the power is returned to the grid then it is not
consumed and so it did no work that is reactive power, if the power does work then it is consumed and therefore cannot return to
the supply.

FarmHand-energy is never consumed,it is transformed.

You can bet ya bottom dollar that with Arron involved,there will be a book out soon for sale.
The Secret's of OU transformers.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 12, 2014, 02:48:22 AM
Quote FarmHand: Well for energy to be transferred to the load then power must be consumed, if the power is returned to the grid then it is not
consumed and so it did no work that is reactive power, if the power does work then it is consumed and therefore cannot return to
the supply.

FarmHand-energy is never consumed,it is transformed.

You can bet ya bottom dollar that with Arron involved,there will be a book out soon for sale.
The Secret's of OU transformers.

TinMan, You should read my statement again, I said "power" is or isn't consumed and energy is transferred. If I did say energy was
consumed then I made a mistake, but I don't see where I wrote that. It's right there in your quote of me.  :)
I am usually careful not to write the wrong thing like that, but at times I might make mistakes, we are all only human. Not machines.

Gotta hold ya tongue right to read my posts.  ;D

..

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 02:50:00 AM
Aaron is a dishonest person. Just look at the ASEA scam he is supporting.

Well some people are claiming it is a scam, but there are others that have been getting health benefits...

For instance in the comments at this page you can find some:
http://mlmblog.net/site/2010/02/asea-scam.html
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 12, 2014, 03:00:37 AM
Should I assume that no power measurements or waveforms have been provided that are taken from direct measurement of the AC line input, but are instead after the variac and/or that large transformer seen in the OP video?

The variac and/or the xfmr could represent a significant amount of inductance in series with the AC line.

It is a bit odd if no direct measurements of the AC line input have been provided.

Thanks,
PW

PW. Would that cause the phase angle to alter so that the measured power V and I input is more out of phase or something ?
I would need to make a drawing and have a good think on it, then test it to see. Easier to ask or research. At least at first.

A point to consider is that Thane Heinz supposedly had a transformer between the grid and his BiTT, I read about the transformer
burning out and I think he stated he could not run the BiTT for too long because of that transformer heating up. But I am only
stating what I read from memory, maybe others know more about that. Of course if there is a transformer between the grid and
the device and it heats up then a lot of power is being consumed there in order to show the power Factor 0.0. phase angles on
the scope.

Something to look out for.
..
Oh I would say yes assume that.
..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 12, 2014, 03:08:17 AM
Well some people are claiming it is a scam, but there are others that have been getting health benefits...

For instance in the comments at this page you can find some:
http://mlmblog.net/site/2010/02/asea-scam.html

Yes well if you increase the amount of water you drink and it is unadulterated by the chemicals from the water treatment plant then
you will feel much better than if you don't drink much water or if you drink a lot of water with bad chemicals in it.

Then there is the placebo effect and testimonials are not to be believed anyway, they are paid for.

Some people do it for a job.
http://www.clear-writing.com/2010/08/how-to-spot-a-fake-testimonial/

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 12, 2014, 04:05:17 AM
AS for the ASEA water debacle, It's salt water, one thing people might not realize is that we are told all the time to reduce salt in
our diet, which is fine if you intake too much salt, but a no or too low salt diet is very dangerous, we need salt it is vital to our
survival. Without enough salt the signals in our bodies are hampered, no salt can lead to death.

Just like oxygen we need it but it wears us out slowly, no one lives for ever. Do we stop breathing oxygen because of oxidants ? No.

So for any people who are low in salt then drinking some salt water will help them immensely. Some people need more salt than others. Enter ASEA (salt water) if you are low in salt it will make a world of difference, but so will increasing you salt intake.

Unless your arteries are hard like copper pipe don't reduce your salt intake. No salt = death.

I watched a documentary on some South American tribe in the Inca times, they had lots of gold and would throw the gold into a lake.
But there was no mines there, the tribe had no way of mining their own gold, as it turns out they were a long way from the coastline and salt was scarce, but they had a well full of saturated salt water, so they produced salt balls and traded it for gold.

The salt was more valuable than gold because gold is just trinkets, salt is life or death.

Basically if you intake the correct amount of salts and water and don't take in a lot of chemicals you'll do ok as long as there is no
illness.

ASEA: Another Expensive Way to Buy Water
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/asea-another-expensive-way-to-buy-water/

Asea Scam?
http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/asea-scam/

Of course it is a free world, people can recommend it and others can point to it being a falsity. Balance.

..

Stress is a bigger killer than salt. But the medico's don't tell everyone to take a vallium and have a lay down, that would seriously
reduce their income. People not stressed out have a lot less health problems.

Unless the ASEA can regenerate my degenerated discs it's no use to me, I need a surgeon and some screws and rods to fix me.  ;)

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 12, 2014, 04:24:08 AM
PW. Would that cause the phase angle to alter so that the measured power V and I input is more out of phase or something ?
..

Farmhand, I do not know.  Like you, I would need to see the circuit.

Considering what is claimed, however, it just seems odd that no measurements have been provided of the actual AC line input.  There could be an acceptable reason for not providing line input measurements, I don't know.  I am surprised, however,  that no one here or at Energetic has asked about it.

I also wonder how much power the switching circuit consumes.  It would be interesting to see the total power consumed/returned at the line (driver included) versus whatever is dissipated in the load resistor.   

Again, maybe the AC line input data has been provided somewhere and I just haven't seen it.

PW
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 05:06:36 AM
In the new Babcock-Murray Serps circuit presented at the Bedini 2014 conference
the actual line input AC voltage is regular 60 Hz sine wave.

They did not publish this in the first left scopeshot, cause that would have given the
timing away...but the comparison of both scopeshots gives it away anyway, so that is why I wrote
it was an eye opener...

I think I know now, how it is working.
I pondered all day long now about it.

Imagine a sine 60 Hz wave input.
One cycle is 0 to 360 degrees.

It seems they just charge 2 caps in parallel via the lamps load from 30 to 90 degrees from the line voltage.
After this they electronically disconnect the 2 caps and put them in series
and at around 100 degrees , they discharge the 2 series caps back to the line voltage  versus the lamps again to about 160 degrees.
This way they have double the sine peak voltage to be able to discharge the 2 series caps and drive negative current back to the grid
through the lamps !

Then the same thing happens for the negative half wave of the sine wave.

At around 210 degrees the 2 caps are again switched in Parallel into the line voltage via the lamps in series and charged
until around 270 degrees up to the peak voltage of the 60 Hz sine wave.
Then at 280 degrees, the 2 caps are put in series and again discharged via the lamps back to the grid until around 340 degrees.
So again energy is returned to grid via the lamps as the load.

It is basically a very easy circuit, but you have to have the right timing and the right load impedance (lamp resistance in Ohm in this case),
so that the areas in the input power MATH trace above and
below the ground line are about equal.

So you minimize the real active input power and try to get the aparent input power
the same as the reactive input power. If you get it right, you will only have reactive input power
and almost no Real active input power. Thus a COP of about 50 as they have shown at the conference can be real !

Great circuit !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 05:24:05 AM
From the scopeshots you can also see, that the timing is 5 milliseconds/DIV and
that one cycle is about 16.6 milliseconds long, which is exactly 60 Hz AC !
So they are just using the normal 60 Hz sine wave from the grid, probably via
a Variac or isolating transformer, so that is why they wrote the label on the scopeshot
as Transformer output.
But they meant the input power from the grid...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 12, 2014, 05:41:22 AM
From the scopeshots you can also see, that the timing is 5 milliseconds/DIV and
that one cycle is about 16.6 milliseconds long, which is exactly 60 Hz AC !
So they are just using the normal 60 Hz sine wave from the grid, probably via
a Variac or isolating transformer, so that is why they wrote the label on the scopeshot
as Transformer output.
But they meant the input power from the grid...

Regards, Stefan.

Line frequency was never in question. 

Are we to assume that no change in I or V phase occurs between the actual AC line input and the output of the variac and/or transformer used?  Has anyone stated that this is indeed the case?

Just curious...

PW

ADDED:

I would have thought that the AC line input measurements would have been taken directly at the AC line.  Hooking up the input power analyzer at the AC line would not have given anything away regarding switching.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 06:03:08 AM
In a production unit you would not need any isolating transformer or Variac, so
this is no issue....


The Wattmeter and the scope traces don´t lie !
Again look at the left lower red MATH trace.
It shows just reactive power going in ( only 1.1 Watts Active power)

You basically charge up 2 caps in parallel and discharge them in series
to the grid at the right timing.
So you take power and give power back with the right timing.


As you need only around 1 Watts of real input power, it is now easy to build
a 60 Hz sine wave oscillator only needing 1 Watts of input power and
use this to drive this Babcock Murrray circuit and then do a feedback circuit instead of the lamps
and get a selfrunning system.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 12, 2014, 06:03:44 AM

Hi Stefan,
 Thanks
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 12, 2014, 06:21:28 AM
The Wattmeter and the scope traces don´t lie !


I agree!  It is very likely that the wattmeter and scope are faithfully indicating the waveforms and calculated power as measured at the output of the variac and/or transformer used.

I was just curious as to what those waveforms and power measurements looked like at the actual AC line input.

No problem...

PW
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 12, 2014, 06:23:50 AM
Yes, you've figured it out Stefan!  It's an electronic version
of the Old Ponzi scheme (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/03/0311_madoff/1.htm).  An illusion.

All of the power dissipated by the load is in fact coming
from the grid.

This is perhaps why non-sinousoidal loading of the grid is
carefully scrutinized by the power companies.  They are
well aware that it is possible to "electronically" fool their
meters.

Small loads will probably not attract their attention but
big loads certainly would.  Spikes and harmonics on the
power grid are a sure sign to them that something is amiss.

They'll want their pound of flesh as compensation.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 06:43:15 AM
SeaMonkey you are wrong !

You can just use a 120 Volts AC producing 60 Hz sine wave oscillator battery driven or via a supercap, 
that outputs
1 Watts of output power ( and needs maybe only 2 Watts itsself)  into this SERPS Babcock Murray circuit and instead of the
lamps you use a feedback circuit back to the oscillator and get this thing thus to selfrun.

At COP=50 this should be no real problem...

Regards, Stefan.


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 12, 2014, 07:31:49 AM
I would love to be wrong on this.  We shall see.

Is the COP of the device Real or is it Trickery?

I cannot imagine how it would power itself, even
after being started from the grid...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 12, 2014, 07:51:14 AM
Hi All,
The issue here really is hard to judge! . . I'm really looking forward to a sufficiently detailed picture of this device or is an exact circuit schematic and it really is!


Regards
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: ARMCORTEX on July 12, 2014, 10:09:26 AM
I made many crazy circuits in my life. I was more into the mechanical OU because I have a sure bet design right now, and I like big HP

I really shouldnt be distracted by parallel projects, But there is no beating raw cheapness of electronics.

From oscillators to logic to microcontroller to switch setups, I am up for a try.

Brg forward more info so that I see exactly what I must do, a nice prezi with diagrams and colors.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on July 12, 2014, 01:11:26 PM
In the new Babcock-Murray Serps circuit presented at the Bedini 2014 conference
the actual line input AC voltage is regular 60 Hz sine wave.

They did not publish this in the first left scopeshot, cause that would have given the
timing away...but the comparison of both scopeshots gives it away anyway, so that is why I wrote
it was an eye opener...

I think I know now, how it is working.
I pondered all day long now about it.

Imagine a sine 60 Hz wave input.
One cycle is 0 to 360 degrees.

It seems they just charge 2 caps in parallel via the lamps load from 30 to 90 degrees from the line voltage.
After this they electronically disconnect the 2 caps and put them in series
and at around 100 degrees , they discharge the 2 series caps back to the line voltage  versus the lamps again to about 160 degrees.
This way they have double the sine peak voltage to be able to discharge the 2 series caps and drive negative current back to the grid
through the lamps !

Then the same thing happens for the negative half wave of the sine wave.

At around 210 degrees the 2 caps are again switched in Parallel into the line voltage via the lamps in series and charged
until around 270 degrees up to the peak voltage of the 60 Hz sine wave.
Then at 280 degrees, the 2 caps are put in series and again discharged via the lamps back to the grid until around 340 degrees.
So again energy is returned to grid via the lamps as the load.

It is basically a very easy circuit, but you have to have the right timing and the right load impedance (lamp resistance in Ohm in this case),
so that the areas in the input power MATH trace above and
below the ground line are about equal.

So you minimize the real active input power and try to get the aparent input power
the same as the reactive input power. If you get it right, you will only have reactive input power
and almost no Real active input power. Thus a COP of about 50 as they have shown at the conference can be real !

Great circuit !

Regards, Stefan.

Problem I've never heard that putting cap to series/parallel can give OU, the energy state still the same because capacitance reduce when put in series...

That being said, Hector Perez (the guy with his rotoverter) claimed in special resonant configuration, that you can extract real power from the reactive one, playing with phase (usually three phase power) is the key.
According to him he reversed current in the battery through the inverter ("reverse" power factor correction).
The load and the inductor act "negative" but a lot of impedance matching is necessary.
In the "combine" PDF you can read that is when R is at current node it's powered by "radiant energy" full light with 1/10 of the input voltage...
This theory is worth what it worth...
Anyway I would like to see a schematic of that circuit before making my definitive opinion.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: ARMCORTEX on July 12, 2014, 07:16:37 PM
But you've never heard... It dont matter what you heard, this is groundbreaking tech of course you would of never heard of this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They provide power readings, surrounded by big shot engineer millionaires.

This is not to be taken lightly, obviously they have something.

If Stephan, with his ''conventionnal understanding'' can see clearly the process, then It surely must be ''comprehensible concept''.

It shouldnt take long for someone to make a condensed informative prezi.

Stephan, state clearly what should be done plz.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 11:17:21 PM
Here is a quick basic circuit diagramm.
The switches must be replaced by MOSFET switches with the right timing and
control circuits.
But this shows how 2 caps can be put in series or in parallel.

I still pondering, why they did use 2 lamps as the load.
Maybe they are also switching the 2 lamps once in series and
then in parallel to have a different load resistor and thus control the charge
and discharge current better to get about equal areas in the input power
MATH trace, so the Real Active input power is minimized and only reactive power
is drawn ( just oscillating power).

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 12, 2014, 11:48:07 PM
Here is the circuit with timing diagram.

Shown under the i(t) current waveform are the switched that are closed
in this timeframe.
so S1 S2 S4 means switch S1, S2 and S4 are closed.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 02:45:21 AM
Stefan what do you mean by the circle with the X in it?  That normally symbolizes a multiplier.  Do you mean that to be an AC voltage source?

Anyway, charge shuttling / balancing circuits have been around for a long time for use in DC systems.  For AC the switches and drivers get more complicated.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: e2matrix on July 13, 2014, 04:17:04 AM
I already knew the answer MarkE but just so there wouldn't be any argument about it here's top of the Google
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 06:41:23 AM
I already knew the answer MarkE but just so there wouldn't be any argument about it here's top of the Google
In over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
In over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.
It threw me at first too, but apparently it is fairly common in Russia. I was thinking "valve?" Whaaat? It makes no sense really, but there it is.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Hoppy on July 13, 2014, 11:13:29 AM
In over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.


Mark,


See:http://www.edrawsoft.com/electrical-symbols.php


This symbol for a lamp was and is still commonly used in the UK.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on July 13, 2014, 11:44:11 AM
It's European notation (the X), in my country (France) we use also this symbol.

@Harti
Thanks for the schemtic I undertsand it better: first it charge in the first quadrant via the load then it discharge always via the load in the second quadrant same things but it reverse for the third and fourth quadrant...
Eric Dollard Four Quadrant theory ?
Energy from Sqrt(-1) ?
So the energy stored in cap and the other dissipated in R must be equal or superior in the cap...
Putting in series for the discharge, help to discharge fast by reversing the curent back to source...
Then, I guess that the green curve is I.
Thanks.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 13, 2014, 12:57:15 PM
Hi All,

about half a year ago I saw this idea (shown below),
subjective judgments, I suppose it does not work! . .   :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 13, 2014, 05:04:33 PM
@MarkE,
where have you been 30 years along ?  :-*
This cross in the middle of the circle is a standard symbol for an incandescent light bulb...
I learned it already, when I was 10 years old around 1970 !  ;D

@SchubertReijiMaigo
Yes, the green curve in the original Babcock Murray Scopeshots are the current waveforms.
I called it i(t) which is a standard notation for the current in a circuit dependend on the time.

If you wonder, why in the Babcock Murray Scopeshots at the right side at the lamp output the
current is only positive, well they probably used there an additional bridge rectifier through the
lamps so the current shunts only show positive current or they used their scope set to show only
the absolute value of the current there.
But that does not change the main principle, that the discharge current of the 2 caps in series
drives negative energy back to the grid and thus produce oscillating reactive power.

So the power goes back and forth with the charge and discharge of the capacitors.

@havuhung
It seems to be a simular circuit. What does the Russian text say to it ?
How is the switching algorithm in this case ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 13, 2014, 05:45:56 PM
Hi Stefan,
I am looking to the data stored in the computer and link! . .There is a picture of an unknown device is complete or not! . .
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 13, 2014, 06:01:09 PM
@havuhung

At which website was this posted ? Link ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 13, 2014, 06:11:30 PM
User Silvertogold o the energetic forum mentioned, that my S1 switch is redundant.

He is absolutely right.

Also from the posted video you can see here in these 3 green marked numbers
that they seem to have only 3 connections of the cap board.

As when you open all my switches S2, S3 and S4 the circuit is already
 disconnected !
 So no need for S1 !
 Then we really only need 3 switches...
 The only questions I have not yet pondered about is the
 state of charge after the charge and after the discharge cycle.. Hmm
 do they really discharge all the charge in the caps and do they really
 fully charge the caps of the peak of the sine wave or could this
 be varried with their switching control circuits ?
 
 Any ideas ?
 Regards, Stefan.


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 13, 2014, 06:14:26 PM
He then replied also regarding the big transformer:

Hi Stefan,
 
 The large transformers could have 2 purposes as I see it,
1) just an isolation transformer for correct power measurements [having isolated grounds through
the transformer to connect them to the measurement machines -
like using a plugged into the wall scope to measure a circuit which is also plugged into the wall,
you have to be aware that the ground of the scope is the same as the ground of circuit and if
connected incorrectly you will get a short circuit or a wrong measurement]

 or

2) to move the I & V curves to the correct relationship for the switching to be most effective.  I don't know
which it is but suspect it's the first.
 
 Traditional "motors" and "generators" are actually both.  A motor and a generator and these functions can't be separated.
 It operates in both modes at the same time.  When the turbine turns, it acts more as a generator than a motor...
the reactive circuit returns the power to the generator to turn it - making it more of a motor than a generator
and then cycle continues IF the power being returned is more than went in. When the system balances out,
the power of the generator equals the power of the motor and it reaches a set speed.
 
 So basically, you connect an AC "generator" to the reactive circuit, give it a turn and the "generator"
will keep turning with no more power input while powering a resistive load.  A self running motor that
 powers a resistive load.  You could connect this generator-motor to another generator and get traditional power.
 So that's how it could work.
 
 How does this all work?  I don't know.  The power of charging a cap in parallel and then discharging it in
series from traditional science does nothing but loses energy.  So something else is going on that you're
 not going to get from college physics.
 
 But where has this worked before? 
1) Tesla switches &
2) Eric Dollards flux capacitor.
3) Bedini capacitive discharge circuits work on a similar principle.
 
 When you get sharp gradients, things change.
 
 I would be very skeptical of this working at all if it was not for Jim's demonstration.
 But there it is and it works.  And it's so simple when you see it and just study Jim's video,
it gives it all away for the most part. 
 
 I think the resistance is important, so they probably tuned it all to get the best results.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 13, 2014, 06:32:45 PM
Hi All,
Link: http://realstrannik.ru/forum/22-elektronika-interesnye-i-redkie-sxemy/11484-ekonomiya-elektroenergii-ot-electrofuck.html?start=378


Regards
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 13, 2014, 06:52:47 PM
With regard to the two screen captures posted a few pages back:

1.  The captures were made approx 1/2 hour apart, so one cannot be absolutely certain that adjustments to the circuit (variac, etc) were not made in between the two captures.

2.  If the right side capture is indeed the I and V seen by Rload, then Rload appears to be a 10 ohm resistor (if I am reading the captures correctly, hard to see the divisions)

3.  The left side capture seems consistent with the V trace being 125V pk to pk or so (reduced line voltage via the variac?)

4.  The peak V values on the left and right captures appear different, so either the V was adjusted in between captures or possibly the transformer is being used to reduce voltage to Rload.

5.  The right side captures are consistent with full wave rectification.  Can anyone discern if there is a FWB just behind the left most capacitor in any of the images? 

6.  Possibly the transformer primary is in series with AC line (in Harti's lamp position in his cap switching schematic) with the secondary rectified and applied to the load.  Alternately, possibly a full wave bridge is in that location with its DC out to the load resistor, and as others have speculated, the transformer used for isolation. 

7.  If someone were to take the time to accurately graph out the left side capture, the V trace could be partially reassembled from the I and W trace values.

Looks like it is time for some of the sim people to try a few things to see if they can replicate the waveforms based on best guesses.

Just a few thoughts...

PW
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on July 13, 2014, 07:10:45 PM
Look like don't work for me here...
I've made a simulation and don't seem to have excess.
The logic is like this.
0-90° --> charge in parallel.
90-180° --> discharge series.
then same thing but for the inverted polarity.
Putting cap to series/parallel doesn't give excess (this a well know fact).
When you charge cap 1/2 of energy is lost no matter what kind of resistance you use. It can be the parasitic resistance of the wire, capacitor ESR, or a bulb.
This is also true at discharge cycle 1/2 is again lost.
So for one unit of energy, 1/2 get "lost" and at discharge 1/2 of 1/2 get "lost" again.
So it give that 3/4 is lost/burned and only 1/4 return to source... 3/4+1/4=1 so energy is conserved in the whole process, I don't see unfortunately OU in this setup at least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the code:

$ 1 5.0E-6 13.654669808981877 50 5.0 50
w 240 288 240 208 0
w 240 208 288 208 0
r 288 208 384 208 0 100.0
s 384 208 496 208 0 0 false
w 496 256 496 208 0
w 496 256 432 256 0
r 496 256 496 288 0 0.01
c 496 288 496 352 0 1.0E-5 3.4950131883260247
r 496 416 496 448 0 0.01
c 496 448 496 528 0 1.0E-5 3.495013188326026
w 496 528 240 528 0
w 240 528 240 400 0
v 240 400 240 288 0 1 50.0 325.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
178 432 256 432 336 0 1 1.0E-9 1.0000000000157452E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 608 368 608 448 0 1 1.0E-9 1.0000000000157452E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 496 352 608 352 0
w 544 416 496 416 0
w 544 416 544 464 0
178 752 464 752 368 1 1 1.0E-9 -1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 752 464 544 464 0
w 608 352 608 368 0
w 560 368 560 320 0
w 576 368 576 320 0
w 576 320 640 320 0
w 560 320 560 272 0
w 640 320 640 272 0
v 560 272 640 272 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 384 256 384 224 0
w 384 224 560 224 0
w 560 224 560 272 0
w 400 256 400 240 0
w 400 240 640 240 0
w 640 240 640 272 0
w 704 368 704 320 0
w 704 320 640 320 0
w 720 368 720 304 0
w 720 304 544 304 0
w 544 304 544 320 0
w 544 320 560 320 0
w 496 416 416 416 0
w 416 416 416 336 0
w 592 448 592 528 0
w 592 528 496 528 0
w 768 368 768 352 0
w 768 352 608 352 0
o 12 64 0 291 640.0 6.4 0 -1
o 2 64 0 291 320.0 6.4 1 -1
o 12 64 1 291 916.4449253911987 9.765625000000002E-255 2 -1
o 2 64 1 291 428.6034428745069 2.4414062500000007E-305 3 -1
o 12 64 0 290 559.9361855444511 1.3998404638611277 4 -1
o 26 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 5 -1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: e2matrix on July 13, 2014, 07:11:43 PM
In over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.
Just another example of living inside the box.   After about 20 years of looking at alternative energy I assumed everyone recognized that as a light bulb who had interest in free energy.   It's so common in my experience that you don't want to know what I was thinking of saying about you for not knowing but I decided to chill   8) .   Surprised TK had any question though....   
BTW I don't think you'll ever see a multiplier with only 2 connections.   
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 13, 2014, 07:16:23 PM
One more note.

As the left side capture is labeled as transformer output, it is possible the variac is driving the primary of the transformer and that the secondary (transformer output) is connected to the circuit.  This arrangement allows for both isolation and input V adjustment.

I must again address my concern, however, that the data collected from the transformer output is not necessarily going to reflect similar data measured directly at the AC line.  It is difficult to believe that anyone claiming to be able to draw real power from the AC line while returning the same or more power back to the AC line, would not include AC line measurement data.  A variac and that transformer must surely represent a fair amount of inductance between the AC line and the points in the circuit used for input power measurements.

I will remain skeptical until AC line input measurements are released that reflect what is happening directly at the AC line, and that also includes any power drawn from the driver circuitry.  The total AC line input power measured directly at the AC line, compared to that simultaneously made across Rload, would paint a more accurate picture.

PW



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: picowatt on July 13, 2014, 08:06:47 PM
A bit of a correction and more observation:

In the left side capture, there appears to be approx 4 amps peak during the first positive cycle.  If Rload is indeed 10 ohms (as surmised from the right side capture data) and that 10R load is across the transformer output, then Vpeak on the left side graph would have also been similar to the 40volts seen on the right side graph (40V/10R= 4 amps).

However, if indeed Vpeak was 40V in the left side capture, the math trace should only show 160 watts or so, but instead it shows closer to 500 watts during that peak.

Possibly this indicates that the transformer is being used for more than just isolation.  Alternately it may be that the current shown in the left side capture does not truly reflect the 10R load resistor, but instead indicates the current thru the reactance of any caps being charged or discharged (and possibly Rload as well).   

PW

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 13, 2014, 08:21:15 PM
here s my schematic for BiToroid transformer as a reactive power energy source generator :) , use simple, a reliable and efficient resonant oscillator with self-excitation based on Mazilli ZVS circuit but here use bipolar transistors, This oscillator can operate both with one or two transistors and will be called the "x_name41_ZVS oscillator" :)



$ 1 5.0E-9 2.9224283781234943 50 5.0 50
r 464 416 464 464 0 22000.0
w 640 400 608 400 0
c 720 400 720 304 0 4.7000000000000005E-7 20.311132933747196
w 624 432 608 432 0
w 720 304 816 304 2
w 816 304 816 320 0
w 816 384 816 400 0
w 720 400 816 400 1
w 624 432 624 496 0
w 624 496 368 496 0
v 368 400 368 320 0 0 40.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 368 400 368 496 0
r 368 224 368 320 0 0.1
w 368 224 432 224 0
w 432 224 464 224 0
t 560 416 608 416 0 1 -13.994493455539088 0.15599672830778347 1000.0
l 816 224 816 272 0 9.999999999999999E-5 0.036129450108768606
l 784 224 784 272 0 9.999999999999999E-5 -0.036129450058019645
w 784 224 816 224 0
w 784 384 816 384 0
w 560 464 672 464 0
w 512 464 560 464 0
w 512 464 464 464 0
w 512 416 560 416 0
w 672 352 672 464 0
w 672 304 672 352 0
w 464 416 512 416 0
w 464 224 672 224 0
w 736 224 784 224 0
w 784 272 784 336 0
w 672 224 736 224 0
w 784 336 784 384 0
w 816 272 816 304 0
d 720 400 688 400 1 0.805904783
w 640 400 688 400 0
d 720 304 672 304 1 0.805904783
l 816 320 816 384 0 6.799999999999999E-6 -1.0626308848043475
x 68 649 142 655 0 24 battery
x 241 651 399 657 0 24 inductor 6,8uH
x 429 650 601 656 0 24 capacitor 470nF
x 643 650 784 656 0 24 choke 100uH
x 911 652 963 658 0 24 base
x 486 83 751 89 0 24 x_name41 ZVS oscillator
x 562 385 660 391 0 24 2SC3987
x 652 286 734 292 0 24 1N4007
x 689 436 771 442 0 24 1N4007
o 10 64 0 298 5.0 0.0125 0 -1
o 10 64 0 297 2.5 0.1 0 -1
o 10 64 1 299 0.3125 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 36 64 0 298 40.0 3.2 1 -1
o 36 64 0 297 20.0 6.4 1 -1
o 36 64 1 291 80.0 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 2 64 0 298 40.0 3.2 2 -1
o 2 64 0 297 20.0 6.4 2 -1
o 2 64 1 299 80.0 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 16 64 0 298 20.0 0.1 3 -1
o 16 64 0 297 10.0 0.2 3 -1
o 16 64 1 299 2.5 9.765625E-5 3 -1
o 23 64 0 298 1.25 3.90625E-4 4 -1
o 23 64 0 297 0.625 7.8125E-4 4 -1
o 23 64 1 299 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 4 -1


and see my successful experiment of a single wire energy transmission  :) http://realstrannik.ru/forum/80-temy-xname41/117136-re-generatory-kapanadze-obshhaya-tema.html#228052
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: mscoffman on July 13, 2014, 08:42:20 PM
One more note.

As the left side capture is labeled as transformer output, it is possible the variac is driving the primary of the transformer and that the secondary (transformer output) is connected to the circuit.  This arrangement allows for both isolation and input V adjustment.

I must again address my concern, however, that the data collected from the transformer output is not necessarily going to reflect similar data measured directly at the AC line.  It is difficult to believe that anyone claiming to be able to draw real power from the AC line while returning the same or more power back to the AC line, would not include AC line measurement data.  A variac and that transformer must surely represent a fair amount of inductance between the AC line and the points in the circuit used for input power measurements.

I will remain skeptical until AC line input measurements are released that reflect what is happening directly at the AC line, and that also includes any power drawn from the driver circuitry.  The total AC line input power measured directly at the AC line, compared to that simultaneously made across Rload, would paint a more accurate picture.

PW


I happen to think that a high efficency 97% HV Inverter 100-600Vdc input with MPP impedance matching 120-240VAC 50 or 60Hz
output should be part of the instrumentation tool kit of a power supply professional.   This inverter used in conjunction with a bridge
rectifier capacitor filter can operate as a nearly pefect "VARS Stop". This will keep VARS from transistioning in either direction across
a power link. This is because there is no way to represent VARS on a stable DC link and so will power readings can be taken with low cost
instruments there, if the inverter in operation remains stable. If the inverter is destablized by the load,  then a Corcom filter can be added
as a rotating power VARS resiviour on the output side of the inverter. These things will make sure real power can always be measured
on the DC link without the interference in either direction by virtual AC power. This is what is required for OU self looped operation.
The diode bridge will not have a PF power factor of zero but that should not distort virtual power from the utility net because non-zero
power factor is something that the utility network can handle and you will not be billed for.


---


This will be easily checked in this case, I suspect that the lamps plugged into the output of the inverter and the
transformer plugged into the inverter will show nearly the same power values on the DC link with excess virtual power
rotating in conjunction with the inverter if the inverter can remain in stable operation. While the killawatt meter may
show different.




:S:MarkSCoffman

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 13, 2014, 10:19:53 PM
Look like don't work for me here...
I've made a simulation and don't seem to have excess.
The logic is like this.
0-90° --> charge in parallel.
90-180° --> discharge series.
then same thing but for the inverted polarity.
Putting cap to series/parallel doesn't give excess (this a well know fact).
When you charge cap 1/2 of energy is lost no matter what kind of resistance you use. It can be the parasitic resistance of the wire, capacitor ESR, or a bulb.
This is also true at discharge cycle 1/2 is again lost.
So for one unit of energy, 1/2 get "lost" and at discharge 1/2 of 1/2 get "lost" again.
So it give that 3/4 is lost/burned and only 1/4 return to source... 3/4+1/4=1 so energy is conserved in the whole process, I don't see unfortunately OU in this setup at least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the code:

$ 1 5.0E-6 13.654669808981877 50 5.0 50
w 240 288 240 208 0
w 240 208 288 208 0
r 288 208 384 208 0 100.0
s 384 208 496 208 0 0 false
w 496 256 496 208 0
w 496 256 432 256 0
r 496 256 496 288 0 0.01
c 496 288 496 352 0 1.0E-5 3.4950131883260247
r 496 416 496 448 0 0.01
c 496 448 496 528 0 1.0E-5 3.495013188326026
w 496 528 240 528 0
w 240 528 240 400 0
v 240 400 240 288 0 1 50.0 325.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
178 432 256 432 336 0 1 1.0E-9 1.0000000000157452E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 608 368 608 448 0 1 1.0E-9 1.0000000000157452E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 496 352 608 352 0
w 544 416 496 416 0
w 544 416 544 464 0
178 752 464 752 368 1 1 1.0E-9 -1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 752 464 544 464 0
w 608 352 608 368 0
w 560 368 560 320 0
w 576 368 576 320 0
w 576 320 640 320 0
w 560 320 560 272 0
w 640 320 640 272 0
v 560 272 640 272 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 384 256 384 224 0
w 384 224 560 224 0
w 560 224 560 272 0
w 400 256 400 240 0
w 400 240 640 240 0
w 640 240 640 272 0
w 704 368 704 320 0
w 704 320 640 320 0
w 720 368 720 304 0
w 720 304 544 304 0
w 544 304 544 320 0
w 544 320 560 320 0
w 496 416 416 416 0
w 416 416 416 336 0
w 592 448 592 528 0
w 592 528 496 528 0
w 768 368 768 352 0
w 768 352 608 352 0
o 12 64 0 291 640.0 6.4 0 -1
o 2 64 0 291 320.0 6.4 1 -1
o 12 64 1 291 916.4449253911987 9.765625000000002E-255 2 -1
o 2 64 1 291 428.6034428745069 2.4414062500000007E-305 3 -1
o 12 64 0 290 559.9361855444511 1.3998404638611277 4 -1
o 26 64 0 35 10.0 9.765625E-5 5 -1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or

$ 1 5.0E-6 19.867427341514983 50 5.0 50
w 304 240 304 160 0
w 304 160 352 160 0
r 352 160 448 160 0 1000.0
s 448 160 560 160 0 0 false
w 560 208 560 160 0
w 560 208 496 208 0
c 560 240 560 304 0 6.800000000000001E-7 138.46445800654539
c 560 400 560 480 0 9.999999999999999E-6 42.57475325542203
w 560 480 304 480 0
w 304 480 304 352 0
v 304 352 304 240 0 1 50.0 220.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
178 496 208 496 288 0 1 1.0E-9 -1.383E-321 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 672 320 672 400 0 1 1.0E-9 -1.383E-321 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 560 304 672 304 0
w 608 368 560 368 0
w 608 368 608 416 0
178 816 416 816 320 1 1 1.0E-9 -1.2253E-320 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 816 416 608 416 0
w 672 304 672 320 0
w 624 320 624 272 0
w 640 320 640 272 0
w 640 272 704 272 0
w 624 272 624 224 0
w 704 272 704 224 0
v 624 224 704 224 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 448 208 448 176 0
w 448 176 624 176 0
w 624 176 624 224 0
w 464 208 464 192 0
w 464 192 704 192 0
w 704 192 704 224 0
w 768 320 768 272 0
w 768 272 704 272 0
w 784 320 784 256 0
w 784 256 608 256 0
w 608 256 608 272 0
w 608 272 624 272 0
w 560 368 480 368 0
w 480 368 480 288 0
w 656 400 656 480 0
w 656 480 560 480 0
w 832 320 832 304 0
w 832 304 672 304 0
w 560 368 560 400 0
w 560 208 560 240 0
o 10 64 1 291 80.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 2 64 0 291 320.0 1.6 1 -1
o 10 64 1 299 229.11123134779967 9.765625000000002E-255 2 -1
o 2 64 1 299 214.30172143725346 2.4414062500000007E-305 3 -1
o 10 64 0 298 559.9361855444511 0.17498005798264096 4 -1
o 24 64 0 299 10.0 9.765625E-5 5 -1
o 6 64 1 291 320.0 9.765625E-5 6 -1
o 7 64 1 291 320.0 9.765625E-5 7 -1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 13, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
Look like don't work for me here...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think you should consider the resistor (light bulb) as the output in this device. It is not a loss. It is the device to extract the overunity power. I would think it would be more like a battery is what I would be interested in lookng into.


/Wayne



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 13, 2014, 10:37:43 PM
I think it is most important to just only switch on the caps for a short moment
during the first quadrant and not the full 90 degrees.

Also it could be good to match the TAU values of the charge and discharge, so
Tau1=Tau2 = R1xC1=R2xC2

So during charging, you half the load resistor ( 2 lamps in parallel) and during
discharge you put the 2 lamps in series..


Is nobody here, who was at the conference and wittnessed Jim´s presentation ?
Were there any block diagrams shown ?

I bought today the Dynaflux video
http://bit.ly/dynaflux (http://bit.ly/dynaflux)
but it only has another demonstration to
the older dynaflux generator ( which by the way is also very interesting !)
and the SERPS circuit video shown is the same
as the free video posted by Aaron.

I hope Aaron will soon have the presentation video ready from the conference.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2014, 10:45:34 PM
I posted these in another thread as an illustration of a particular point, but it seems that they are even more relevant here.

Below:
1. Test setup, showing zero-wire power transmission to receiver, as tested.
2. DC input power: verified as straight DC, no ripple, voltage and current values shown on DMMs were verified on oscilloscope using 1 ohm CVR
3. Output measurements: V across transmitting loop, I as Vdrop across 0.25 ohm precision non-inductive Ayrton-Perry-wound current viewing resistor in series with loop
4. Phase relationship in output V and I
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 13, 2014, 11:02:02 PM
Hi All,
Link: http://realstrannik.ru/forum/22-elektronika-interesnye-i-redkie-sxemy/11484-ekonomiya-elektroenergii-ot-electrofuck.html?start=378 (http://realstrannik.ru/forum/22-elektronika-interesnye-i-redkie-sxemy/11484-ekonomiya-elektroenergii-ot-electrofuck.html?start=378)


Regards

Heh... it looks like folks are well on the way to inventing the solid-state inverse Marx bank.....
 ;)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 14, 2014, 02:12:10 AM
TK, what do your postings have to do with the Murray SERPS circuit ?
What is your circuit diagram ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: havuhung on July 14, 2014, 05:30:57 AM
Heh... it looks like folks are well on the way to inventing the solid-state inverse Marx bank.....
 ;)
Hi TinselKoala,
yes, this device provides energy consumption load but kWh meter (not running) makes people look at and think that it is a device (used to deceive meters). however with a bit of analysis it's working principles to consider, there are interesting things. . .   :D
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 14, 2014, 06:45:22 AM
TK, what do your postings have to do with the Murray SERPS circuit ?
What is your circuit diagram ?

"MY" circuit diagram was posted, twice, or perhaps 2 1/2 times, on the previous page of this thread, by x_name41. Some of my component values are different but the circuit is the same: a ZVS Royer-Mazilli type autoresonating circuit. Just get rid of the Red Herring "bi toroid" which is a wasteful power sink, and the "primary" becomes your transmission loop (with the 3-parallel spiral heavy conductor construction, or even copper pipe) and the reactive power accumulates by resonance and circulates within the tank circuit formed by that loop and its capacitors. I don't know what a Murray SERPS circuit is supposed to be, but I've clearly shown you a working, battery powered "Reactive Power Energy Source Generator". And it uses the same schematic but different component values from what has been posted in this thread by someone else, without anyone complaining.

Not only that but my remote wireless receiver "converts VARs" into usable power that is dissipated in the light bulb.

But please, if all that is off-topic, I apologize, don't let me distract you.


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 14, 2014, 07:08:10 AM
Quote from: havuhung
...people look at and think that it is a device (used to deceive meters).

Most power company provided KiloWatt Hour Meters have the
ability to distinguish True Power (Real Power) from Reactive
Power and therefore are able to develop consumption numbers
for billing purposes which are accurate.

If in fact this device electronically produces Voltage and Current
relationships to simulate Reactive Power in order to confuse the
meter so as to avoid consumption based billing then it is a case of
deception.

Where does the power dissipated at the load actually come from?
Is it grid derived power or is it produced by some sort of Magic
within the device independent of the grid?

The exotic waveforms produced by the device would lead one to
suspect that it is in reality deception at work...

It would be interesting to see what sort of evaluation would be
rendered by Power Company Engineers.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MarkE on July 14, 2014, 07:31:34 AM
Most power company provided KiloWatt Hour Meters have the
ability to distinguish True Power (Real Power) from Reactive
Power and therefore are able to develop consumption numbers
for billing purposes which are accurate.

If in fact this device electronically produces Voltage and Current
relationships to simulate Reactive Power in order to confuse the
meter so as to avoid consumption based billing then it is a case of
deception.

Where does the power dissipated at the load actually come from?
Is it grid derived power or is it produced by some sort of Magic
within the device independent of the grid?

The exotic waveforms produced by the device would lead one to
suspect that it is in reality deception at work...

It would be interesting to see what sort of evaluation would be
rendered by Power Company Engineers.
Traditional residential meters, the kind with the spinning disk are very immune to power factor variations.  They read true power with very good accuracy.  The new smart meters calculate: imaginary power, VA (apparent power), and real power.  Real power is never greater than apparent power.  If the power company starts billing residences for apparent power, residential bills will go higher.  Adding phase shifting capacitors or coils that take the PF further away from 1.0 will only make bills go up.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on July 14, 2014, 09:48:01 AM
"MY" circuit diagram was posted, twice, or perhaps 2 1/2 times, on the previous page of this thread, by x_name41. Some of my component values are different but the circuit is the same: a ZVS Royer-Mazilli type autoresonating circuit. Just get rid of the Red Herring "bi toroid" which is a wasteful power sink, and the "primary" becomes your transmission loop (with the 3-parallel spiral heavy conductor construction, or even copper pipe) and the reactive power accumulates by resonance and circulates within the tank circuit formed by that loop and its capacitors. I don't know what a Murray SERPS circuit is supposed to be, but I've clearly shown you a working, battery powered "Reactive Power Energy Source Generator". And it uses the same schematic but different component values from what has been posted in this thread by someone else, without anyone complaining.

Not only that but my remote wireless receiver "converts VARs" into usable power that is dissipated in the light bulb.

But please, if all that is off-topic, I apologize, don't let me distract you.

Interesting a sort of near field resonant coupling but I guess it's not OU, the second coil couple and pump power from primary...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: tinman on July 14, 2014, 12:36:20 PM
Traditional residential meters, the kind with the spinning disk are very immune to power factor variations.  They read true power with very good accuracy. 

No so MarkE. They can be fooled like most meters today.

Example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcPKz7uEq-8
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 14, 2014, 02:12:08 PM
"MY" circuit diagram was posted, twice, or perhaps 2 1/2 times, on the previous page of this thread, by x_name41. Some of my component values are different but the circuit is the same: a ZVS Royer-Mazilli type autoresonating circuit. Just get rid of the Red Herring "bi toroid" which is a wasteful power sink, and the "primary" becomes your transmission loop (with the 3-parallel spiral heavy conductor construction, or even copper pipe) and the reactive power accumulates by resonance and circulates within the tank circuit formed by that loop and its capacitors. I don't know what a Murray SERPS circuit is supposed to be, but I've clearly shown you a working, battery powered "Reactive Power Energy Source Generator". And it uses the same schematic but different component values from what has been posted in this thread by someone else, without anyone complaining.

Not only that but my remote wireless receiver "converts VARs" into usable power that is dissipated in the light bulb.

But please, if all that is off-topic, I apologize, don't let me distract you.
I see there is commonality in the extraction of the VAR energy. The Russian device is similar.
Which thread are you posting this on? What's the COP you're getting with your RPESG VAR device?
Thanks, Wayne

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 14, 2014, 11:22:35 PM
Hi Stefan,

It looks like your rendition of the SERPS schematic is headed in the right direction. I also did a circuit simulation of the setup according to your circuit idea and timings. Below is the code and a screenshot.

$ 1 5.0E-6 15.472767971186109 50 5.0 50
v 304 192 304 128 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 304 128 352 128 0
w 352 192 304 192 0
c 576 96 576 160 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -2.876241427016669
c 640 160 640 224 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -2.876241427016668
159 576 160 640 160 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 640 160 640 96 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 576 224 576 160 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 576 224 640 224 0
w 576 96 640 96 0
w 688 336 688 128 0
w 608 176 608 272 0
T 352 128 432 192 0 7.0362 1.0 1.3743310087148544 -1.3178404103425827 0.999
r 464 96 544 96 0 100.0
w 544 96 576 96 0
w 464 96 432 96 0
w 432 96 432 128 0
w 432 192 432 224 0
w 432 224 576 224 0
w 656 128 688 128 0
w 592 336 688 336 0
w 592 192 592 272 0
w 608 272 608 400 0
150 496 400 592 400 0 2 0.0
150 496 336 592 336 0 2 5.0
w 592 400 608 400 0
w 496 352 496 416 0
w 384 320 496 320 0
R 368 320 304 320 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -1.0471975511965976 0.33333300000000005
R 368 384 304 384 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -3.490658503988659 0.33333300000000005
x 203 329 282 335 0 24 Charge
x 175 390 283 396 0 24 Discharge
152 416 416 496 416 0 2 5.0
w 496 384 400 384 0
w 400 384 400 432 0
w 416 432 400 432 0
w 368 384 400 384 0
w 384 320 384 400 0
w 384 400 416 400 0
w 368 320 384 320 0
w 592 272 592 336 0
o 0 32 0 289 320.0 1.6 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 320.0 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 13 32 0 289 160.0 1.6 2 -1
o 13 32 1 35 320.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1

The waveforms I'm getting look almost exactly like what is shown in the original waveform captures from the conference, with the waveshapes and polarities matching pretty much right on (I also attached a copy of the screenshot again for reference/convenience). The only thing is that the return power going back to the grid, in the simulation, is much smaller then what they are showing on their scope traces. This is likely a matter of tuning the circuit component values, but I figured this simulation would be a good starting point for everyone to play with component values.

As a note, the two graphs on the left show the AC source's input current and power while the graphs on the right show the current and power consumption on the load resistor. In the simulation, Negative power on the AC source represents power flowing out, and positive power represents power flowing back into the AC source from the circuit.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 15, 2014, 02:30:59 AM
Hi Jason and all,
well done.
Maybe you can modify the circuit again, so that during charging we have 50 Ohms and during
discharge we have 100 Ohms as the load resistor ?
(or the other way around ?)
(Babcock and Murray uses 2 Lamps as the load and I guess they are also switching them...
otherwise they could just have used only 1 lamp...)

Please see, if you could get almost equal energy pulses as input and output this way ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 15, 2014, 03:25:13 AM
By the way here is a free video from the recent 2014 Bedini Energy Science conference.
It is the panel discussion where also Murray and Babcock took part.
It is free, if you subscribe to Aarons Newsletter.
Here is the link to it:

http://bit.ly/bedini2014

I am just  watching it, it is pretty interesting.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 15, 2014, 06:29:50 AM
Nice work Stefan for working out how it's done, the sims match the scope shot wave forms quite well.

Just wondering though if the power charging the capacitors is being measured as output as well as the power when they discharge.

As the capacitors charge through the lamps the lamps would be seeing a reducing voltage across them.

Are we sure the sim is measuring the power output correctly ?

Should the power that charges the caps be measured as output?

I think the power from the cap discharge should be measured as output, but I don't think both charging and discharging of
the caps should be measured as output.

Just wondering.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 15, 2014, 06:42:42 AM
Also just wondering, since both half cycles are identical can we not just disregard one half cycle and assess the circuit in
a DC situation using only the positive half cycle ? To simplify the power analysis.

..

P.S. I looked at the power consumed by the capacitors and things seem a bit odd to me then, anyone explain the values at the bottom of this sim ? It says 178 Watts consumed by the resistor and it also shows 78 Watts consumed by each capacitor.  ???

Code.

$ 1 5.0E-6 15.472767971186109 50 5.0 50
v 384 208 384 144 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 384 144 432 144 0
w 432 208 384 208 0
c 656 112 656 176 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -7.954571889469782
c 720 176 720 240 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -7.954571889469783
159 656 176 720 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 720 176 720 112 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 656 240 656 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 656 240 720 240 0
w 656 112 720 112 0
w 768 352 768 144 0
w 688 192 688 288 0
T 432 144 512 208 0 7.0362 1.0 -1.2230422064702071 1.2921222355024904 0.999
r 544 112 624 112 0 100.0
w 624 112 656 112 0
w 544 112 512 112 0
w 512 112 512 144 0
w 512 208 512 240 0
w 512 240 656 240 0
w 736 144 768 144 0
w 672 352 768 352 0
w 672 208 672 288 0
w 688 288 688 416 0
150 576 416 672 416 0 2 0.0
150 576 352 672 352 0 2 5.0
w 672 416 688 416 0
w 576 368 576 432 0
w 464 336 576 336 0
R 448 336 384 336 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -1.0471975511965976 0.33333300000000005
R 448 400 384 400 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -3.490658503988659 0.33333300000000005
x 283 345 362 351 0 24 Charge
x 255 406 363 412 0 24 Discharge
152 496 432 576 432 0 2 5.0
w 576 400 480 400 0
w 480 400 480 448 0
w 496 448 480 448 0
w 448 400 480 400 0
w 464 336 464 416 0
w 464 416 496 416 0
w 448 336 464 336 0
w 672 288 672 352 0
o 0 32 0 289 160.0 1.6 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 320.0 9.765625E-5 1 -1
o 13 64 1 35 320.0 9.765625E-5 2 -1
o 3 64 1 35 80.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1
o 4 64 1 35 80.0 9.765625E-5 4 -1


..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 15, 2014, 10:12:05 AM
If this is in fact legitimate, then I want to be using it.  :) My positive thinking tells me that if it will work identically on each half cycle of AC it should work with DC as well so I tried the sim with a diode by itself in the supply side and also with a capacitor there as well as
the diode.

If true and we can apply the principal with DC and batteries and capacitor banks then the batteries should show a net charging current.

 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on July 15, 2014, 01:21:34 PM
Also just wondering, since both half cycles are identical can we not just disregard one half cycle and assess the circuit in
a DC situation using only the positive half cycle ? To simplify the power analysis.

..

P.S. I looked at the power consumed by the capacitors and things seem a bit odd to me then, anyone explain the values at the bottom of this sim ? It says 178 Watts consumed by the resistor and it also shows 78 Watts consumed by each capacitor.  ???

The sim display only peak watt not the integrated value per unit of time...
The white curve is an instantaneous I*U curve, but unfortunately no integrating function for the curve.
You can look visually the area of the white (power) curve above or under the zero line and compare with input.
Or doing yourself integration if you know math...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 15, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
Hi Stefan,

Here's the modified simulation using the resistor series/parallel switching. I haven't spent any time tuning the component values, but here's the basic template for everyone to play with.

$ 1 5.0E-6 3.5993318835628396 40 5.0 50
v 320 240 320 176 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 320 176 368 176 0
w 368 240 320 240 0
c 640 144 640 208 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -173.65305112063913
c 704 208 704 272 0 9.999999999999999E-6 -173.65305112063913
159 640 208 704 208 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 704 208 704 144 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 640 272 640 208 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 640 272 704 272 0
w 640 144 704 144 0
w 752 320 752 176 0
w 672 224 672 320 0
T 368 176 448 240 0 4.0 1.0 0.15665227448245278 0.19767468597969223 0.999
r 480 80 544 80 0 50.0
w 608 144 640 144 0
w 480 144 448 144 0
w 448 144 448 176 0
w 448 240 448 272 0
w 448 272 640 272 0
w 720 176 752 176 0
w 656 320 752 320 0
w 656 240 656 320 0
w 672 320 672 448 0
150 560 448 656 448 0 2 0.0
150 560 384 656 384 0 2 5.0
w 656 448 672 448 0
w 560 400 560 464 0
w 448 368 560 368 0
R 432 368 368 368 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -1.0471975511965976 0.33333300000000005
R 432 432 368 432 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 -3.490658503988659 0.33333300000000005
x 267 377 346 383 0 24 Charge
x 239 438 347 444 0 24 Discharge
152 480 464 560 464 0 2 5.0
w 560 432 464 432 0
w 464 432 464 480 0
w 480 480 464 480 0
w 432 432 464 432 0
w 448 368 448 448 0
w 448 448 480 448 0
w 432 368 448 368 0
w 656 320 656 384 0
r 544 144 608 144 0 50.0
w 608 144 608 80 0
w 480 144 480 80 0
159 480 144 544 144 0 0.01 1.0E10
159 544 144 544 80 0 0.01 1.0E10
159 544 80 608 80 0 0.01 1.0E10
w 560 112 784 112 0
w 784 112 784 448 0
w 784 448 672 448 0
w 576 96 752 96 0
w 752 96 752 176 0
w 512 160 512 320 0
w 512 320 656 320 0
o 0 32 0 35 261.87124863169134 5.237424972633828 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 523.7424972633827 9.765625000000001E-155 1 -1
o 13 32 0 35 149.65776766268445 2.993155353253689 2 -1
o 13 32 1 35 279.96809277222553 9.765625E-105 3 -1

NOTE: The two graphs on the right side show the voltage and power dissipation through only one of the two resistors. Notice how the voltage on the return spike appears to be taller, but it is only because of the series/parallel switching. If you look at the current through the entire resistor network, it looks similar to the first simulation.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: vasik041 on July 15, 2014, 09:05:38 PM
Model and simulation results in LTSpice  :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 15, 2014, 09:21:09 PM
Hello gents,

The site where I originally posted some of this info is down right now due to some complications involving a domain transfer, so I thought it couldn't hurt to post here in the mean time, as well as send a reply back to Wayne whom I was trying to write back to, and who looks to be on this thread.

Wayne,

Good eye! That circuit was drawn up late in the night and I didn't think much about the discharge path while putting it together. As for the fix, an NPN MOSFET can be used as a synchronous rectifier since MOSFETs can pass currents in either direction when turned on, this also helps reduce total conduction losses for the circuit under charging conditions as well.

For everyone else,

If you're interested in the circuit I've attached some of the diagrams I made recently, though the accompanying text that I had written on Garagehacker is a necessary compliment. For a basic summary: the circuit uses synchronous rectification and a simple DC series/parallel switching circuit along with PWM to force a 2xf sinusoidal current that would meet the requirements of Jim's switching circuit, particularly the Steinmetz reflection criteria. I feel this is a superior approach to both Babcock's convoluted circuit and Jim's original SERPS prototype built by "Eric," which appears to have used SSRs.

I think most people are caught up in the subterfuge of the circuit's description, particularly Jim's terseness and Babcock wanting to promote his "flyback" circuit. The only thing that really matters is the shape of the signal needed for creating the "reflection". If you know what the currents and potentials should be doing, then the circuit can be built however one would like as long as it satisfies the requirements of producing the correct wave shape and phase relations.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 15, 2014, 10:08:39 PM
If a circuit produces signals with higher harmonic frequencies that exceed the simulation's clock rate, is the sim likely to return correct math answers?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 10:13:44 PM
If a circuit produces signals with higher harmonic frequencies that exceed the simulation's clock rate, is the sim likely to return correct math answers?
Nope.  The minimum simulation step needs to be carefully selected so as to capture all important information and still not make the output file unwieldy.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 16, 2014, 05:34:48 AM
@vasik041

LTSPICE simulation looks good !
So the last green scope traces show mostly negative input power
on average while the blue trace above it at the lamp resistor shows positive real active power ?


Well done !


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: vasik041 on July 16, 2014, 06:48:24 AM
@vasik041

LTSPICE simulation looks good !
So the last green scope traces show mostly negative input power
on average while the blue trace above it at the lamp resistor shows positive real active power ?

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

 Hi Stefan,
 
 Negative power in this context means power consumed from the power source.
 The circuit is quite efficient, 7.1 W consumed and 6.8W dissipated on the load.
 It is also creates interesting asymmetry in primary current. With "real" transformer it probably cause core saturation. May be this creates some "magic" ?

Regards,
 V.


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: garrettm4 on July 18, 2014, 08:16:38 AM
Here's the LTspice simulation of the circuit when ran at 60 Hz and no PWM (can't seem to figure out how to produce PWM with LTspice). Looks very close to Babcock's waveforms. This really might be the equivalent circuit of what they were using.

Once concern about this whole circuit is the amount of electric charge returned on the discharge cycle; basic physics says it will be one half the charging cycle's value. And this seems to be shown by the simulation as well.

Ratios inherent with parallel/series transformations:

C= value of 1 cap

total capacitance ----- 2*C : 1/2*C
total electric charge -- 2*Q : 1*Q
voltage across cap --- 1*V_s : 2*V_s
energy stored --------- 1:1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 18, 2014, 07:31:22 PM
COP=50 Presentation !

Finally the presentation of Jim Murray and Paul Babcock
about the new SERPS Circuit with COP=50 from the Bedini 2014 Conference is now available here:

http://bit.ly/serpslecture

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 18, 2014, 07:56:46 PM
Below is the correct power and line current diagram. For some reason I didn't realize that the current on the next switching cycle would be in the same direction as the previous one. Any ways, this is more or less what the signal would look like if you could force double pulse sinusoidal currents with the fundamental being the same as line frequency.

After a quick analysis, the SERPS concept forces a resistive load to look reactive, which allows the reuse of about 50% of the previous total electric charge to do work a second time (since the parallel/series capacitor switcher is basically a charge pump). The 50% reuse is a MAXIMUM limit, set by the physics of a conservative capacitor. My simulation calcs show I was able to obtain around 40% reuse in practice.

As for energy and power I haven't done any calcs on those since I can't figure out how to perform math operations (integration/multiplication etc.) on LTspice simulation data... But prospectively the circuit should cut down on energy use by 20-40%. Definitely not a COP of 50! I think that figure is a load of crap. Comments welcome.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 18, 2014, 09:33:07 PM
Hi Garett,


Thanks for the update. Do you see any other chips that might be a bit cheaper that would do the job? I was thinking of using an Arduino controller to control the switching and optimize it experimentally.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 18, 2014, 09:45:43 PM
Surely if there is any OU in this principal then a simple experiment as suggested in the drawing below would show it with careful
measurement. I just drew two drawings to show the two phases of charging the capacitors through the resistor (load)
in parallel and then the same capacitors reconfigured in series and discharged through the resistor back to the supply.

I think those who are know the math should be able to analyse the circuit on paper and get a result of input to output.

I think the difference between energy supplied and energy returned will give the energy consumed and the energy dissipated by
the resistive load will be the output to be compared with the energy consumed.

Won't a DC analogy give a similar result to one half cycle of AC ? We can generate sinusoidal AC if we want to and plenty of
(out of phase power) as well but that's just another loss. Why can't we do it with DC ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 18, 2014, 10:06:09 PM
not, schemes so far are wrong, lo the correct scheme :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 19, 2014, 01:21:59 AM
Do you see any other chips that might be a bit cheaper that would do the job? I was thinking of using an Arduino controller to control the switching and optimize it experimentally.

An arduino would work perfectly and certainly cuts down on the number of discrete IC's used to time and trigger everything. But I wouldn't expect huge savings, the claimed COP of 50 is a bunch of hooie if you ask me.

Won't a DC analogy give a similar result to one half cycle of AC ? We can generate sinusoidal AC if we want to and plenty of
(out of phase power) as well but that's just another loss. Why can't we do it with DC ?

Sure, it will work the same. But the problem is that charge efficiency is 50% max, just the same as it is with AC. So that means your battery WILL DEPLETE! This is due to a conservative charge pump LOSING 50% of its charge during the parallel to series transformation, while energy remains constant.

The calcs below show that the energy used after the first cycle is 100 micro joules for both charging and discharging of the capacitor. Power is dependent upon the time constant and is higher for the series circuit as tau is smaller. At any rate, you RETURN only 50% of the charge that you took from the battery. That is you take 100 micro coulombs to charge in parallel (after the first charge cycle) and return 50 micro coulombs during each series discharge.

What this does mean is that the run time can be up to 50 percent longer than it would have otherwise (if using NiCd, as it has good pulse charge/discharge characteristics unlike lead acid). Power to the load, however, is reduced because only the delta in electric potential is used to move current around.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2014, 03:01:36 AM
not, schemes so far are wrong, lo the correct scheme :)
Oh, don't start. The circuit you have shown is not more efficient at producing heat than a straight wire connection from the heating element to the battery.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 19, 2014, 03:07:16 AM
@Garret: excellent analysis....and @ everybody else: that is why, with a cap charge-discharge system, you have to have the capacitor charging energy coming from somewhere else other than the battery you are charging with the resulting energy. This is not a viable closed-loop idea because of the losses that are inescapable.
But... you set up your electrosmog harvesters or your atmospheric antennae or your Tesla receivers or your xbox wifi, whatever, which can charge the capacitor bank in series to a relatively high voltage. Then you discharge this energy with caps in parallel at a lower voltage, to charge your battery or run your appliance. The charging can take place over longer time periods than the use of the energy, so you wind up ahead. Not overunity but in a sense "free energy" which otherwise is just wasted.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 19, 2014, 05:47:50 AM
Now if you don't use a conservative capacitor, where energy isn't kept constant, you can have more useful effects. As for "non-conservative" capacitor think dielectric absorption where charges are freely generated by the dielectric due to strain memory, or a "dead" NiCd battery able to keep producing small pulses of current when given small rest periods between discharges. Finally you have plasma capacitors where conservation laws may not be fully applicable. The basic concept of a plasma capacitor uses a small tubular CLF lamp wrapped in tinfoil and it's capacitance, once turned on, jumps up enormously. I haven't tested this last circuit yet, but I think it has promise. There is also the effect of light on ionizing gases, so charges may be freely generated by this circuit due to ambient light; I actually built a small photo detector out of an NE2 to transmit sound over laser light using this principle and it worked fabulously, very non-directional (unlike diode detectors) and surprising linearity.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 19, 2014, 10:46:24 AM
All,

Re Jasons simulation... what if you take the series connected parallel charged caps and then swap the + & - ,so when discharged into the 2nd quadrant, the voltage difference is 3 x peak sine. This may equalize the charge and discharge current amplitudes.

For that matter is there any visual confirmation that the caps are  placed in series when charged? By using the method above if the caps are charged in parallel and stay in parallel  there still would be a difference of 2 x peak sine but charge would not be halved.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: forest on July 19, 2014, 11:02:47 AM
@Garret: excellent analysis....and @ everybody else: that is why, with a cap charge-discharge system, you have to have the capacitor charging energy coming from somewhere else other than the battery you are charging with the resulting energy. This is not a viable closed-loop idea because of the losses that are inescapable.
But... you set up your electrosmog harvesters or your atmospheric antennae or your Tesla receivers or your xbox wifi, whatever, which can charge the capacitor bank in series to a relatively high voltage. Then you discharge this energy with caps in parallel at a lower voltage, to charge your battery or run your appliance. The charging can take place over longer time periods than the use of the energy, so you wind up ahead. Not overunity but in a sense "free energy" which otherwise is just wasted.


Wow! Accidentally you uncovered the real solution, just remove "[size=78%]The charging can take place over longer time periods" [/size] ;D
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 19, 2014, 11:45:27 AM
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
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 19, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
Hi Listener191,

That circuit cannot work the way you've shown with the I(t) and V(t) diagrams. The current will actually be in the same direction as before since the interleaved capacitor's potential is in series with the AC source, thus the AC line potential will rise, like two batteries connected in additive series, therefore current doesn't change direction.

Now, if you used a center tap transformer to invert the pulse current, this may actually work, but not as you've shown.

I've redrawn your diagram to show the directions of the currents for charge and discharge, notice the direction of the discharge currents for the interleaved capacitors: they don't cause current reversals.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 19, 2014, 08:33:51 PM
All,

There is a link between both set of caps, so that rules out parallel/series switching. The linked terminals do not appear to have other connections so it would appear that the caps are in series for voltage rating purposes.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 19, 2014, 09:23:35 PM
Hi G4RR3TT,

Slide 42 of the Bbcock/Murray presentation shows capacitor charged in the positive half sine is discharged in the negative half sine period. The video of the Japanese SERPS demo shows fixed links between the two sets of caps that rule out parallel charging, series discharging.. so what arrangement do you suggest that will deliver equal magnitude charging and discharging current?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 19, 2014, 09:40:32 PM
Hi G4RR3TT,

Perhaps what I should have said is.. other than a center tapped transformer, what arrangement do you suggest? :)

A center tapped transformer cannot be ruled out as, the three variants of SERPS that I have seen, all have transformers.

Personally I would like to see the current variants run on a small stand alone generator, as it would be easy to hear if a given load on the generator is lightened, when  the SERPS circuit is switched in.

The absence of line input waveforms from the wall, showing the I & V phase, is disturbing. Not much point of the device if the 1W real draw on the secondary side of the transformer for 50W in the load, is supported by 500VA from the line!

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 19, 2014, 10:17:37 PM
Thread is difficult to read due to oversized images, if people paragraph the text it can be read without scrolling sideways.
Nothing will put people off reading a thread like having to scroll sideways for every line of text.

Now my point to the drawing I posted was to see if anyone can determine the net power drawn from the supply and the power
dissipated by the resistor, not how efficient cap charging and discharging is.

If no one can determine the power dissipated by the resistor then how can we even know what will be OU and what won't ?

Seems to me that when the caps are charged through the resistor the energy that charges the capacitor does not heat the
resistor
and on discharge any energy returned to the supply does not heat the resistor either.

So where does the OU come into it ? I say it is in the incorrect measurement of power. To put it simply the power dissipated in
the resistive load cannot charge the capacitors
and the power returned to the supply cannot heat the resistors, the
circuit behavior I think is normal for what it is, the thing that is not normal is the way the power would need to be measured.
I don't think regular measurement methods will show accurate values.

If anyone can determine the powers in the circuit below we might be able to see where the problem lies.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 19, 2014, 10:26:39 PM
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.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on July 20, 2014, 12:35:56 AM
Agreed, in the process of "recycling" the electrical
power there must be some "losses" in the Load.

Is the return of some fraction of the power at
critical points in the waveform sufficient to "fool"
the prime mover into thinking that it is working
into a very small load?

What is going on seems to defy common sense.

The proclaimed "COP" is simply an illusion?

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2014, 05:06:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2014, 05:08:58 AM
By the way... note that the above images are 1024 pixels wide. I did this on purpose to show that this is _wide enough_ and doesn't play havok with the page width. There used to be a notice on the attachment types list that said this was the max pixel dimension. If everyone would please keep their images to 1024 pixels wide and less, the pages would display more better.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 20, 2014, 05:16:39 AM
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?

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 20, 2014, 07:23:16 AM
@TinselKoala, there's nothing weird with having a larger power out than in... gigawatt lasers do it all the time. For instance, having 1w in and 1GW out can be done, but with obvious duration and repetition limitations. What matters is finding the average power and multiplying it by the time duration to obtain energy. If E_in was less than E_out + E_stored you would have something novel...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2014, 10:52:03 AM
@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.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 20, 2014, 11:27:51 AM
[@TinselKoala
Ya, what you have is VAR out/power in.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 20, 2014, 11:49:22 AM
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

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wayne49s on July 20, 2014, 12:05:36 PM
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


Sorry, must be too early in the morning here (6am). I just read Garret's comment about the problem with the cap voltage in series..then something doesn't add up with what the authors are saying?







Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 20, 2014, 04:35:52 PM
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.
Quote
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!

Quote
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.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 20, 2014, 07:06:45 PM
@Farmhand,

I agree with what you're saying, the energy transformed into heat at the resistive load is 100% lost. So when you charge the capacitor through an RC circuit the total energy taken from the power supply is the energy transformed by the resistor PLUS the energy stored in the capacitor: E_taken(net) = E_c(stored) + E_r(loss). When the capacitor discharges, the same transformation of energy at the resistor happens again, so the net energy back to the source is: E_cap(stored) - E_r(loss) = E_returned(net). Which means the resistive load never disappears.

@All,

The only way the SERPS circuit can work--as claimed--is if the magnitudes of the current taken and returned are nearly equal and the times at which these exchanges of charge take place cause it to look 100% reactive to the source supply. The switched capacitor circuit does most of this, except for having unequal charge and discharge currents. The other circuit posted by Listener doesn't force current backwards so it can't force reactive currents to exist. If a transformer were used to reflect the cap discharge in the right direction then it may work, but not as shown.

So the question becomes, how can you--despite loss of energy at the resistor--make the circuit look reactive? Is this even possible? When you push all the extraneous details to the side, and just examine AC circuits, the phase of the current to the voltage is how you determine the magnitude of resistive and reactive components. This effectively means, if you were to somehow shift the phase relation to some arbitrary angle, you could make a resistive load "look" reactive, despite it transforming energy into heat. Now that's theory. But can you really do it? Murray and Babcock seem to think so...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 20, 2014, 09:44:01 PM
The text says,
Quote
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!




Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 20, 2014, 10:53:03 PM
If anyone is interested, I've taken the liberty to upload a couple of "confidential" documents I was sent (a few years back) from the guy who was funding Jim (this was before a stock holders meeting decided to stop funding the development of Jim's dynaflux motor and they went their separate ways). Also, I had the opportunity (about the same time as I acquired those documents) to talk to Jim over the phone, and he seemed pretty damn sharp on engineering fundamentals and surprisingly sincere about his work. Though I suppose that's not saying much, since Ponzi schemers and other "money pit" entrepreneurs are much the same... Also I'm overly weary about any one "partnering" up with Aaron Murakami, who's at best a negligent obfuscator/misrepresentor of others ideas, and at worst, an intentional snake oil salesmen looking for the latest FE fad to promote using his "guerrilla marketing" and "value added services" tactics. No joke on the last bit there, he literally calls his promoting methodology "guerrilla marketing," which speaks volumes about his character.

While I'm at it, here are some pics of his dynaflux motor and what appears to be a parametric inductor. (attached as a .zip, four photos total)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 20, 2014, 11:07:45 PM
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.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 20, 2014, 11:15:04 PM
An interesting parallel to the SERPS device, at least partially in topology, is MERS (magnetic energy recover switch) used for power factor correction (PFC).

United States Patent 8045309 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8045309.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8045309.html)

Attached is a .pdf power point presentation.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: serendipitor on July 21, 2014, 07:18:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 05:16:38 AM
Okay, tonight I had time to buy the Serps
lecture:

http://bit.ly/serpslecture (http://bit.ly/serpslecture)

but, well I guess you can spare the 37 US$...

As the slideshows showed interesting devices and
also Paul Babcock showed his toroidal motor turning
and showing needing less power when he enganged his
special switches, there were no real circuit diagrams
shown and also the motor was not shown powering a mechanical load...

Looked more or less like a rotorvertor minimizing the input energy.

Anyway, the only interesting block diagram shown was this one,
which I have modified with further explanation about Tesla´s magnifying
generator.
I added the violet circle and note...

I was wrong, when I assúmed, that they just charge and discharge
the caps over the bulb ( resistive ) loads !

This has too many losses !

You really need to have a switched LC tank circuit with very low ohmic
impedance, where the L is the primary of a transformer
and just have the ohmic load on the secondary of the transformer,
which must have a high impedance ! ( That is why they use 2 bulbs in series
at the secondary of the transformer, there is a higher voltage with lower current = high impedance)

This way you can compensate any ohmical losses from the primary coil of the transformer
with the switched capacitor.

I will draw a block diagram and also post it later.

They did not show any other block diagram, so the video was a bit disapointing...
Having a great technology and sitting on it only waiting for stock investors money
is a waste of time....in my opinion...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 05:49:52 AM
Okay,here is the block diagram.

The switching timing is the same as already posted before.

Maybe the guys with the simulation software can run this again through ?

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 06:11:50 AM
By the way, it would be probably good to have the
parallel cap configuration with C1 and C2 resonate with the primary
of the transformer coil L1 at 60 Hz, you you would need to
tune the cap values of the electrolytic caps with some parallel
caps to get the right capactor value to get to 60 Hz resoanance
with the given transformer coil L1.

As there is mutual inductance coupling between L2 and L1
when the 2 bulbs load is applied, this might need to be
taking into account and calculated for this load...to be at optimum
efficiency.
So L1 and (C1+C2) should have a maximum Q, so ohmical losses in this primary
LC tank should be minimal for good efficiency.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wings on July 22, 2014, 09:11:15 AM
Parameter Variation Machines With focus on EPD FQToEW, JF Murray, Manelstam & Papalex
back to 2012 by garrettm4


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10769-parameter-variation-machines-focus-epd-fqtoew-jf-murray-manelstam-papalex.html#post183458 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10769-parameter-variation-machines-focus-epd-fqtoew-jf-murray-manelstam-papalex.html#post183458)

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7771/ractancemachineplot1.png (http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7771/ractancemachineplot1.png)


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/6557-charge-conserving-capacitive-spring-9.html#post221075
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 09:12:22 AM
Hi Stefan,

In the earlier video of SERP's you can see fixed links between the two sets of caps, which rules out parallel/series switching.

Regards

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 09:31:01 AM
Hi Stefan,

Also in the conference presentation video at time:1.06.18 , Babcock says " we use the transformer to duplicate the output of a generator". This indicates the SERP,s switching is after the transformer.

Regards

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 02:44:20 PM
All,

Re the presentation video time 1.50.08 to 1.50.38. Babcock specifically states 1W out of the transformer for 52W into the load. Just confirming again that the switching is after the secondary of the transformer.

Sorry for belaboring this point in the last few posts, but schemes that are not in alignment with what we know about the SERPS demonstration setup, will not yield the results that Babcock & Murray have obtained.

The SERPS concept by their own admission is not patentable, so the only patent they could apply for, would be a specific circuit configuration and why would they give that away!
I think they have provided enough for replication by experimentation.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 22, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
This is a good point to look into various ways to do AC energy recovery. The following simulation shows an example of how to do this using the series/parallel cap switching version. The load is left out for now for simplicity.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 9.001713130052181 31 5.0 50
v 288 176 288 48 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 352 80 448 144 0 0.1 1.0 11.68220520430725 -15.210861419364894 0.9999
w 288 48 352 48 0
w 352 48 352 80 0
w 352 144 352 176 0
w 448 80 448 48 0
w 448 48 512 48 0
w 448 144 448 176 0
r 288 176 352 176 0 1.0
R 352 304 288 304 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.13
p 448 144 448 80 0
g 448 176 448 192 0
l 448 176 608 176 0 0.0032335 -15.21086141936489
R 352 224 288 224 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.42
x 176 232 255 238 0 24 Charge
x 148 311 256 317 0 24 Discharge
w 640 320 464 320 0
L 352 384 288 384 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
w 464 240 528 240 0
w 352 384 352 336 0
w 352 256 352 336 0
w 464 272 464 384 0
I 480 272 528 272 0 0.5
x 121 394 265 400 0 24 Switching EN
w 464 384 352 384 0
w 624 144 624 256 0
w 624 256 720 256 0
w 688 80 720 80 0
w 640 128 640 320 0
w 720 256 720 80 0
w 608 48 672 48 0
w 608 176 672 176 0
159 608 176 608 112 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 672 112 672 48 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 608 112 672 112 0 0.1 1.0E10
c 672 112 672 176 0 6.8E-5 85.31942656795593
c 608 48 608 112 0 6.8E-5 85.31942656795593
w 608 48 512 48 0
152 528 256 624 256 0 2 5.0
150 352 240 464 240 0 2 5.0
150 352 320 464 320 0 2 0.0
w 464 272 480 272 0
o 5 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 47.89048565205903 0 -1
o 13 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 9 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 0 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 23.945242826029514 1 -1
o 0 16 1 291 4789.048565205902 9.765625E-55 2 -1

This next example includes a load resistor connected directly in series with the tank circuit. Notice how the current waveforms change. and how the energy recovery is affected.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 13.097415321081861 31 5.0 50
v 272 192 272 64 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 336 96 432 160 0 0.1 1.0 3.7384976990607903 -5.391754900088215 0.9999
w 272 64 336 64 0
w 336 64 336 96 0
w 336 160 336 192 0
w 432 96 432 64 0
w 432 160 432 192 0
r 272 192 336 192 0 1.0
R 336 320 272 320 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.13
p 432 160 432 96 0
g 432 192 432 208 0
l 432 192 592 192 0 0.0032335 -5.391754900088115
R 336 240 272 240 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.42
x 160 248 239 254 0 24 Charge
x 132 327 240 333 0 24 Discharge
w 624 336 448 336 0
L 336 400 272 400 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
w 448 256 512 256 0
w 336 400 336 352 0
w 336 272 336 352 0
w 448 288 448 400 0
I 464 288 512 288 0 0.5
x 105 410 249 416 0 24 Switching EN
w 448 400 336 400 0
w 608 160 608 272 0
w 608 272 704 272 0
w 672 96 704 96 0
w 624 144 624 336 0
w 704 272 704 96 0
w 592 64 656 64 0
w 592 192 656 192 0
159 592 192 592 128 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 656 128 656 64 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 592 128 656 128 0 0.1 1.0E10
c 656 128 656 192 0 6.8E-5 33.30028999979963
c 592 64 592 128 0 6.8E-5 33.30028999979963
152 512 272 608 272 0 2 5.0
150 336 256 448 256 0 2 5.0
150 336 336 448 336 0 2 0.0
w 448 288 464 288 0
r 432 64 592 64 0 24.0
o 5 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 5.986310706507378 0 -1
o 12 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 8 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 0 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 11.972621413014757 1 -1
o 0 16 1 291 2394.524282602951 9.765625E-55 2 -1
o 40 64 1 35 1280.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1

Now, applyling the same load to the tank circuit through a tuned transformer, see how the currents change again.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 16.13108636308289 31 5.0 50
v 320 240 320 112 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 384 144 480 208 0 0.1 1.0 -14.75058551194672 15.046711170205125 0.9999
w 320 112 384 112 0
w 384 112 384 144 0
w 384 208 384 240 0
w 480 144 480 112 0
w 480 208 480 240 0
r 320 240 384 240 0 1.0
R 384 368 320 368 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.13
p 480 208 480 144 0
g 480 240 480 256 0
R 384 288 320 288 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.42
x 208 296 287 302 0 24 Charge
x 180 375 288 381 0 24 Discharge
w 672 384 496 384 0
L 384 448 320 448 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
w 496 304 560 304 0
w 384 448 384 400 0
w 384 320 384 400 0
w 496 336 496 448 0
I 512 336 560 336 0 0.5
x 153 458 297 464 0 24 Switching EN
w 496 448 384 448 0
w 656 208 656 320 0
w 656 320 752 320 0
w 720 144 752 144 0
w 672 192 672 384 0
w 752 320 752 144 0
w 640 112 704 112 0
w 640 240 704 240 0
159 640 240 640 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 704 176 704 112 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 640 176 704 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
c 704 176 704 240 0 6.8E-5 159.3874182125484
c 640 112 640 176 0 6.8E-5 159.38741821253723
152 560 320 656 320 0 2 0.0
150 384 304 496 304 0 2 0.0
150 384 384 496 384 0 2 5.0
w 496 336 512 336 0
r 720 16 720 80 0 24.0
T 640 16 720 80 0 0.0032335 1.0 -15.046711170205052 5.235301061927402 0.999
w 640 80 640 112 0
w 640 16 480 16 0
w 480 16 480 112 0
w 480 240 640 240 0
o 5 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 23.945242826029514 0 -1
o 11 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 8 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 0 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 47.89048565205903 1 -1
o 0 16 1 291 4789.048565205902 9.765625E-55 2 -1
o 39 64 1 35 2560.0 9.765625E-5 3 -1

Note that although the current waveforms look the same as before when no load was connected, the amplitude of the return spike is now half as tall as it was before.

Just more food for thought.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 05:01:19 PM
Hi Barry , I think Babcock meant the Variac with it...
Maybe they are just not using anymore a Variac but a normal transformer at the input...

Also you can see in the free Serps video that they have 3 x2 wires going to their switching board ,
so they are using 3 Electronic switches to switch the caps.
A different configuration is not possible to get these negative current pulses back to the grid...

Regards , Stefan.
P.S. there is an additional open core transformer probably in Series with L1 or L2 to
Setup and tune to the 60 Hz resonance frequency by changing the inductance
by pulling out the coil a bit out of the core , so it works like a tuneable choke...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 22, 2014, 05:07:30 PM
Here's a simulation that combines Simulations 1 and 3 from the previous post to make the waveform comparisons easier. Simple switch the SPDT switch back and forth to compare performance.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 16.13108636308289 31 5.0 50
v 288 240 288 112 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 352 144 448 208 0 0.1 1.0 -11.027533271887975 13.73770587487674 0.9999
w 288 112 352 112 0
w 352 112 352 144 0
w 352 208 352 240 0
w 448 144 448 112 0
w 448 208 448 240 0
r 288 240 352 240 0 1.0
R 352 368 288 368 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.13
p 448 208 448 144 0
g 448 240 448 256 0
R 352 288 288 288 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.42
x 176 296 255 302 0 24 Charge
x 148 375 256 381 0 24 Discharge
w 640 384 464 384 0
L 352 448 288 448 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
w 464 304 528 304 0
w 352 448 352 400 0
w 352 320 352 400 0
w 464 336 464 448 0
I 480 336 528 336 0 0.5
x 121 458 265 464 0 24 Switching EN
w 464 448 352 448 0
w 624 208 624 320 0
w 624 320 720 320 0
w 688 144 720 144 0
w 640 192 640 384 0
w 720 320 720 144 0
w 608 112 672 112 0
w 608 240 672 240 0
159 608 240 608 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 672 176 672 112 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 608 176 672 176 0 0.1 1.0E10
c 672 176 672 240 0 6.8E-5 -162.95598681315968
c 608 112 608 176 0 6.8E-5 -162.9559868131597
152 528 320 624 320 0 2 5.0
150 352 304 464 304 0 2 5.0
150 352 384 464 384 0 2 0.0
w 464 336 480 336 0
r 688 16 688 80 0 24.0
T 608 16 688 80 0 0.0032335 1.0 1.7763568394002505E-14 -1.7763568394002505E-14 0.999
w 608 80 608 112 0
w 608 16 432 16 0
w 448 240 608 240 0
S 448 112 448 48 0 1 false 0
w 432 16 432 48 0
w 608 48 608 80 0
l 464 48 608 48 0 0.0032335 -13.737705874876742
o 5 16 0 35 598.6310706507378 47.89048565205903 0 -1
o 11 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 8 16 0 35 5.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 0 16 0 35 299.3155353253689 47.89048565205903 1 -1
o 0 16 1 291 4789.048565205902 9.765625E-55 2 -1
o 39 64 1 35 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 3 -1

Note that the circuit, waveform wise, treats a loaded transformer as an inductor with a voltage source in series. Hence the waveforms look the same as a normal inductor (reactive), but with reduced voltage due to reflected CEMF from the Load on the secondary. This can be reduced by reducing the coupling and allowing the tank circuit to build up more energy, or by changing the winding ratio, which has the same effect.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 22, 2014, 05:30:21 PM
Here's yet another method to accomplish AC energy recovery with series tank circuits. In this simulation, rather than doing series-parallel cap switching, you can also take a single capacitor and simply reverse the polarity of the leads every quarter cycle. The following simulation illustrates the idea with an unloaded tank circuit.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 13.654669808981877 40 5.0 50
v 384 256 384 128 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 448 160 544 224 0 0.1 1.0 -7.524329192899012 3.2365834539612788 0.9999
w 384 128 448 128 0
w 448 128 448 160 0
w 448 224 448 256 0
w 544 160 544 128 0
w 544 128 608 128 0
r 608 128 704 128 0 24.0
w 544 224 544 256 0
r 384 256 448 256 0 0.01
p 544 224 544 160 0
l 544 256 704 256 0 0.1 3.23658345396128
c 816 160 816 224 0 7.036199999999999E-5 95.90704570493776
159 704 256 768 256 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 768 128 704 128 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 704 160 768 160 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 768 224 704 224 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 704 224 704 256 0
w 704 160 704 128 0
w 768 128 816 128 0
w 816 128 816 160 0
w 768 256 816 256 0
w 816 256 816 224 0
w 768 224 800 160 0
w 768 160 800 224 0
w 800 224 816 224 0
w 800 160 816 160 0
w 736 112 736 80 0
w 736 80 864 80 0
w 736 272 736 336 0
w 640 336 736 336 0
w 736 336 864 336 0
w 864 336 864 80 0
w 736 208 736 192 0
w 736 176 736 192 0
w 736 192 672 192 0
w 672 192 672 400 0
w 608 128 608 80 0
w 704 128 704 80 0
s 608 80 704 80 0 0 false
w 480 352 496 352 0
150 368 400 480 400 0 2 0.0
150 368 320 480 320 0 2 5.0
152 544 336 640 336 0 2 5.0
w 480 464 368 464 0
x 137 474 281 480 0 24 Switching EN
I 496 352 544 352 0 0.5
w 480 352 480 464 0
w 368 336 368 416 0
w 368 464 368 416 0
w 480 320 544 320 0
L 368 464 304 464 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
x 164 391 272 397 0 24 Discharge
x 192 312 271 318 0 24 Charge
R 368 304 304 304 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.5
R 368 384 304 384 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.5
152 544 400 640 400 0 2 0.0
w 544 416 544 400 0
w 544 400 544 384 0
w 544 400 480 400 0
w 640 400 672 400 0
g 384 256 384 272 0
o 0 32 0 35 299.3155353253689 11.972621413014757 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 1197.2621413014756 9.765625E-55 1 -1
o 12 32 0 34 149.65776766268445 5.986310706507378 2 -1
o 12 32 0 33 149.65776766268445 5.986310706507378 2 -1
o 7 32 1 35 7.62939453125E-5 9.765625E-5 3 -1

If you set the Enable input to low, this disables the switching network and you will see that the tuned tank circuit will begin to resonate like normal, while the source voltage and current go back in phase. But with the switching network activated, the energy in the circuit is always forced back into the source to keep the phase angle at 90 degrees. This can be accomplished with four bi-directional switches and two control signals.

- Jason
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 05:37:00 PM
Hi Jason,
Many thanks for the sims have to go to my PC later and reinstall Java to check these out.
Maybe you can also post screenshots of the scopeshots output for thode who dont get tge simulator to work ? Many thanks.
@Barry,  they are using 4 electrolytic caps , so 2 pairs. Each pair is wired -++- so to get an unpolarized cap , so they can use AC with electrolytic caps...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 22, 2014, 05:51:44 PM
Hi Stefan,

Sure, I'll go back and add the screenshots for the previous posts.

Here's the previous simulation modified with a transformer. Remember that when using a transformer to couple the load, you can effectively make the look "look" as big or small as you like (impedance matching). The smaller the load looks to the circuit, the more reactive energy will be able to build up. This is a nice trick you can use to get more percent of the active power in reactive form. When you do this, the circuit is less affected by the presence of the load. as in the following situation.

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 35.60246606707791 40 5.0 50
v 336 336 336 208 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 400 240 496 304 0 0.1 1.0 -7.415885983193569 3.6579084260104295 0.9999
w 336 208 400 208 0
w 400 208 400 240 0
w 400 304 400 336 0
w 496 240 496 208 0
w 496 208 560 208 0
r 752 64 752 128 0 24.0
w 496 304 496 336 0
r 336 336 400 336 0 0.01
p 496 304 496 240 0
l 576 128 656 128 0 0.1 -1.3867310077587525E-16
c 768 240 768 304 0 7.036199999999999E-5 89.31556694227751
159 656 336 720 336 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 720 208 656 208 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 656 240 720 240 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 720 304 656 304 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 656 304 656 336 0
w 656 240 656 208 0
w 720 208 768 208 0
w 768 208 768 240 0
w 720 336 768 336 0
w 768 336 768 304 0
w 720 304 752 240 0
w 720 240 752 304 0
w 752 304 768 304 0
w 752 240 768 240 0
w 688 192 688 160 0
w 688 160 816 160 0
w 688 352 688 416 0
w 592 416 688 416 0
w 688 416 816 416 0
w 816 416 816 160 0
w 688 288 688 272 0
w 688 256 688 272 0
w 688 272 624 272 0
w 624 272 624 480 0
w 560 208 560 192 0
w 656 208 656 128 0
w 432 432 448 432 0
150 320 480 432 480 0 2 5.0
150 320 400 432 400 0 2 0.0
152 496 416 592 416 0 2 0.0
w 432 544 320 544 0
x 89 554 233 560 0 24 Switching EN
I 448 432 496 432 0 0.5
w 432 432 432 544 0
w 320 416 320 496 0
w 320 544 320 496 0
w 432 400 496 400 0
L 320 544 256 544 0 1 false 5.0 0.0
x 116 471 224 477 0 24 Discharge
x 144 392 223 398 0 24 Charge
R 320 384 256 384 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.5
R 320 464 256 464 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.5
152 496 480 592 480 0 2 5.0
w 496 496 496 480 0
w 496 480 496 464 0
w 496 480 432 480 0
w 592 480 624 480 0
g 336 336 336 352 0
T 656 64 752 128 0 0.1 0.7 -3.657908426010432 1.3241671059262992 0.5
S 560 192 560 128 0 0 false 0
w 544 64 544 128 0
w 544 64 656 64 0
w 496 336 656 336 0
o 0 32 0 35 299.3155353253689 23.945242826029514 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 2394.524282602951 9.765625E-55 1 -1
o 12 32 0 34 261.87124863169134 2.618712486316914 2 -1
o 12 32 0 33 130.93562431584567 5.237424972633828 2 -1
o 7 32 1 35 149.65776766268445 9.765625E-55 3 -1

Playing with the turns ratio and coupling coefficient are the keys here along with having the circuit properly tuned. Notice that the waveforms across the capacitor almost match identically with what was shown in the original SERPS video.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 22, 2014, 06:09:24 PM
One other note. In the presentation video, Jim Murray shows a screenshot of one of his early SERPS prototypes, and you can clearly see that there are only two, electrolytic, capacitors connected in the circuit. If they are connected back to back in order to handle the AC current, it's possible that he could have been switching only a single equivalent capacitor in his early units.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 07:11:49 PM
Hi Stefan,

The variac is feeding the transformer, which sits behind the caps. The non saturatable inductor is to the right. The transformer provides a power source with a reasonably consistant inductive reactance. The line supply reactance will depend on what other devices are connected and the length of  connecting cable to the substation/line transformer etc.

Three switches would give you ability to parallel/series two caps (non polarized made from two electrolytics back to back), which would work if you were charging and discharging in the same half cycle however, that is not what is shown in the presentation material. Slide 42 shows the energy captured in the positive half cycle being returned in the negative half cycle.

By the way I am a practical person, not a theorist.

As you don't know me, I have attached a couple of photos of my Dave Squires motor replication to demonstrate that I am a replicator.
I also know how to switch high voltage/inductive loads without damaging IGBTS, but not using Babcocks complicated switching.


Regards

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 07:34:00 PM
Hi Jason, you are absolutely right !
They are just switching one cap only in reverse and back again !

I installed Java again and then went to:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

where the online simulator is hosted and copy and pasted the code you posted into the
import window and ran the simulation.
(For those not familar with this online simulator)

Yes, that ´s it...

Now we only need to fine tune it and design the right switching circuit to efficiently
electronically turn the cap back and forth connected.

Any idea how to do this switching electronically with a few MOSFETs and some driver circuits ?


BTW, Jason, how do you synchronize your toggling circuit inside the simulator ? How can one control,
when the switches are toggling ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 08:01:31 PM
Hi Barry, great devices !
You and Jason are brilliant ! Yes, they are only using one cap that is switched back and forth
in its polarity.
I have to learn this simulator to see how it can be tuned further.

Now we only need to fine tune it and design the right switching circuits.

Many thanks for your brilliant ideas !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 08:14:06 PM
Hi Stefan,

Not brilliant for sure but perhaps persistant!

Attached is a zero cross circuit that produces edges for positive and negative crossing points. Ignore the other circuitry, as this was used as part of a capacitive voltage multiplier.

For delays and pulse width timing that does not use a microcontroller, suggest Linear  LTC6993-1 and -3 devices which are cheap and are  programmed via external voltage control, but are based on internal clock counter. Use the positive and negative zero cross edges to trigger  a -1 and -3  device is series. The -1 sets the delay the -3 the pulse width.
A lot less components than 555 timers more accurate and they can all be voltage controlled from a couple of pots.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 08:52:04 PM
Attached is a bidirectional switch example with a driver built from standard parts. Photo voltaic drivers would be a good alternative for simple implentation, but can be expensive.

A floating 15V supply is required for each switch. I dont favour charge pump devices as they can be easily damaged but as this is a constant duty cycle requirement, they would work OK.

Use the same circuit for MOSFET's

If just switching caps into resistive loads there should not be a big problem with voltage transients.

When switching inductors, the most important point is to recover the inductive energy at the device terminals, as interconnecting track or wire inductance can result in large transients that exceed the peak voltage rating of the device.

Also IGBT's rated at 1200V 150A pulsed will only typically handle 10A continuous, before you depart from the Safe Forward Biased Operating Area. When switching low voltage but at the same time allowing very high voltage transients to be developed, devices need to be paralleled if 10A is to be exceeded.

Babcocks switching scheme which uses SCR's to turn on and IGBT's to turn off, has the downfall of relatively slow switching speed due to the SCR turn off speed. Carefull selection of the SCR type is needed to keep switch off speed optimised. The SCR is used to handle the large voltage transient, which the IGBT doesnt see, as its is already turned on.

If your intention is to recover a large voltage due to a high rate of Dv/Dt, then the MERS scheme would work better for you. 

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on July 22, 2014, 09:00:48 PM
Hi Stefan and all,


I have been working on this for the last few days. I have tried both the single cap and the parallel/series setup. The circuit works well but I don't see the low input power at the source.


I'll explain what I'm doing. Since I'm not an electronics genius I didn't build a circuit for the control signals. But I'm a sound engineer so I recorded the signals on digital multitrack recording software on my mac. A sine wave and four 20-25%duty cycle square waves. This way the control signals are always in sync with the sine wave. The sine wave output goes to a power amplifier which powers the transformer.
The 4 control signals go to a breadboard where I control and do the switching.


It goes like this:
The output of the audio interface is low voltage so I send it to MOSFET drivers(4 channels), to sharpen the signal and because its input threshold is very low. This way I get a sharp 15V signal on the driver output. The drivers power the input of 4 (or 6 depending on setup) H11D1 optocouplers. On the output of the optos I have 4 (or 6) discrete micro DC-DC converters to do the independent switching of the power mosfets. Each switch is made of 2 mosfet (search mosfet AC setup).
For the parallel/series setup I used the Bedini scalar battery charge setup, but replaced each of the 3 transistors with an AC mosfet setup (this is where I need 6 mosfets thus 6 optos), so it can switch parallel/series in the pos. and the neg. half cycle.


The one cap setup is the same but you only need 4 mosfets, that's one AC mosfet setup on either side of the cap.


I'll try and draw a crude basic schematic…


Normally, in a non switched setup, when I run the transf. with my amplifier and have a tuned cap on the secondary the amp meter on the primary of transf. goes down almost to 0 like it should. But here even though the circuit works well I don't see this (yet).


Since my signals are recorded and looped I can't change duty cycle in real time but I can shift them back and forth in real time very precisely by nudging the track(s).


I just thought it could be an option for someone who doesn't know how to make the signals needed. :)


I'll keep working on it…


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 09:01:29 PM
Many thanks Barry,
have to look further into this.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 09:06:21 PM
Hi Mario,
many thanks for your replications.
Please can you do a video and explain in it and show us, how you do it ?

Many thanks in advance.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 22, 2014, 09:06:57 PM
Attached is the data sheet for the LTC-6993 pulse generator, they cost about $3 a piece, £2.5 from Farnell in the UK part no 1848053 for the rising edge triggered type and 1848055 for the falling edge triggered type.

The rising edge type is the delay from the zero cross point to where you want to switch and then triggers the falling edge type on the falling edge of the pulse. The falling edge type generates the pulse width you want. As you may want to keep all the pulse widths the same, the control inputs can be tied to the same control voltage.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 09:19:11 PM
I think the whole control circuit could be done by using a small PIC processor
as with the AD-Converters from it you can dedect zero crossings and only the
MOSFETs Switching circuits must be designed with drivers for the
right potentials to switch the MOSFETs the right way.

I think by the end of the year we could all heat our flats with this Reactive Watts for instance
use 1 Kwatts
and still deliver 300 Watts back to the utility, so your power meter turns backwards ! ;)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 22, 2014, 09:38:31 PM
I still wonder, what this open core choke will do and how it is connected ?
Maybe it is just put in parallel to the load resistor ?

Paul Babcock was telling, that he lived in Alaska and during the winter months it was bitter cold.

Then he got himself an old petter diesel generator from the junkyard for 100 US$ and
used it to power his cabin in the woods.
When he one day put an inductive lamp balast load in parallel wiith his ligh bulbs suddenly
the generator speeded up and the lights were brighter and the generator needed less fuel.

See it in the pictures.

Maybe the open core choke ( probably from a modified microwave transformer
where the upper core piece is removed can be used to tune the inductance of this
choke by pulling up or lowering the coil in the core....


Best regards, Stefan.

P.S: I´hope Aaron does not mind posting these pics from the sales PDF file which came
with the video....but when we heat this winter our flats with this reactive Watts power
then we can all donate to them from the saved electric bill money...
or you get yourself the sales package at:
http://bit.ly/serpslecture (http://bit.ly/serpslecture)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on July 22, 2014, 09:58:55 PM
Hi Stefan,


I attach a few VERY crude drawing, I apologise but… as time permits….Somewhere I drew the transistor symbol but it's all mosfets with their body diode. Can't do video but will make pics of the setup.


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Marshallin on July 23, 2014, 12:55:09 AM
Guys use one Arduino, and you can save time and money here. And mainly you can rebuild program every time you get new idea or reuse it for diferent project.

If you write me what you want exactly on output i can help you made program for it.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 01:04:41 AM
Hi Stefan,

This single reversed cap scheme... is this not the same as my schematic with two caps that get charged in one half cycle and then discharged in the next half cycle when the polarity is reversed?

This scheme only uses two bidirectional switches, three if you make it like Jasons circuit.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 23, 2014, 01:11:21 AM
bitoroid transformer it works :)
my simple experimental test circuit, the red sinusoid is it current, and green sinusoid is a voltage
see in russian forum (http://realstrannik.ru/forum/19-svobodnaya-energiya/134922-bi-toroidalnyj-transformator-thane-c-heins.html?start=18#229664) and bulgarian forum (http://mazeto.net/index.php?topic=9026.msg63070#msg63070)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 23, 2014, 01:20:45 AM
@x_name41Nice !
What is the output versus input power ratio in your device ?
Many thanks !

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 23, 2014, 02:13:47 AM
@x_name41Nice !
What is the output versus input power ratio in your device ?
Many thanks !

Regards, Stefan.
I have no idea, because i used sound card as a oscilloscope and i had no opportunity to calibrate and adjust the ratios, for the ratio between input and output power i can say that in the DC power supply i have 3,45V/0,54A.- without load, and with load have 3,68V/0,53A. Load is it incandescent bulb on a 24V/0,020A. I would like this device, to use it for laptop power supply :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 23, 2014, 04:25:39 AM
I am still playing with the simulator.

I came up with this  output circuit
by also using there a switched cap which makes the output pulses bigger.
The switching pulses are inverted to the main switching pulses, so this second cap
is 180 degrees out of phase switched onto the load resistor.

Well, as thze second scopeshot from the left ( the white one) shows the
actual peak values of the input power, where the minus amplitude means
POSITIVE input power and the positive wave means NEGATIVE input power (power delivered back to the grid)
you see, that this circuit draws around 826 - 610 Watts= 216 Watts...
But these are only the peak values...so no real RMS measurements.

At the load resistor the peak values are 279 Watts, but surely the curves must be integrated
to see the real RMS output power. This is unfortunately not available in this simulator...

Well you can see, if you switch the output switching OFF with the switch at the top,
the amplitude at the load resistor falls to around 96 Watts Peak.

===================================================

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 3.3115451958692312 11 5.0 50
v 144 496 144 368 0 1 60.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 144 368 208 368 0
w 304 368 368 368 0
r 560 224 560 288 0 25.0
r 144 496 208 496 0 0.01
c 576 400 576 464 0 5.9999999999999995E-5 141.54046248279113
159 464 496 528 496 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 528 368 464 368 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 464 400 528 400 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 528 464 464 464 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 464 464 464 496 0
w 464 400 464 368 0
w 528 368 576 368 0
w 576 368 576 400 0
w 528 496 576 496 0
w 576 496 576 464 0
w 528 464 560 400 0
w 528 400 560 464 0
w 560 464 576 464 0
w 560 400 576 400 0
w 496 352 496 320 0
w 496 320 624 320 0
w 496 512 496 576 0
w 400 576 496 576 0
w 496 576 624 576 0
w 624 576 624 320 0
w 496 448 496 432 0
w 496 416 496 432 0
w 496 432 432 432 0
w 432 432 432 640 0
w 368 368 368 352 0
w 464 368 464 288 0
R 400 576 288 576 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.5
R 400 640 336 640 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.5
w 400 640 432 640 0
g 144 496 144 512 0
T 464 224 560 288 0 0.05 0.5 -4.826693570851079 1.0364586850695607 0.5
w 368 224 368 352 0
w 304 496 464 496 0
w 368 224 464 224 0
w 208 368 304 368 0
w 208 496 304 496 0
w 560 224 688 224 0
w 560 288 672 288 0
w 672 288 752 288 0
w 800 496 960 496 0
w 896 640 928 640 0
R 896 640 832 640 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.5
R 896 576 784 576 1 2 120.0 2.5 2.5 3.141592653589793 0.5
w 960 368 960 288 0
w 928 432 928 640 0
w 992 432 928 432 0
w 992 416 992 432 0
w 992 448 992 432 0
w 1120 576 1120 320 0
w 992 576 1120 576 0
w 896 576 992 576 0
w 992 512 992 576 0
w 992 320 1120 320 0
w 992 352 992 320 0
w 1056 400 1072 400 0
w 1056 464 1072 464 0
w 1024 400 1056 464 0
w 1024 464 1056 400 0
w 1072 496 1072 464 0
w 1024 496 1072 496 0
w 1072 368 1072 400 0
w 1024 368 1072 368 0
w 960 400 960 368 0
w 960 464 960 496 0
159 1024 464 960 464 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 960 400 1024 400 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 1024 368 960 368 0 0.1 1.0E10
159 960 496 1024 496 0 0.1 1.0E10
c 1072 400 1072 464 0 3.9999999999999996E-5 6.982940362918084
w 960 288 960 224 0
w 800 496 768 496 0
w 768 496 768 288 0
w 768 288 752 288 0
w 688 224 768 224 0
s 768 224 960 224 0 0 false
o 0 16 0 291 261.87124863169134 20.94969989053531 0 -1
o 0 16 1 291 2094.9699890535308 9.765625000000001E-155 1 -1
o 5 16 0 34 320.0 3.2 2 -1
o 5 16 0 289 114.55561567389984 18.32889850782398 3 -1
o 3 16 1 35 489.88833106573423 9.765625000000001E-205 4 -1

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Marshallin on July 23, 2014, 08:13:41 AM
I have no idea, because i used sound card as a oscilloscope and i had no opportunity to calibrate and adjust the ratios, for the ratio between input and output power i can say that in the DC power supply i have 3,45V/0,54A.- without load, and with load have 3,68V/0,53A. Load is it incandescent bulb on a 24V/0,020A. I would like this device, to use it for laptop power supply :)

Maybe you can try to self-loop your device. Instead of lightbulb use brige rectifier and 400V cap, and bring all power back. It will work or not :D.
All this mesurment with light bulbs and standard multi-meter are inconclusive anyway.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on July 23, 2014, 09:16:16 AM

Guys, I would stick to the basics and go from there to see if it works before trying new stuff, or it will be endless…  Even just sticking to the basics we need to make assumptions. For instance, I started my thinking about the serps starting from a basic tank circuit. Visualize the cap charging and discharging with regards to voltage and current. As soon as you start inserting a load in series with the cap and coil (the secondary of our transformer) the phase shifts and the source starts to see the tank as a load. The higher the resistance the worse it gets. BUT if we force switch the tank to stay in the 90-180-270-360 phase switching in theory it should work right? If we now start inserting a load (resistance) it takes more time to charge/discharge the cap, but we need to charge and fully discharge it before each reversal. So we know that the higher the load resistance, the smaller our cap value and vice versa. Keep in mind that a non switched tank circuit works well with open core coils. Closed cores, be it toroidal or E type is terrible, so here me have to make assumptions. Do they use standard ones or modified cores..?
Jim's early demonstration shows he was using the full duty cycle (25%) per quarter.  In the last one they only use about 13-14% of the duty cycle. And the waves look different. When I went to parallel/series switching the current waves actually looked the same as the ones on the plastic box scope shots of the latest demo, except that the discharge current was about half.
We have to analyse and test what we know and work from there.


regards,
Mario


btw, what has the bitoroid stuff to do in this thread?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 23, 2014, 12:11:56 PM
I have no idea, because i used sound card as a oscilloscope and i had no opportunity to calibrate and adjust the ratios, for the ratio between input and output power i can say that in the DC power supply i have 3,45V/0,54A.- without load, and with load have 3,68V/0,53A. Load is it incandescent bulb on a 24V/0,020A. I would like this device, to use it for laptop power supply :)
Let me see if I understand. Your load is 24V bulb drawing 20 milliAmps, for a power of about half a Watt.
You are supplying 3.68V at 0.53 Amp, or nearly two Watts. This isn't really very good efficiency.

Are you thinking you can just take the _difference_ in the supply power, loaded and unloaded, and claim that that is your input power lighting the bulb? No, you aren't allowed to do that and here is why:

Turn on your garden hose and direct it out into your yard. Measure the flow rate at the faucet. This is your "unloaded" flow rate. Now, without changing anything, bring a bucket over and let the hose play half into the bucket and half into the yard. The bucket, your load, is filling up, right? Measure the flow rate at the faucet. Is it different than before? You are being charged for this flow rate, not just what hits the bucket.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on July 23, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
Hi Stefan and all,


I made a mistake in the single cap schematic I posted yesterday. Here's how I'm switching and reversing the one cap setup. One AC switch is made of two mosfets (even tough I drew a tranny symbol). One switch is enough, but I had to use two in parallel because I could not sum the 4 control signals without getting a short in the control part.

regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 23, 2014, 01:04:33 PM
looks, if in the resonance circuit have 100VAr, it of the output these 100VAr are transformed into 100Watts really output power, while at the entrance from DC power supply are consumed 5Watts
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 01:07:55 PM
Here are two caps switching although I cannot get the timing exactly how I want it.
I am not familiar with this simulation software but it seems to show the AC source has all the power returned to it but still 76W in the load.

Barry

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 13.654669808981877 40 5.0 50
v 480 416 480 288 0 1 50.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 544 320 640 384 0 0.1 1.0 3.494852635728435 3.3921596953589983E-7 0.9999
w 480 288 544 288 0
w 544 288 544 320 0
w 544 384 544 416 0
w 640 320 640 288 0
r 672 288 768 288 0 24.0
w 640 384 640 416 0
r 480 416 544 416 0 0.01
p 640 384 640 320 0
l 640 416 800 416 0 0.1 3.392159679677098E-7
c 960 320 960 384 0 3.9999999999999996E-5 58.07598538954926
159 832 288 768 288 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 912 288 960 288 0
w 960 288 960 320 0
w 912 416 960 416 0
w 960 416 960 384 0
w 880 240 1008 240 0
w 672 288 672 240 0
w 768 288 768 240 0
s 672 240 768 240 0 1 false
w 736 560 768 560 0
g 480 416 480 432 0
c 896 384 896 320 0 3.9999999999999996E-5 0.0010000000002964764
w 912 416 848 416 0
w 768 288 768 320 0
w 768 560 800 560 0
w 800 560 816 560 0
w 672 288 640 288 0
w 880 240 832 240 0
w 832 288 912 288 0
w 800 416 848 416 0
w 896 384 896 416 0
159 864 320 800 320 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 800 320 768 320 0
w 864 320 896 320 0
w 832 240 800 240 0
w 800 240 800 272 0
w 816 560 1040 560 0
w 1040 560 1040 208 0
w 1040 208 832 208 0
w 832 208 832 304 0
152 640 560 736 560 0 2 0.0
152 640 480 736 480 0 2 0.0
w 736 480 1008 480 0
w 1008 480 1008 240 0
R 640 576 592 576 1 2 100.0 2.5 2.5 0.08726646259971647 0.4
R 640 496 592 496 1 2 100.0 2.5 2.5 1.6580627893946132 0.4
w 800 592 832 592 0
o 0 32 0 35 279.96809277222553 22.397447421778043 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 2394.524282602951 9.765625E-55 1 -1
o 11 32 0 34 130.93562431584567 1.309356243158457 2 -1
o 11 32 0 33 32.73390607896142 2.618712486316914 2 -1
o 6 32 1 35 149.65776766268445 9.765625E-55 3 -1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 23, 2014, 06:35:38 PM
When these guys say that the output is over 50 Watts and the input is only 1.1 Watts, aren't they actually saying that
the setup outputs over 50 Joules of energy per second with only 1.1 Joules of energy per second input ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 06:55:27 PM
Sorry, that last simulation is only using one cap. The left one has a connectivity problem.

The generator still has to generate 1.29 KVA peak to support this load. The supply company would not be a happy about this. Seems like SERPS just defeats meters that dont measure reactive power.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 07:13:57 PM
Stripped out all the stuff not used. Note that doubling up on the output tank did not increase the input KVA.

Suspect if you added more tanks this will hold true until you get to 1.3KW real power.

Nice if you dont want to be metered for the power you use!

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Jdo300 on July 23, 2014, 07:15:35 PM
listener191,

Actually, that's an issue of power factor correction. You can greatly reduce the amount of reactive power by making sure that your tank circuit reactances completely cancel when the circuit is not being switched. I did find, however, that when you activate the switches, that the reactive power shows up again. I used a parallel capacitor on the input of the transformer to reduce it again, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to want to let me switch the Real power waveform like I can the reactive. Still working on this as it could be a parameter issue.

Oh and one other note about your simulation. I noticed that the source input current on the far left graph has a significant DC offset. This indicates that your simulation is still in the transient stage and hasn't leveled out yet. In my simulations, I included a series 0.01 Ohm resistor, which I can adjust to 1-10 Ohms to bleed off the DC offset from the source. Once is balances out, then change it back to 0.01 Ohms. Otherwise, you will get inaccurate output waveforms until enough time has elapsed for things to reach their steady-state values.

@Stefan,

Concerning your inquiry about bi-directional switches. My company has specifically developed a high-speed solid-state relay specifically for Free energy researchers and experimenters who are working on projects like this one. We also have a bunch of other bench tools that we are developing and are currently in the process of setting up a distribution website to offer these products to the FE community.

If anyone is interested, attached is the datasheet for our SSR boards. I'll share the website link soon with everyone once our site is ready to launch in a week or so. Also, the datasheet contains an application notes section with lots of example circuits and switch protection methods which may be useful for those who want to work with high-speed switching circuits.

- Jason O
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 09:08:04 PM
Hi Jason,

Have removed the DC offset and reduced input PF as much as I could with cap across input and then adjust component values to minimise  +/- Watts and maximise load power.

I dont seem to be able to get decent load power without the reactive input.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 23, 2014, 09:15:10 PM
I see; rather than using a transformer or series/parallel capcitor to invert the direction of the currents during power reversal you can also use the properties of a series LCR tank to do the same. Very interesting.

Anti-resonance between the inductor and capacitor causes the potentials across them to cancel (anti-series) and when you switch to the other capacitor the potentials becomes additive and, if I'm not mistaken, should be 180 degrees in opposition to line potential, thus forcing current backwards. (Note: I haven't worked out all the details regarding phases of each voltage source, but the explanation should be correct for the most part.

If people do this know that there is an absolute upper limit for the load resistance to allow for LC oscillations to develop [1]:

The frequency of oscillation of an oscillatory LCR circuit decreases with increasing R and becomes zero at the Critical Resistance boundary, the point at which the circuit ceases to oscillate.

The boundary for under-damped oscillations (free or forced) becomes:

R < 2*sqrt(L/C)

The fundamental oscillatory frequency of an LCR is given by:

f_LCR = 1/2pi * sqrt((1 / LC) - (R^2 / 4L^2))

Thus resonant frequency of circuit shifts with changes in load resistance with limits:

0 Hz ≤ f_osc < 1/(2pi*sqrt(LC))

Where increases in R from 0 to R_crit reduces frequency from f_LC to zero.

With the above in mind, using MOSFETs in SSR configuration, instead of IGBTs, is the better choice since MOSFETs can pass currents in BOTH directions when turned on, thus saving on conduction loses through the freewheeling diodes. And as it would seem only two SSRs are needed for all the switching needs of the circuit--much simpler than the parallel/series capacitor circuit I proposed earlier! I'm still curious if PWM could benefit the circuit in reducing harmonics.

References:
[1] CP Steinmetz Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillations 3rd Ed. 5th Imp., 1920, pgs. 62-63, 94 & 96.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 09:36:35 PM
Going back over the Babcock presentation Time 1.05.30,  he does state that the SERPS intentionally produces a reactive load to the generating source.

Here are a few comments I picked up on the web about reactive power and generators...

Reactive power would put no extra load on a generator shaft if everything were perfect.
However, real generators have real losses, with some of those proportional to the square of the current.
The reactive load causes more current in the wires than there would be with a purely resistive load of the same real power.
The extra current causes additional real power to be lost.
The power companies would not tolerate mass reactive loads.


For half each cycle, each reactive load is pushing power back into the phase/phases that is/are accepting energy.

You can't recover chemical energy, and some of that energy fed back into the generator is lost, but some of the energy is fed back into rotating kinetic energy of the generator.
Which makes the generator turn faster-slower-faster-slower etc.

A small generator does not have much rotating kinetic energy, so most of this energy is lost, and it just stresses the system.

Perhaps SERPS is better suited to wind generators?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 23, 2014, 09:45:41 PM
Excellent points Barry! Reactive power still has losses related to the I^2*R of the entire transmission system, generator, lines, transformers and all! Just because most home power meters in America don't measure reactive power doesn't mean you should intentionally put more reactive power on the grid because you can get away with it.

It would be interesting if you added a PFC circuit after the SERPS and see if the losses are the same as they were before (plus a little bit more for the PFC and SERPS circuit losses). If not, then this may make the circuit more viable, but certainly not "OU."
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 23, 2014, 10:10:58 PM
Hi G4RR3ττ,I think several switching schemes would achieve the same end, and SERPS could be replicated by many experimenters without too many problems.

The main premise of SERPS is returning power to the generator... this concept holds water, as the power returned can be manifested as rotational energy. In this sense the generator and SERPS are a coupled system with improved power generation efficiency but not improved power distribution efficiency.
This concept lends itself to local power generation improvement, notwithstanding comments made about small generators.

Another line of thought would be how to use the concept in a solid state scheme, which would offer benefits for solar power generation performance. I mention this as Murray mentions using small toriods and high speed switching to replace the large input transformer.


Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: G4RR3ττ on July 23, 2014, 10:46:38 PM
I agree that the circuit converts restive loads into effectively reactive ones, and a generator can recover a portion of the returned electrical energy as mechanical momentum due to motor action, but does this really lend itself to a practical use for individuals? Utility companies may have uses for this concept in controlled applications, but they most certainly wouldn't want consumers adding harmonics and arbitrary amounts of reactive power for them to deal with--which is precisely why they charge for VAR use in industrial settings.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: hartiberlin on July 24, 2014, 02:01:24 AM
Imagine instead of using the grid to power the SERPS circuit
to have a 60 Hz sine oscillator that sees all the
reactive power coming back.

If you design this sine oscillator right, you would probably only need
2 Watts of input power for it , when delivering 50 Watts at the load as in the case
of the SERPS device demo.

Well at least in my simulations you need at least 5 to 10 times more peak power
as the consumed power, so for 50 Watts output I would need around 250 to 500 Watts
peak power that oscillates back and forces between the Serps and the sine oscillator
but in the end it could be that you only need 2 Watts to run this 60 Hz sine oscillator
from the battery it is feeded off.

Well must be a pretty powerful sine oscillator for sure with a good
storage capacity of the oscillating energy...

Utilities probably don´t like the SERPS circuit cause it puts a tremendous
surge on their lines and power transformers,
cause the lines must stand the high reactive power and the transformers
must be able to handle the big currents in it....and I^2xR losses..

So the only usefull setup for the SERPS unit will be a
standalone generator, who can handle the huge reactive power cycling back and forth
or a special 60 Hz sine oscillator as above described.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 24, 2014, 09:04:56 PM
Once again the simulator will not allow me to set the switching arrangement required but this result shows 320W real for 831W reactive.

Barry

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 13.097415321081861 47 5.0 50
v 400 448 400 320 0 1 50.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 464 352 560 416 0 0.11 1.0 3.3954918443849547 1.7033270709454484E-5 0.9999
w 464 320 464 352 0
w 464 416 464 448 0
w 560 352 560 320 0
r 592 320 688 320 0 24.0
w 560 416 560 448 0
p 560 416 560 352 0
l 560 448 720 448 0 0.13 1.7033270709898574E-5
c 880 352 880 416 0 1.9999999999999998E-5 111.9773684933316
159 752 320 688 320 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 832 320 880 320 0
w 880 320 880 352 0
w 832 448 880 448 0
w 880 448 880 416 0
w 800 272 928 272 0
w 832 448 768 448 0
w 592 320 560 320 0
w 800 272 752 272 0
w 752 320 832 320 0
w 720 448 768 448 0
w 752 272 720 272 0
w 720 272 720 304 0
w 656 512 928 512 0
w 928 512 928 272 0
R 656 512 608 512 1 2 200.0 2.5 2.5 2.2689280275926285 0.4
r 464 448 400 448 0 0.01
w 400 320 464 320 0
o 0 32 0 35 179.79859685352167 14.383887748281737 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 1757.6744692288928 6.103515625E-55 1 -1
o 9 32 0 34 574.0653476371273 2.8703267381856366 2 -1
o 9 32 0 33 214.30172143725346 8.572068857490141 2 -1
o 5 64 1 35 559.9361855444511 9.765625E-105 3 -1

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 24, 2014, 10:12:19 PM

Once again the simulator will not allow me to set the switching arrangement required but this result shows 320W real for 831W reactive.

Barry

$ 1 4.9999999999999996E-6 13.097415321081861 47 5.0 50
v 400 448 400 320 0 1 50.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
T 464 352 560 416 0 0.11 1.0 3.3954918443849547 1.7033270709454484E-5 0.9999
w 464 320 464 352 0
w 464 416 464 448 0
w 560 352 560 320 0
r 592 320 688 320 0 24.0
w 560 416 560 448 0
p 560 416 560 352 0
l 560 448 720 448 0 0.13 1.7033270709898574E-5
c 880 352 880 416 0 1.9999999999999998E-5 111.9773684933316
159 752 320 688 320 0 0.1 1.0E10
w 832 320 880 320 0
w 880 320 880 352 0
w 832 448 880 448 0
w 880 448 880 416 0
w 800 272 928 272 0
w 832 448 768 448 0
w 592 320 560 320 0
w 800 272 752 272 0
w 752 320 832 320 0
w 720 448 768 448 0
w 752 272 720 272 0
w 720 272 720 304 0
w 656 512 928 512 0
w 928 512 928 272 0
R 656 512 608 512 1 2 200.0 2.5 2.5 2.2689280275926285 0.4
r 464 448 400 448 0 0.01
w 400 320 464 320 0
o 0 32 0 35 179.79859685352167 14.383887748281737 0 -1
o 0 32 1 291 1757.6744692288928 6.103515625E-55 1 -1
o 9 32 0 34 574.0653476371273 2.8703267381856366 2 -1
o 9 32 0 33 214.30172143725346 8.572068857490141 2 -1
o 5 64 1 35 559.9361855444511 9.765625E-105 3 -1
http://realstrannik.ru/forum/39-kapanadze/134930-ustanovka-ruslana-kulabuxova.html?start=468#229933
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 24, 2014, 10:37:19 PM
Hi X_Name41,

So same waveform as kapanadze device!

Well an inductor could be used to store the energy in SERPS instead of a capacitor, so perhaps that is the principle of the Kapanadze device.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 24, 2014, 10:42:19 PM
If we think in terms of energy then we can say that if we use a sine wave inverter powered by a battery with the SERPS device then
if it worked as claimed the light bulbs would be dissipating over 50 Joules of energy per second but the battery would be supplying
only 1.1 Joules of energy to the load, that is disregarding inverter "idle" losses.

Obviously this would be breaking the conservation of energy laws. But don't they claim it isn't ?

We must remember it is actually energy that the light dissipates, the power is consumed to transfer the energy.

So I'm gathering they claim the extra energy is in the current not the power (which I don't get). But then they keep referring to
reactive "power". I don't get how the current can be caused without the consumption of voltage, the current is always the same
throughout the entire current loop. It's the voltage that gets dropped. Potential energy is lost because real energy is dissipated.

To me the actual claims are very vague. I just hope that in several years time the claims are lived up to. By that time they would
have made some money from it.

..

The long and the short of it is this as I see it.

1) Big claims are made that we all want to be true.
2) No device is available to buy.
3) There is no open sourcing of the schematic diagrams.
4) The only thing available from them is books/videos to buy that contain no technical information.

Therefore there is no real way to prove or disprove their claims as we cannot replicate because we do not have sufficient
information and never will unless it is provided by the claimants.

....
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: ARMCORTEX on July 25, 2014, 02:11:38 AM
Long ago I made a sine wave oscillator, I posted on this site.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=86492

This was to me reactive resistant. I never could never understand why my amplifier was failing even with low current, it came to my conclusion that coils and fast switch is not useable.

It is not very efficient, quite expensive, double rail. I never could get a good stable sine with virtual ground methods.

What advantage this has over a regular generator, I dont know if it has for such low frequency, but its there for a try.

Unfortunately I dont have the email anymore of that site and dont rememebr my pass.

Can somebody access the site and post the sine wave shaper and amplifier.

Many methods for sine, microcontroller DDS or Switched filter capacitors can be used as an sine maker with 100x divider and clock source, then lowpass, then amplifier. Then use middle tap transformer.

There is not many topologies for ac generation and step up via transformer. What do high tech sine inverters use ?? PWM method ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: gotoluc on July 25, 2014, 05:08:14 AM

Concerning your inquiry about bi-directional switches. My company has specifically developed a high-speed solid-state relay specifically for Free energy researchers and experimenters who are working on projects like this one. We also have a bunch of other bench tools that we are developing and are currently in the process of setting up a distribution website to offer these products to the FE community.

If anyone is interested, attached is the datasheet for our SSR boards. I'll share the website link soon with everyone once our site is ready to launch in a week or so. Also, the datasheet contains an application notes section with lots of example circuits and switch protection methods which may be useful for those who want to work with high-speed switching circuits.

- Jason O

Hi Jason,

I would be interested in your switch. Please email me: gotoluc2@gmail.com when you have them available.

Thanks

Luc
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: wings on July 25, 2014, 02:36:01 PM
Hi Jason,

I would be interested in your switch. Please email me: gotoluc2@gmail.com when you have them available.

Thanks

Luc
SCR IGBT hybrid used in railgun design

30 kA, 5000 V Solid-State Opening Switch for Inductive Energy Storage
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: gotoluc on July 25, 2014, 04:09:52 PM
Thanks for sharing wings

Luc
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 27, 2014, 12:13:56 AM
http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/msg410990/#msg410990
waveform of the resonant circuit at the short circuit in the secondary coil :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 27, 2014, 02:45:03 PM

Take a look at this thread


http://www.control.com/thread/1307586278

The general opinion amongst this group (with no connection to SERPS or any other energy saving focus), is on a distributed power generation system, there is no reduction in prime move fuel comsumption due to a reactive load due to the extra losses though the transmission system which are in proportion to the square of the current and reduction in generator efficiency when running at a PF below 0.8
The real losses are due to the increased current in the transmission line in both directions.

Barry


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 27, 2014, 05:58:02 PM
I think this post is more typical of the general opinion there.

And of course logic tells us that ie. if I wanted to power an inductive load with an output power of 1 kW and the
power factor is 0.5 then I would need a generator with over 2 KVA rating, but if the load has a power factor of 1.0
then I would only need a little over 1 kW rating, this is an increased expense to begin with, then the current portion
of the VAR cause losses in the line resistance ect. as stated below. We should imagine a reactive device as if we
intend to power it ourselves with our own generator of AC.

Just imagine having to fuel a 5 Kw generator to get a power output of 1 kW in a bad case scenario.

Even worse imagine the generators they would need if every household ran at a power factor of 0.1. That would not
be sustainable for the energy companies and so they would have no choice but to charge for reactive power or factor
the cost of the reactive power production losses and increased overheads into the power bills, maybe with a rebate if
you show a good power factor. The worse your power factor the more you should wear the costs of it, that's fair.

Quote
Prasad: remember, current does not "contain" MW.

Watts are produced when current flows thru a resistance and all generators, bus work, transformers etc have some unless they are superconducting. So when current flows thru a resistance, watts are produced in the form of heat in an amount equal to I-squared-R. Those watts dissipate energy which must have come from somewhere. In this case, "somewhere" is your generator which converted mechanical energy into electrical energy. Your generator received the mechanical energy from the conversion of thermal energy in your turbine, therefore the turbine must have burned more fuel. So increased reactive power generation increases fuel consumption.

The law of conservation of energy always applies

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2014, 06:22:55 PM
Quote
Prasad: remember, current does not "contain" MW.

Watts are produced when current flows thru a resistance and all generators, bus work, transformers etc have some unless they are superconducting. So when current flows thru a resistance, watts are produced in the form of heat in an amount equal to I-squared-R. Those watts dissipate energy which must have come from somewhere. In this case, "somewhere" is your generator which converted mechanical energy into electrical energy. Your generator received the mechanical energy from the conversion of thermal energy in your turbine, therefore the turbine must have burned more fuel. So increased reactive power generation increases fuel consumption.

The law of conservation of energy always applies

That's right in concept but a pretty silly way of putting it, and the manner of expression reveals to me that the poster still has misconceptions about power and energy.

The Watt is a _rate_, the rate of energy units passing your measurement point per time unit. The Joule is a quantity, the unit of energy, and the second is the time unit used in the Systeme Internationale. So a Watt is One Joule Per Second, zipping past your Joule Detector (tm TKLabs). This Power can be dissipated in a resistance as heat, but that's not the only way Joules can pass a measuring point! Those "Watts" can be measured at any point in a circuit, not just in the dissipating elements, as the Joules flow past on their way to being put to use somewhere else.
Does your car "produce Miles Per Hour" when it is rolling down the road? Well, I suppose you could put it like that but it's pretty silly to look at it that way, and looking at it that way will "steer you wrong" eventually.

But the main point is clear: Losses have to be made up or the system collapses, and if you have more losses in your transmission line, you need to replace those losses with increased fuel consumption at the prime mover.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Kator01 on July 27, 2014, 06:26:55 PM
Tinselkoala,

x_name41 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/x_name41.62748/) believes that the difference between load on-modus minus load-off modus is:
Pdiff = 1.9504 - 1.863 = 0.087 Watt

he then compares this to the 24 V- Bulb in operation P = 24 x 0.02 Watt = 0.48 Watt


P bulb 0.48 W div by 0.087 W input-difference equals cop = 5.5

...but ....

...first ...the bulb is not full lit and

..second.. to simply substract power-output of a source  under load with  power-output of the same source without load is one of the
biggest fallacies, it´s a wrong method because the  transformer of a power-source might use 10 watt in idle-mode
and still operate below 1 Watt hysteresis-losses while delivering another 9 Watt  to a load, indicating 10 Watt on its meter.

So it will deliver effectively 9 Watt to the load while the uninformed experimenter believes that he has got his load operating at 9 Watt using almost nothing ( i.e 10 W minus 10  Watt)

So the only way to measure correctly consist of using a 0.1 Ohm shunt in the minus-line and measure the voltage-drop across the shut and multiply this with the voltage at the load.

Kator01
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2014, 06:33:46 PM
Tinselkoala,

x_name41 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/x_name41.62748/) believes that the difference between load on-modus minus load-off modus is:
Pdiff = 1.9504 - 1.863 = 0.087 Watt

he then compares this to the 24 V- Bulb in operation P = 24 x 0.02 Watt = 0.48 Watt


P bulb 0.48 W div by 0.087 W input-difference equals cop = 5.5

...but ....

...first ...the bulb is not full lit and

..second.. to simply substract power-output of a source  under load with  power-output of the same source without load is one of the
biggest fallacies, it´s a wrong method because the  transformer of a power-source might use 10 watt in idle-mode
and still operate below 1 Watt hysteresis-losses while delivering another 9 Watt  to a load, indicating 10 Watt on its meter.

So it will deliver effectively 9 Watt to the load while the uninformed experimenter believes that he has got his load operating at 9 Watt using almost nothing ( i.e 10 W minus 10  Watt)

So the only way to measure correctly consist of using a 0.1 Ohm shunt in the minus-line and measure the voltage-drop across the shut and multiply this with the voltage at the load.

Kator01
Exactly (more or less.)
It's like the garden hose analogy. Turn on your garden hose valve and direct the hose out into your back yard. Measure the flow rate at the valve. This is the input power from the power supply. Now bring a bucket over and stick it into the stream from the hose and fill up the bucket. This is your output power in the light bulb. Is there a difference in the flow rate at the garden hose valve, whether or not the bucket is collecting water from the other end? No, of course not. So the water in the bucket is free! Right.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 27, 2014, 08:57:38 PM
Hence the Babcock statement "and therefore burn less coal" doesnt ring true for distributed power.

He seems to forget about the reality of transmission systems and the fact that most of these large generators are designed to run at maximum efficiency with a PF not less that 0.8

I would still like to see a practical test with SERPS running on a small generator, which would eliminate distribution losses.


Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 27, 2014, 09:26:01 PM
All,

Attached is a SERPS timing circuit that is digitally controlled by a clock internal to the LTC6993's.

Trigger is taken to two LTC6993-1 from the postive going zero cross. These set the delays for the start of switching pulses for the 1st and 4th Quadrants. The outputs are OR'd and trigger an LTC6993-3 on the falling edges. The LTC6993-3 controls the pulse width.  1st quadrant Charge 2nd quadrant Discharge.

A similar arrangement is triggered from the negative going zero cross for 2nd and 3rd quadrants.  3rd quadrant charge 2nd quadrant discharge.

This is the timing scheme I have decided to try first however, by adjusting the DIV input voltage and the SET current, a wide range of timing can be achieved

By using a potential divider, the SET current can be voltage controlled either to gang the pulse width control together or allow control of all devices from the D/A on a microcontroller.

Although a microcontroller could handle the timing using interrupts, I chose not to spend time on software development for the first tests and use a manually controlled setup. Also I dont like relying on CPU's for low level timing functions and prefer those to be controllable but autonomous once setup.

The LTC6993 is a cheap device, offers a lower component count than a 555 based circuit and has easy control interfacing.

The values shown have been calculated to work within range of the respective quadrants for 50/60Hz, as a starting point.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: serendipitor on July 27, 2014, 10:53:33 PM
In Jim Murray's presentation from the previous year's conference, he described his initial proof of the SERPS concept in Michigan (1970's), using a Ward Leonard synchronous capacitor running at 120Hz to oscillate power to the main generator station some miles away (This was a local grid, as the rest of the grid was disconnected due to an ice storm). He found that indeed the main generator ended up being throttled way back, and had almost no load.

But he went outside and looked at the transmission lines coming from his plant and noticed that they were "glowing cherry red" even in winter. Eventually the link went down "for unknown reasons."
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 27, 2014, 11:01:39 PM
Tinselkoala,

x_name41 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/x_name41.62748/) believes that the difference between load on-modus minus load-off modus is:
Pdiff = 1.9504 - 1.863 = 0.087 Watt

he then compares this to the 24 V- Bulb in operation P = 24 x 0.02 Watt = 0.48 Watt


P bulb 0.48 W div by 0.087 W input-difference equals cop = 5.5

...but ....

...first ...the bulb is not full lit and

..second.. to simply substract power-output of a source  under load with  power-output of the same source without load is one of the
biggest fallacies, it´s a wrong method because the  transformer of a power-source might use 10 watt in idle-mode
and still operate below 1 Watt hysteresis-losses while delivering another 9 Watt  to a load, indicating 10 Watt on its meter.

So it will deliver effectively 9 Watt to the load while the uninformed experimenter believes that he has got his load operating at 9 Watt using almost nothing ( i.e 10 W minus 10  Watt)

So the only way to measure correctly consist of using a 0.1 Ohm shunt in the minus-line and measure the voltage-drop across the shut and multiply this with the voltage at the load.

Kator01
Yesterday I made a new precise measurements, the results are as follows: in the idle mode = 3.60V./0.53A., with load in the output coil= 3.70V./0.53A., and in the short circuit mode in the secondary coil = 3.09V/0.55A. Solely now my scheme is not a perfect because reactive power in the resonant circuit was minimal (something in the scheme impede the preparation of normal reactive power even at idle), i no hurry, a matter of time just while fix the problem :)

p.s. Tinselkoala you do not understand, because if you think that what you I achieved as a result is a mistake, it is logical to indicate that you deny the actually and the SERPS concept. The conclusion is that you are the just another troll, but these are the real and verifiable facts which cannot be denied
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2014, 01:08:26 AM
Yesterday I made a new precise measurements, the results are as follows: in the idle mode = 3.60V./0.53A., with load in the output coil= 3.70V./0.53A., and in the short circuit mode in the secondary coil = 3.09V/0.55A. Solely now my scheme is not a perfect because reactive power in the resonant circuit was minimal (something in the scheme impede the preparation of normal reactive power even at idle), i no hurry, a matter of time just while fix the problem :)

p.s. Tinselkoala you do not understand, because if you think that what you I achieved as a result is a mistake, it is logical to indicate that you deny the actually and the SERPS concept. The conclusion is that you are the just another troll, but these are the real and verifiable facts which cannot be denied

That one gets a ROFL for sure!  Do you think I trust YOUR measurements when I don't even trust my own? Where are all the devices you have constructed and measured accurately? Can we see you demonstrate competence with an oscilloscope somewhere? A YouTube video of your work? Let's take a look at your technique and your measurements to make sure you are doing it right, how about that?

Let me tell you this ONCE AGAIN: if your device has electrical inputs and outputs, and produces a GENUINE COP greater than 1.3 to 1, any competent electrical engineer can take the electrical output and convert it efficiently to the required electrical input and make the device self-loop and run, disconnected from any power supply. I don't care if the input is 240 VAC at 10 amps and the output is one volt at 250000 amps, or one megavolt at one microamp or whatever, I can condition and transfer the power efficiently and so can any other competent EE.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 28, 2014, 01:12:57 AM
In Jim Murray's presentation from the previous year's conference, he described his initial proof of the SERPS concept in Michigan (1970's), using a Ward Leonard synchronous capacitor running at 120Hz to oscillate power to the main generator station some miles away (This was a local grid, as the rest of the grid was disconnected due to an ice storm). He found that indeed the main generator ended up being throttled way back, and had almost no load.

But he went outside and looked at the transmission lines coming from his plant and noticed that they were "glowing cherry red" even in winter. Eventually the link went down "for unknown reasons."
Sure.
"Screenshot or it didn't happen".

Please excuse me, I need to go feed my herd of invisible unicorns. When they get really hungry, their invisibility begins to fade and the neighbors start to complain. Here is a picture of one of my invisible unicorns:

(The fact that you cannot see it proves it exists, so don't try to argue with me.)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 28, 2014, 05:49:01 AM
That one gets a ROFL for sure!  Do you think I trust YOUR measurements when I don't even trust my own? Where are all the devices you have constructed and measured accurately? Can we see you demonstrate competence with an oscilloscope somewhere? A YouTube video of your work? Let's take a look at your technique and your measurements to make sure you are doing it right, how about that?

Let me tell you this ONCE AGAIN: if your device has electrical inputs and outputs, and produces a GENUINE COP greater than 1.3 to 1, any competent electrical engineer can take the electrical output and convert it efficiently to the required electrical input and make the device self-loop and run, disconnected from any power supply. I don't care if the input is 240 VAC at 10 amps and the output is one volt at 250000 amps, or one megavolt at one microamp or whatever, I can condition and transfer the power efficiently and so can any other competent EE.
with your actions TinselKoala i think you earn the ban. Please moderation to take the necessary actions!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: pulp on July 28, 2014, 09:36:40 AM
with your actions TinselKoala i think you earn the ban. Please moderation to take the necessary actions!

I think Koala is right.
1. You are making measurements with your soundcard ??? This is absolutely not serious.
2. Your  calculations are fishy and not acceptable and amateurish.

The admin should ban you instead of him.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Kator01 on July 28, 2014, 09:58:13 AM
tinselkoala,

, must be very frightning your herd - I mean because your hairs are raised up like beeing under high voltage ...LOL

X_name41: did you read and understood my comment ?

precise measurement is done only with a 0.1 Ohm resitor in the ground-line and measuring the voltage-drop across this resistor..
then use the standart equation  U = R x I -> I  = U / R .

Do you get this ?

Kator01
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 28, 2014, 12:08:20 PM
see now, because the frequency is of the order of 70-80KHz, soundcard oscilloscope at the smallest possible range, shows the triangular waveforms of current and voltage dephased of the about 90 degrees, at change of the range is observed following picture, sinusoidal waveforms are expanded and narrow the, like mech an accordion, and the waves are again at 90 degrees. On top of, can you not see the results in the video materials referring to this device? (they show the exact same thing), must to be blind for can not you accept the truth as it is. Measurements with respect to consumption are made with a digital multimeter "DT837" in the DC power supply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7JDElxCyX4&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjHKjmHrSWM&
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 29, 2014, 10:18:44 PM
Attached is a revised drawing for my SERPS timing circuit. Had some bad DIV values in the first draft and have now changed some of the triggers.

This circuit basically works and 1st and 3rd quadrant values provide the ranges as shown, but I  need to  experiment with the 2nd and 4th quadrant values and the pulse width values.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 30, 2014, 01:03:37 AM
see now, because the frequency is of the order of 70-80KHz, soundcard oscilloscope at the smallest possible range, shows the triangular waveforms of current and voltage dephased of the about 90 degrees, at change of the range is observed following picture, sinusoidal waveforms are expanded and narrow the, like mech an accordion, and the waves are again at 90 degrees. On top of, can you not see the results in the video materials referring to this device? (they show the exact same thing), must to be blind for can not you accept the truth as it is. Measurements with respect to consumption are made with a digital multimeter "DT837" in the DC power supply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7JDElxCyX4&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjHKjmHrSWM&

x_name41,
Do not give up of your intentions. Have so many  egocentric people that cant be able to be constructive in their opinions. seem formatted. i think i dont need say the names.
I think at some point, some people lose track of mutual respect and should moderate in relation to the comments.

I think it's possible to use reactive power. I did some tests in which it is perfectly visible, something is happening.
In my tests I used as load, various types of inductive and capacitive loads and results in my humble opinion very interesting.
Take a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoc_9h4vCKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hR0Ak2vsyg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss

Supposedly the reactive power is not capable of performing work, Watts, but if it is used in an inductor generates a magnetic flux, with dc current,. that can be converted into work by induction.
The reactive power is used to strengthen the magnetic field during operation of an inductive load. The inductors consume reactive power!
inductive circuits absorb reactive power with the current waveform lagging the voltage waveform by 90 degrees.
the system with the lower power factor will have higher circulating due to energy that returns to the source from energy storage in the load currents. must be intercepted and escorted through the induction load.
This is my opinion of course ;).

Good experiences, I will continue to follow your developments of this project.

 



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 30, 2014, 06:45:20 AM
x_name41,
Do not give up of your intentions. Have so many  egocentric people that cant be able to be constructive in their opinions. seem formatted. i think i dont need say the names.
I think at some point, some people lose track of mutual respect and should moderate in relation to the comments.

I think it's possible to use reactive power. I did some tests in which it is perfectly visible, something is happening.
In my tests I used as load, various types of inductive and capacitive loads and results in my humble opinion very interesting.
Take a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoc_9h4vCKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hR0Ak2vsyg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss

Supposedly the reactive power is not capable of performing work, Watts, but if it is used in an inductor generates a magnetic flux, with dc current,. that can be converted into work by induction.
The reactive power is used to strengthen the magnetic field during operation of an inductive load. The inductors consume reactive power!
inductive circuits absorb reactive power with the current waveform lagging the voltage waveform by 90 degrees.
the system with the lower power factor will have higher circulating due to energy that returns to the source from energy storage in the load currents. must be intercepted and escorted through the induction load.
This is my opinion of course ;).

Good experiences, I will continue to follow your developments of this project.

The very instant you use reactive power it becomes real power by definition, don't you guys get that. Reactive power is supplied by the power supply and if it does not return to the supply it becomes real power as it is consumed and paid for. Simple.

VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it.

Any power that powers a load is real power and is consumed. Reactive power by definition is not consumed and is returned to the supply and not paid for.

..

The current in a closed loop is always the same, it's the voltage that is dropped.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 30, 2014, 10:55:50 AM
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."

Almost right. You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance.

For example, take the circuit I am working with at the moment. You have seen the tank measurements and the input power measurements. If I cut the coil while the thing is operating, all the stored energy in the tank will be released -- in the mosfets -- in a matter of microseconds. This is a high power level, and I have the blown-apart mosfets to prove it.

Let's amend your statement to say "you cannot get real power out of your VARs _continuously_ at a faster rate than the supply can provide it to keep the tank full."
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: forest on July 30, 2014, 01:50:33 PM
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."

Almost right. You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance.

For example, take the circuit I am working with at the moment. You have seen the tank measurements and the input power measurements. If I cut the coil while the thing is operating, all the stored energy in the tank will be released -- in the mosfets -- in a matter of microseconds. This is a high power level, and I have the blown-apart mosfets to prove it.

Let's amend your statement to say "you cannot get real power out of your VARs _continuously_ at a faster rate than the supply can provide it to keep the tank full."

yes, quite right...except when you have a larger energy input from external ambient source....then it's like opening a valve...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 30, 2014, 05:41:16 PM
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."

Almost right. You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance.


not, you are mistaken because i showed you that the resonance may not to destroy, but you continuing to you insist the opposite
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 30, 2014, 08:07:12 PM
Attached is a simple positive/negative zero cross detector that is isolated via the use of opto couplers.

I have the zero cross circuit that I posted previously working however, it is not isolated (needs a transformer) and being comparator based, requires a floating supply.

Barry

 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 30, 2014, 08:12:58 PM
Sorry...had the lower opto diode reversed. This one is correct.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: nelsonrochaa on July 30, 2014, 10:50:51 PM
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."

Almost right. You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance.

For example, take the circuit I am working with at the moment. You have seen the tank measurements and the input power measurements. If I cut the coil while the thing is operating, all the stored energy in the tank will be released -- in the mosfets -- in a matter of microseconds. This is a high power level, and I have the blown-apart mosfets to prove it.

Let's amend your statement to say "you cannot get real power out of your VARs _continuously_ at a faster rate than the supply can provide it to keep the tank full."



Ok the confirmation :

"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."
I feel much safer about some things that had said in the previous post.

" You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance."

Take time ... How long it takes to fill the tank circuit? Have you sure that tank circuit couldn't fill at same rate or fastest than the supply ?
I see you circuit and i think that understand what you try to show but i think that your circuit does not illustrate the phenomenon in the same way that other people are testing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss
You can see in this video, that the output power generated is greater than the input used;
I say that because i use only a pulse in input , and at least in my understanding i think that is a gain . or not ?

About you say : "But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance."
If you can reduce the damping in cycles and makes the inductor feed the capacitor, and vice versa, you can maintaining the same resonant current in the circuit, and converting all the current into useful work.
I think is what happens in the video , because after you remove the input power you see that oscillations maintain the circuit running in resonance.

TinselKoala a like your reviews and videos.
 Iḿ  your youtube subscriber at least 3 years and i like your dedication at this subject,   but i don't like your temper and tone of your reviews.
I ask you to be gentle in your reply :) in case you want to consider comment on what I said. ;)
I'm always open to healthy criticism :)



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 30, 2014, 10:51:58 PM
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."

Almost right. You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance.

For example, take the circuit I am working with at the moment. You have seen the tank measurements and the input power measurements. If I cut the coil while the thing is operating, all the stored energy in the tank will be released -- in the mosfets -- in a matter of microseconds. This is a high power level, and I have the blown-apart mosfets to prove it.

Let's amend your statement to say "you cannot get real power out of your VARs _continuously_ at a faster rate than the supply can provide it to keep the tank full."

Quite right Tinsel, I should have said continuously, that's what I meant.

Xname, show us how you can convert the VAR's into Watts without reducing the VAR's.

Both Tinsel and I can easily produce oscillating powers (VAR's) to input power in the order of over 100:1 and we can convert that to useful output
and we as well as many others that tell the truth say that when you convert a VAR to a Watt the VAR no longer exists that was
converted, and so that VAR of reactive power cannot be returned to the supply or continue to oscillate, to keep the same VAR's
the supply must provide more power. Any power converted to Watts is real power and is supplied by the power supply.

Forest, energy brought in from outside if it is, has nothing to do with reactive power and if there is an external input it should be
easy to identify and would be the more important part of any investigation into the device. Finding where the extra energy comes
from and how it enters the system would be important.

When people talk reactive power with a grid supplied system they mean power that is supplied by the grid that goes unused by
certain loads and therefore gets returned to the supply that same power can get power factor corrected and consumed as real
power and it does quite often, when that happens the consumed power is real power because it is consumed and cannot return
to the supply.

The instant power is consumed by a load it is real power and only real power is consumed. Reactive power cannot be consumed
by definition.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 30, 2014, 10:53:38 PM
Re the Zero cross circuits I posted.

Only attempt to build these if you are competent  in working with line voltages 115/230V.

I assume no responsibility for safety in the construction and operation of these circuits.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 31, 2014, 12:30:21 AM


Xname, show us how you can convert the VAR's into Watts without reducing the VAR's.


of such like you even if show you such a thing, will again are you looking about what to when he messed. May not to please him of such like you, of a curve rocket space and interferes
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2014, 05:48:55 AM
of such like you even if show you such a thing, will again are you looking about what to when he messed. May not to please him of such like you, of a curve rocket space and interferes

Can anyone translate that into English? Google just laughs.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2014, 06:20:02 AM


Ok the confirmation :

"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."
I feel much safer about some things that had said in the previous post.

" You can get all the energy in the tank out in microseconds if you want, or sometimes if you don't want. But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance."

Take time ... How long it takes to fill the tank circuit? Have you sure that tank circuit couldn't fill at same rate or fastest than the supply ?
It takes a time interval that can be calculated and measured. It's not "much" time because even in a large tank like the FTW QEG, the actual energy circulating in the tank isn't all that large. How long does it take to deposit four Joules in a tank when your supply is providing, say, six watts? Two-thirds of a second. And the delays of that order can be seen in tank circuit oscillators when they are started from zero voltage and zero stored energy, in sims and in real devices.
How am I sure that it can't fill at the same rate or faster than the supply? 1: I have measured it and at no time have I ever seen a tank filling faster than it was being supplied. 2: it is logically incoherent. If the tank is filling, where is the filling coming from, if not from the supply???
Quote
I see you circuit and i think that understand what you try to show but i think that your circuit does not illustrate the phenomenon in the same way that other people are testing.
Depends on which people, I think. You may note that once a resonant tank is filled, its oscillations are sinusoidal. In fact that is one way you can tell that you are indeed in resonance. So once I have a resonant tank filled and oscillating at resonance, how is what happens after that, in any way dependent on what comes before that? That is, if I am resonating a tank with a sine wave oscillator instead of a pulsed squarewave drive... can the downstream load, feeding off the tank, tell the difference?
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss)
You can see in this video, that the output power generated is greater than the input used;
I say that because i use only a pulse in input , and at least in my understanding i think that is a gain . or not ?
Pulsed inputs have their own problems which must be addressed. It is very likely that you are underestimating the power in your input. But I can't tell what is going on in that video, except I am waiting for someone to electrocute themselves. What, you are showing a neon glowing a little bit for a few seconds from the energy stored in a capacitor from the single backspike of a huge inductor as you  make and break the connection to the battery or supercap that is the green cylinder? . OK, fine. I don't see any measurements in there that indicate OU. If you are impressed by lighting a neon from a lower voltage source using inductive collapse spikes, take a look at the JT in the video below. A single depleted AAA battery lights up _four_ NE-2 neons in series. But nobody seems to think That is OU. It's hard for me to find better performances though. Unless... of course.... it's done wirelessly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo)
 ;)

Quote

About you say : "But it will then take time to fill the tank back up, since you have collapsed your resonance."
If you can reduce the damping in cycles and makes the inductor feed the capacitor, and vice versa, you can maintaining the same resonant current in the circuit, and converting all the current into useful work.
You can maintain the same resonant current in the circuit, yes. In the video above you see multiple chained examples of just that. Converting all the _input_ current into useful work, _after_ passing through the various tank circuits in the demonstration. What goes in, comes out the other end, minus losses. Where is any magic extra energy supposed to come in?
Quote
I think is what happens in the video , because after you remove the input power you see that oscillations maintain the circuit running in resonance.
I doubt it. I think that what you are seeing in your video is the Neon running on straight DC from the charged up capacitor. Strip the neon out of your circuit tester so you can see both electrodes. Are they both glowing equally, or is only one glowing? If you are resonating, they will both be glowing equally. If you are running on DC, only the negative polarity electrode will be glowing.
Quote
TinselKoala a like your reviews and videos.
 Iḿ  your youtube subscriber at least 3 years and i like your dedication at this subject,   but i don't like your temper and tone of your reviews.
I have no tolerance for people who insult my education and my work, without having corresponding work of their own to demonstrate their claims. And when people say idiotic things or misrepresent my work, I will let them know about it. I am not in a popularity  contest, I am doing science.
Quote
I ask you to be gentle in your reply :) in case you want to consider comment on what I said. ;)
I'm always open to healthy criticism :)
I hope you have found me gentle enough. Thank you for being a longtime subscriber and I hope I don't lose you. But please, do the little test I suggested above: Get your hands on a bare NE-2 neon bulb and repeat your MOT test with that, and tell us which electrode glows, or if they both do.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 31, 2014, 07:30:03 AM
not, you are mistaken because i showed you that the resonance may not to destroy, but you continuing to you insist the opposite
You have shown me nothing! But if you bother to look, you might see that I am showing you something.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on July 31, 2014, 05:58:48 PM
TinselKoala
see now in the patent clearly states: Reactive power input =33,5VA, Active power out =25,3W, power consumption from grid =1,16W, Is not that this proof?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 31, 2014, 10:38:45 PM
What patent is that now ? I'm always happy to read a patent but I need either a link or a patent number or a name or something.

How about a link to said patent ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on August 01, 2014, 12:51:19 AM
TinselKoala
see now in the patent clearly states: Reactive power input =33,5VA, Active power out =25,3W, power consumption from grid =1,16W, Is not that this proof?
Of course it is not proof. Show me Thane Heins's electric bills for the past six months. If they are zero, or a negative number... That would be proof. Of something....

 :P

Or you can tell us the story of his laboratory at the University in Canada. Why is he no longer working there?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on August 01, 2014, 01:13:12 AM
Of course it is not proof. Show me Thane Heins's electric bills for the past six months. If they are zero, or a negative number... That would be proof. Of something....

 :P

Or you can tell us the story of his laboratory at the University in Canada. Why is he no longer working there?
I already said: May not to please him of such like you!, because whatever i show you, you again will not be you pleased and happy
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 02, 2014, 12:50:15 AM
TinselKoala
see now in the patent clearly states: Reactive power input =33,5VA, Active power out =25,3W, power consumption from grid =1,16W, Is not that this proof?

That is not a patent, that is a "Patent Application", anyone can apply for a patent for anything even if it doesn't work.
It's a favorite ploy of scammers to make a patent "application" so as to try to give their device legitimacy in order
to get investment from not so savvy investors.

Basically the patent application is not worth the paper it's written on. It shows no proof, it's just another claim made by Mr Heins.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on August 02, 2014, 02:15:03 AM
so, you are already two trolls! It was a test which issue you, and how much yet there is such as you?
you deny the obvious, in this way you you are to the detriment on this board because you indicate symptoms of the serious mental health problem, and need to you are being
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 02, 2014, 03:21:02 AM
In order to see for sure if Thanes BiTT is OU you just need to try to run it from a pure sine wave inverter powered from a 12 volt
battery and monitor the battery output as well as the AC meters and such while the experiments are under way. Then tally up the
energy used and the energy output as intended output in the load resistor, the load resistor should have it's temperature
monitored as well. I'd say his measurement protocol and execution are not accurate.

Thanes BiTT is not a generator, it uses the grid as a power supply and he disregards all costs involved in providing his input as well.

Build one run it from a battery and make free power why don't you ?

Rather than abuse and accuse. Why not do something ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on August 02, 2014, 01:18:40 PM
In order to see for sure if Thanes BiTT is OU you just need to try to run it from a pure sine wave inverter powered from a 12 volt
battery and monitor the battery output as well as the AC meters and such while the experiments are under way. Then tally up the
energy used and the energy output as intended output in the load resistor, the load resistor should have it's temperature
monitored as well. I'd say his measurement protocol and execution are not accurate.

Thanes BiTT is not a generator, it uses the grid as a power supply and he disregards all costs involved in providing his input as well.

Build one run it from a battery and make free power why don't you ?

Rather than abuse and accuse. Why not do something ?

..
and sample of the tar, don't you want?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 02, 2014, 02:07:34 PM
In order to see for sure if Thanes BiTT is OU you just need to try to run it from a pure sine wave inverter powered from a 12 volt
battery and monitor the battery output as well as the AC meters and such while the experiments are under way. Then tally up the
energy used and the energy output as intended output in the load resistor, the load resistor should have it's temperature
monitored as well. I'd say his measurement protocol and execution are not accurate.

Thanes BiTT is not a generator, it uses the grid as a power supply and he disregards all costs involved in providing his input as well.

Build one run it from a battery and make free power why don't you ?

Rather than abuse and accuse. Why not do something ?

..








Everything seems simple .... for those who have resources available, is more simple,I have no doubt.
Maybe you can provide a pure sine wave inverter to x_name41 to test.;) all tests you say !

What I mean by this is that it is easier said than practice without passing the abundance of resources.
We can not forget that most people do this as a hobby and not as a full time job (I wish).
The effort of the people should not be underestimated but rather used to improve the understanding of some phenomena.
This may not be an activity where only the elite few can recreate these tests because have resources.
My resources are low and try to adapt materials that would normally go to waste I think it is also a way to involve more people with fewer resources and give them the opportunity to engage in this area.
Never forget that almost all of these phenomena have been discovered and recreated without the use of present available technology .

I also need a pure sine wave inverter to test some things I have in mind, but it is not easy to get $ to buy one.
I think people like  x_name41  not spending resources and time to fool anyone; what is the idea?

I could have the same opinion of those who only live to criticize without ever recreated some of these tests to verify its veracity.


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 02, 2014, 03:40:18 PM
Well I don't want anything really.

But as for the inverter a cheap 150 Watt inverter can be got for quite cheap, you could then apply a filter to the output to
get a sine wave from it. The wrong load would likely fry it or shut it down or blow a fuse.

The suggestion was mainly to point out  that Thane does not even provide his own input power he relies on the grid.
Why is that you may ask.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: x_name41 on August 02, 2014, 04:48:29 PM
Well I don't want anything really.

But as for the inverter a cheap 150 Watt inverter can be got for quite cheap, you could then apply a filter to the output to
get a sine wave from it. The wrong load would likely fry it or shut it down or blow a fuse.

The suggestion was mainly to point out  that Thane does not even provide his own input power he relies on the grid.
Why is that you may ask.

..
Farmhand calmly I can tell you that you are idiot, my conscience is clear!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 02, 2014, 06:09:29 PM
Well I don't want anything really.

But as for the inverter a cheap 150 Watt inverter can be got for quite cheap, you could then apply a filter to the output to
get a sine wave from it. The wrong load would likely fry it or shut it down or blow a fuse.

The suggestion was mainly to point out  that Thane does not even provide his own input power he relies on the grid.
Why is that you may ask.

..


Hello Farmhand, and how I'll do a convenient filter to get a sine wave  without oscilloscope?
And how will I buy an inverter with a measly salary € 410 for the whole month to pay family home etc?
Look it's not that simple ... But thanks for the tip
..
[/quote]
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 02, 2014, 07:29:25 PM
Wow, I see all you guys are very busy replicating the SERPS…. ;)


Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 02, 2014, 10:18:30 PM
All,

Attached are scope shots showing the composite switching signals overlaid on a 50Hz sine. I provided a composite switching output to make it easier to set up using just a two channel scope.
I am experimenting with two caps which are individually charged in each rising quadrant and individually discharged into each falling quadrant.

At the moment I have the timing circuit set to replicate the timing shown in the SERPS presentation. All pots would benefit being 470K, which would allow complete range coverage without series trimming resistors.

The 4050 buffer shown, is so I can also use my more complicated comparitor based zero cross circuit, which is powered by a +15V rail. This circuit is very accurate and stable over a large voltage range.

The opto based zero cross circuit has been simplified but I had to reduce the input resistors to provide enough current to saturate the opto diodes at 110V 50Hz input. I have run this up to 220V without problem.

I am using two switches initially but I have space on my switching board for 4 isolated bidirectional switches.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 02, 2014, 10:29:37 PM
Should have posted this later circuit which has positive zero cross pulses about 500uS wide.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 03, 2014, 03:56:21 AM
Farmhand calmly I can tell you that you are idiot, my conscience is clear!

I'm happy for you on that. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. You would be better served to take off the rose colored glasses when
assessing other peoples claims. Thane has no OU he never had any OU, his regenerative acceleration is bogus and so is his BiTT.

All reactive power is a portion of the apparent power provided by the power supply. Even if it is used it is paid for. The instant any
reactive power is used it is converted to real power and is consumed.

Think about that. 

I can measure several hundred Watts of oscillating - reactive power in a simple setup with only 2 or 3 Watts input, but it's not
real power, my case is to the extreme end of the spectrum, I measure ie. 240 volts RMS and 1.3 Amps RMS with a phase angle
of 40 degrees. so that 240 x 1.3 = 312 Watts, the cosine of 40 degrees is 0.76 which is the power factor.
So 312 x 0.76 = 237 Watts of measured real power, but that power is not actually real power, it's just activity,
If I tap even 1 Watt from the tank (with 2 Watts input) the oscillating power drops to much less. If I tap even close to the same
power out as is input the activity drops to minimal.

Now if I can measure 300 or 400 Watts that does not exist in a setup with less than 2 Watts input from a 12 volt DC supply, then
it is possible to show all kinds of stuff.

Simply put either the SERPS is a case of deception of incorrect measurement or it's the biggest revelation in modern times, you
decide which is the most probable. 

All reactive power is a portion of the applied apparent power, and as soon as any reactive power is phase corrected and powers
a load it becomes real power by definition, which is consumed and paid for. So says reality, common sense and logic.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: tinman on August 03, 2014, 04:37:36 AM
so, you are already two trolls! It was a test which issue you, and how much yet there is such as you?
you deny the obvious, in this way you you are to the detriment on this board because you indicate symptoms of the serious mental health problem, and need to you are being
[/quote)

 ???
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 03, 2014, 06:28:32 AM
Hi Barry,


that is great work, thank you!


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 03, 2014, 06:52:17 AM
Barry,


I see there's no DIL-6 version of the LTC6993, do you happen to know if there is an equivalent in that shape?


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 03, 2014, 09:39:34 AM
Hi Mario,

I used the SOT-23 version and mounted the LTC6993's on a DIL adaptor boards.

A lot of devices are going  to surface mount packages, which makes it harder to prototype.

The pulse width LTC6993,s are -3 variants which are falling edge triggered. This means the pulse starts on the back edge of the delay pulses.

Attached is a photo of the timing board mounted in an ABS box. Also a photo showing the pots mounted on the lid.

Pots mounted directly on the board would be better, as there is some jitter due to pickup on the long wires. Its only 1-2us but enough to upset the scope trigger. The scope trigger I take from of the zero cross inputs. 

The controls need to be labeled, after I finish playing with the trimming resistors.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 03, 2014, 09:42:28 AM
Missed a photo!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 03, 2014, 11:38:07 AM
Hi Berry,


an adaptor sounds good, thanks. Nice setup you have. I was wondering, is there a way to have the 4 signals separated or combined in 1-2 and 3-4? I don't know how you are going to switch, but in my setup I need them like that (attached is a drawing, never mind the tranny symbols, they're mosfets). Until now I've been working on this setup with the sine wave and the 4 control signals recorded on multitrack (on computer) and then routed to an audio amp feeding the transformer and the control signals to my switching circuit.


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 03, 2014, 12:39:27 PM
Hi Mario,

I am using the same two cap setup and same two bidirectional switches as your scheme. I switch both mosfets in the switch on or off, I dont switch them individually.

If you want to switch each mosfet individually then instead of combining the pulse triggers with an OR gate, they would need to trigger individual pulse monostables, so 2 extra LTC6993-3's would be required.

The direction of current flow through the switch i.e. charging or discharging depends on potential difference between the cap and where on the sine you switch.

See attached photo... Cap 1 is charged on a positive rising half sine and then discharged on the negative falling half sine. Cap 2 is charged on the negative rising half sine and then discharged on the positive falling half sine.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 03, 2014, 01:52:49 PM
Hi Barry,


ok, I see. Yes, in the end the result is the same :)


thanks,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 04, 2014, 10:22:47 PM
Hi Mario,

 The 1,4,3,2 sequence did not work for me, with voltage and current staying in phase.

I can now see that the discharge in the 2nd and 4th quadrants immediately after charging in the 1st and 3rd quadrants, is the action that creates the 90 degree phase shift in current with respect to voltage. This was very clear in your photo IMG-16933.

I will use the attached SERPS timing circuit rev, that pulses the quadrants in a 1,2,3,4 sequence.  Looking at this arrangement... what is the difference between this and just allowing each cap to charge and discharge over a half cycle?


I am using a 100W line amplifier that outputs about 185V rms max. Its safer to experiment with this source first.

I have a transformer built from two MOT cores. The lower core has two MOT primaries in series. The two coils increase the inductance and drop the magnetising current .This allows continuous running. Microwave ovens only run for short periods and a single coil will get hot due to the small magnetics and minimal turns.
 On the upper core, I have two more MOT primary coils that can be wired in series or parallel. In my case that will give me a secondary with 110 or 220V. This is a cheap high power isolated transformer solution.

Usual warnings to all.. dont try this unless you have experience with high voltage work.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 04, 2014, 11:11:07 PM
Hi Barry,


theoretically speaking the sequence you have tried and the 1234 sequence should give the same result. Weird. So you are not getting a similar wave to mine? Or what do you mean by it didn't work for you? That you didn't see a consumption drop in your amp?


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 05, 2014, 12:37:13 AM
Hi Mario,

The only difference is with 1,4,3,2 the discharge is into the opposite polarity, (and this resulted in the current staying in phase with the voltage. With 1,2,3,4   the discharge is into the same polarity.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 05, 2014, 12:44:53 AM
Hi Mario,

Did you have an additional inductor in series with the load?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 05, 2014, 09:31:00 AM
Hi Barry, no inductors, only light bulbs for now.


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 05, 2014, 11:01:19 PM
Hi Mario,

This is with 1,2,3,4 switching.

Not seeing phase shift?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 05, 2014, 11:15:58 PM
Hi Mario,

The only difference I can see is that both my switches are turned on during 2 and 4. On yours only the discharge switch is turned on during 2 and 4.



Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 06, 2014, 12:32:43 AM
Hi Mario,

Which side of your transformer are you monitoring voltage on?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 06, 2014, 07:30:51 AM
Hey Barry,


that shouldn't be problem. Even if both switches are ON during the discharge phase the energy can only go from cap to transformer in that moment, as far as I can see.
The sine wave you see on my shot is on transformer primary. The current wave is across the light bulb.
Strange, your wave looks like if you had an inductor in series with your resistive load. Meaning instead of having the current rise immediately it rises slowly, like initially impeded by an inductor. But it still would have to decrease towards the end of the half cycle since cap is being emptied.


Where did you put your probes?


regards,
Mario

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 06, 2014, 09:24:31 AM
Barry, also, I wonder if your mosfets are turning off completely? The switching sequence you had before your last update should actually work, from the transformer secondary point of view, even if the caps alternate, it still sees charge/discharge. That sequence is actually even better because in the last one you did you are not able to control when the cap stops to charge and starts to discharge (sine peak), current can go either way since both your switches are on.
Well the best option is to have 1234 all separate signals, but I don't know if you can achieve that with your circuit?


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 06, 2014, 04:53:15 PM
Hi Mario,

After delaying discharge pulses to around 135 deg, I obtained attached waveforms. 

Just a quick non precision check with an energy meter on the ouput of the transformer, (the line transformer in the amplifier), shows 31W, 85VA PF 0.35

I note the timing is very critical and the current waveform can easily collapse back into 0 phase shift with respect to voltage.

I did manage to fine tune with larger capacitors and got even closer to your waveform however, I had MOSFET failures (all 4 short) not been able to determing cause yet.

This happened when I increased the load, which is a rheostat. I cannot see any voltage transients to speak of, so suspect current transients are the problem,

I was using IRF840s which are good for 8A , 32A pulsed .

I can change these out for some 20A 1200V IGBT's which would be more robust.


Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 06, 2014, 05:01:22 PM
Hi Barry,


where are you putting your probes? If the red wave is across the load I'm having a hard time understanding how your current can rise that way. Is it possible that your rheostat is acting like an inductance?


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 06, 2014, 08:19:35 PM
Hi Mario,

The current probe (clamp on)  is between the load and the switches.

The load is 208 ohm and has an inductance of 249mH

I found the problem that was destroying the MOSFET's. I am using 60uF non polarized caps and I have two more sets of these but I decided to place 660uF electrolytics  in place to make a large increase in capacitance. The problem occured as the range of my timing adjustment allows the charge period to be moved into the opposite phase and the electrolytics were shorting when this happened. I have reverted to non polarized.

Barry

 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 06, 2014, 08:35:08 PM
Hi Mario,

This is a photo showing current waveform with light bulb load, about the same 31W.

Not sure whats happening with the negative charge waveform?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 06, 2014, 08:56:57 PM
All, appologies for that last photo, forgot to reduce it.

Hi Mario,

The negative charge  waveform distortion was another failed MOSFET..shorted!

Don't know what the problem is now, these are 650V 10A devices.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: magpwr on August 07, 2014, 12:24:11 AM
All, appologies for that last photo, forgot to reduce it.

Hi Mario,

The negative charge  waveform distortion was another failed MOSFET..shorted!

Don't know what the problem is now, these are 650V 10A devices.

Barry

hi listener191,

To fix/modify thread -The photo just needs to be re uploaded with the smaller size eg:pbrush to shrink photo to 30% on both axis.Do uncheck old photo with similar name.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 07, 2014, 12:49:06 AM
Hi Barry,


thanks for the pics, man that photo is so big I can't even fit the scope shot on my screen to look at it ha ha ;D .
I see you are using some big caps, that means quite some current pulses, check the SOA curve of your mosfet on the data sheet. Maybe the current is too high for too long for them to handle it.
I don't think we will see reduced consumption on the amplifier, even if the circuit works correctly and gives back almost all it takes, because the amp is a source which doesn't work like a generator (or line which is the same). But once you feel comfortable and your circuit works well maybe you can give it a shot on the line and see what you power meter says about the input with regards to what the load is consuming.
I've ordered the components to build your control circuit.


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 07, 2014, 03:39:29 AM
Hi Mario,

The current probe (clamp on)  is between the load and the switches.

The load is 208 ohm and has an inductance of 249mH

I found the problem that was destroying the MOSFET's. I am using 60uF non polarized caps and I have two more sets of these
but I decided to place 660uF electrolytics  in place to make a large increase in capacitance. The problem occured as the range of
my timing adjustment allows the charge period to be moved into the opposite phase and the electrolytics were shorting when
this happened. I have reverted to non polarized.

Barry

Hi Barry, How come you are using an inductive load ? The load should be resistive so as to dissipate energy and consume real
power for the output. I suggest a large non inductive resistor then you can get load power measurements as well with no
need for power factor calculations.

A non inductive load might help preserve the switches as well. It could be the current surge trying to charge a totally discharged
relatively large capacitor with no current restriction or it could be the inductive load wreaking havoc on solid state switches.

The initial current into a totally discharged 470 uF capacitor from a 120 or 240 volt supply would be significant. like a momentary short.

Just be careful not to measure the power charging the capacitors as output as well as the power when they discharge, the power
consumed by the resistive load only is the output. And to get an accurate input just use a sine wave inverter for the input then
you can measure the DC out of the battery.. Although It would not surprise me if the inverter was destroyed anyway.

Go well.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 07, 2014, 06:13:29 PM
Hi Mario & Farmhand,

The rheostat was a convenient high power resistive load, which by its construction, has some inductance.

I have tried two parallel 50W light bulbs instead and it does not change the waveform and does not change the readings on energy monitor i.e. still 31W 0.31PF  95VA.

Have also used 1:1 transformer to isolate my source and placed the energy monitor on the input to that transformer and got very close to same i.e. 31W 0.31PF 95VA

The PF displayed is purely due to the cap switching.

With regards to the load is their some specific measurement you would like me to make?

The AC voltage across the load reads 68V and 0.172A through the load via a true RMS meter.

My current clamp is showing  1A pk to pk.

@Mario,

Re MOSFET failures. I am using P12NM60 MOSFETS which at a VDS of 160V allows about 1.5A continuous to stay in its SOA. I was pushing higher than this at several times during testing so it may well be going outside the SOA. Thanks for making me look at this. I will change to IGBTS at some point to provide some useful current capability and keep the current down for now. I am still using 60uf Non Polarized caps. I guess you are only using low voltage and car bulbs?

Attached is latest SERPS timing rev that allows individual MOSFET switching without adding two more pulse width monostables. As you can voltage control timing clock the additional LTC-6993C-3's may be far neater, as then you can remove the falling edge detectors and the NAND RS latch and all the buffers, inverters and XNOR gates.

The resistor values indicated plus the 470K pots, give a good timing range.

I appreciate any suggestions and happy to make any measurements

Barry

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 07, 2014, 06:31:22 PM
I should mention the cyclic RMS current measured on the scope is 0.2A, which inconsideration of the waveform is fairly close to 0.172A measured by the meter in series with the load. So power is somewhere between 11 to 13W in load.

31W & 95VA shown on the input from source.

Babcock and Murray claim 1W input from source and 52W in load?

Maybe need to have measuring setup for load power running same time as input measurement i.e. side by side, to determine if there is any 'sweet spot' adjustment?

Barry

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 07, 2014, 10:09:45 PM
Hi Barry,


thanks for posting all that. We have to keep in mind that the claimed 1.1W input is the differential of the power they take from the grid and the power they give back. t's not simply that the transformer shows 1.1W consumption. I don't remember if they say the numbers, but let's say that for one moment they take 100W from the grid and the next they give 98,9Watts back. The net result is that you pay for 1.1 W.
Now, I don't know if a little power meter can calculate that differential, but since you asked if I wanted you to take some measurements I would like to suggest you put a 0.1 resistor shunt in series with the transformer secondary (or primary) and put your scope across the resistor. This is what they did in the attached picture. If the positive amps are about the same as the negative amps you know that you are returning about the same power you are taking, and since your bulb is lit you know you're in the ball park.
You will not be able to measure a low consumption on your audio amp, because it's not a generator and it doesn't know how to handle the power you send back. If you had a generator as a source it would convert the energy you send back into motive force making the generator become a motor for a moment. This means it would be a generator without drag on the prime mover, and this while running the load.


P.S. Could replace that big picture you posted with a smaller one? It makes reading this page a bit difficult, thanks  ;)


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 07, 2014, 10:17:40 PM
OK not sure if this will replace oversize photo. This one has all MOSFETS working .

Also attached is a photo of the light bulb load and a power meter monitoring load power only.

This was a meter I designed for monitoring generator outputs hence the RPM display and is arduino based. It has an RS-232 output that can be used for data logging and has isolated monitoring.
This one works down to fairly low voltages where the energy meters peg out below 90V or so.

I noted that the software needs a tweak to limit rounding to avoid the PF >1.00 situation.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 07, 2014, 10:53:30 PM
All,

In the Murray Babcock presentation time 01:28:45,  Babcock states that in substituting a generator with a transformer, the transformer eats up the returned power. This is indicating that a practical SERPS device cannot work on a transmission line system with transformers.

It would seem that to see this device work, it will have to be placed on a generator!

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 08, 2014, 12:13:35 AM
Hi Mario,

I measure current on the scope with a current clamp and it is sitting on the feed to the load from the transformer, so what you see in my scope shots is what you asked for.

The discharge pulses are largely within the same period as the charge pulses, so current is definately flowing back to the source, so the load sees current in both directions resulting in 11W.

Note: this scheme is not the most efficient, as the timing of the discharge has to be set so the discharge voltage exceeds the sine falling edge voltage. The parallel/series arrangement allows the discharge to start at the peak of the sine, (their current discharge waveforms look like 3 caps in series not 2).

OK hypothetically...

My scope shot shows about 20mv RMS so 20 x 0.01A= 0.2A, close to what I measured with the meter. Divide by 2 as only half is input, (probably should do a power calculation by area).

So the input power is 0.1 x 150V 15W approx. The other half is being returned so say -13W as the discharge current waveform is less in area. So we generate 11W for 2W supplied.

How do we meter this correctly as both meters are seeing the 0.2A as regular AC sine , where as 50% of the flow is in a different direction?

Barry

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2014, 01:57:07 AM
Sorry, wrong thread, oops. ???
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2014, 02:20:53 AM
@listener: I think you should discontinue the wattmeter and use scope measurements throughout. Proper phase angle measurements along with your instantaneous V and I measurements will tell you the true story of the input and output power.

The current clamp you are using should be explored carefully. Some will introduce phase shifts of their own, and digital ones like Bill Alek uses have timing delays built in that can cause erroneous phase angle measurements if not corrected. Does your scope have a "probe deskew" facility?

I don't want to get into some controversial discussion but you might want to consider my opinion on this: the idea that reactive power is somehow "returned to the source" has always bothered me. If you set up some mirrors so you get many receding images of your face, is the image being "returned to the source" when it's reflecting back and forth from one mirror to the other? There are times when reactive power indeed does get "returned to the source" and I have the exploded mosfets to prove it, and it sounds like you do too. But in an ideal reactive power system the reactive power "circulates" without being _dissipated_ in the source, it just bounces back without hurting anything or really having any effect except to exist as stored power in the reactive system. I think.

Trying to get a bunch of mosfets marching in neat rows can be very difficult. For good synchronization I've used such tricks as multifilar gate phase transformers (primary driven by mosfet driver, secondaries to mosfet gates in anti-phase) or even fully controllable H-bridge controllers by Intersil like the HIP4080AIP.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 08, 2014, 09:04:11 AM
Hi TinselKoala,

If you run a straight resistive load on AC and monitor with my current clamp, the voltage and current waveforms are in phase, so I am sure there is no skew however, I will take a scope shot of the same phase shifted waveform, montoring voltage across an in line shunt resistor, just to demonstrate that they are the same.

I have not damaged a MOSFET since I have kept the current below 1.5A.  Experimenting I was exceeding the SOA of the P12NM60's.

Each MOSFET has an individual driving totem pole pair fed from a common floating +15V source. The totem pole pairs share a common op amp drive, however I can connect individual isolated drive circuits for each MOSFET, which would  allow only one device to be switched for charge or discharge.

I want to try and run at what can be considered a useful power level, so IGBT's are the way to go.

I think you are right about using scope measurements, I just wish my scope had some more flexible math functions.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 08, 2014, 10:25:46 AM
Hi TinselKoala,

Attached are scope shots of shunt monitored current versus clamp monitored current and shunt monitored current against voltage.

As you can see, my current clamp does not skew phase.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 11, 2014, 11:40:03 AM
Well if you look at the wave forms it seems that if the switching was spot on (I think it's a bit off not important) but it seems
that the circuit simply takes "in phase" power "real power" to charge the caps, then dumps the energy so the resulting power is
out of phase and so energy is returned to the supply or it tries to. That energy didn't powered anything except the capacitor.

I hope you don't mind but I edited your scope shot to indicate current that is missing from the sine wave "in phase" and simply
returned "out of phase". Take in yellow and give in green.

I think the load power needs to be measured by a scope, I have a 60 Watt light globe it has 0.5 mH inductance.

Seeing if the calculated power from the scope traces matches the meter power will tell something.

Something to consider calculating below.

If the current trace was normal and in phase as it looks like it was then what is the power measured ? Then subtract the missing
"in phase current" and you get the load power. More than one way to skin a cat.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 11, 2014, 11:56:00 AM
Actually I think what is needed is-

1) A voltage, current and if possible a power trace from the supply line (grid supply to setup).
2) A normal load voltage, current and if possible a power trace from directly at and across the load.
3) A Switched Voltage, current and if possible power trace from the same load measurement points as the normal load power data.

4) Capacitor values, CSR values and so forth. Circuit diagram I think we already have so that is probably taken care of.

And all done in one session at the same running condition, if possible with no (on and off testing) different things unless a certain
run or warm up time is used the same always.

That should allow a decent analysis of the powers.

Maybe a comparison between the meters and the scope measurement analysis will yield the secret.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 11, 2014, 12:34:53 PM
Here's a wave form for an example it's an inductive load made to appear as almost purely resistive to the previous circuit element.
It's the primary of a ferrite transformer, the wire has less than 0.5 Ohm resistance about 7 turns of 10 Amp auto wire maybe a
meter at most. Anyway the voltage across the primary is in phase with the current through it so all power is real power.

I can make it look almost half reactive to the supply if I somehow take half of the "in phase current" and move it to be
90 degrees "out of phase" then the load power is reduced. And the wave forms are not sinusoidal so most meters probably
would not deal well with that. They might go to Zero in protest. Seeing double frequency and half of the current in phase and half
of the current out of phase. Might equal zero.

..

P.S There is a yellow trace underneath the blue trace. Hard to see it.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 11, 2014, 01:57:06 PM
For example, if we take the same "in phase" wave form in my previous post. And ignore the purple trace. I modified it by drawing
in a "theoretical" SERPS current trace, we can see that it effectively doubles the frequency of the currents for each cycle compared
to the voltage. My drawing is a bit off but the reasoning can be seen. It also moves half of the current to 90 degrees out of phase.
Well that is the general effect of it I think, my scope edit is just a visual aid.

Now what effect does this have on a meter ? And the meters on the previous devices supplying the "SERPS" setup and load.

We should be able to draw a theoretical "proper" trace and determine the power that way.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 11, 2014, 06:42:02 PM
Hi Farmhand,

My old Owon scope doesnt help me much, have been looking at a Rigol DS1104Z, that has some useful math functions including integration of waveforms multiplication phase etc.

 At the moment I have been trying the parallel charge, series discharge circuit but have only been getting a current waveform that is an in-phase chopped sine. The falstad simulator produces the same waveform so there must be something in the actual switches. Mario switches his MOSFETs individually and seems to be able to get the same waveform as Babcock and Murray have shown.

I know Mario is concerned about the half amplitude discharge pulse, and certainly the Babcock/Murray waveforms look more like 3 or 4 caps in series rather than two but anyhow, this technique does offer the possibility of switching some reasonable levels of power. The delay of the discharge pulses does work but is limited to 20 degrees or so of useful period, as the pulse has to be in a region where the voltage on the sine is less than that stored in the cap if current is to flow in reverse through the load.

Barry

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 12, 2014, 09:27:29 AM
Well, if as Mario said on the other forum the power is just borrowed and returned, we don't need a fancy switching scheme to do
that. I think the claim is that the out of phase current does work.

Well below is a scope shot 1) showing a light globe load which is experiencing an over 70 degree phase shift between voltage
and current, so it appears that a 12 volt 3 watt rated globe has 14 volts RMS across it and is apparently experiencing
about 0,7 amp of current in a part designed for .25 amp. going by the math trace there is about 11 VA applied to the globe
and about 7 VA returned to the previous circuit element, the scope shot for the previous element
(a resonant tank "coil and capacitor") is below also, the shots are labeled "globe load" and "Tank loaded" .

The 7 VA returned from the globe load is shown in the "tank" shot as the purple power trace going under the 0 line by
about 7 VA , the second shot the Math vertical division is 20 Watts per division and the Load shot the Math trace is 10 Watts per
division. The current is sensed through 0.1 Ohm resistors. I'll add a video or drawing to show the scope probe placement.

Point is that the out of phase current does not contribute to the transfer of energy to the load. I can also unload the DC power
supply by connecting a load if tuned correctly, that's in the video. The shots are taken while the circuit is in a running condition
where the load does not affect the input power.

Note the current magnitude and phase shift is different in the load as compared to the tank supplying it. But that's another story,
shot shows the globe taking about 11 VA and returning about 7 VA to the previous circuit element. 4 Watts consumed.
I think.

Here's the videos showing the input power loaded and unloaded and the scope probe placements. Part two show the load
voltage current and power traces ect.

Video part one shows scope placement and input power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLALutgqCc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLALutgqCc)

Video part two shows the load current scoped at just after 4:40 in the video. The load voltage is the same probe point as the
tank voltage, just the current sense probe needs be swapped to show load current.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDs128Q64lc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLALutgqCc)

I'll photograph my circuit sketch and post it shortly, it shows better the scope placement and the entire circuit
as is open source method.

.
EDIT: Circuit drawing shows entire HF AC generator circuit but the only portion of interest here is the top right hand corner, the
output coil and the load and showing the scope probe placement.

EDITED to change "Watts" to VA in some parts of the post. People can decide for themselves what is "VA", what is "VAR" and
what is "Watts", so many different interpretations of it.
..

By analyzing the effect of loads to each previous circuit element back to the supply I can see "what gives", as far as the reactive
power goes, If I change from the power supply to a battery then I might see a reduction "net input" and get oscillations back into
the battery.  :D The power supply has a diode to prevent the oscillations but the input can be reduced by applying a load.

...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on August 12, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
Wow... a lot of nice thoughtful work happening. I am very pleased to see good scopeshots and what seems to be good data on them. Thumbs up, favorited, subscribed, whatever.

Meanwhile, it looks like you are just about to invent radio! Add some AM audio frequency modulation to that tank power and see what happens.

 ;)


Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 12, 2014, 02:56:28 PM
Hi Mario,

Attached is a scope shot of parallel charge, series discharge waveforms.

The key to obtaining this waveform was cap value versus load, and Falstad indicated that for a 200 ohn load, 6uf was about right.

My caps were originally 60uf.

I have a simulation with two inductors that basically does the same thing but suffers a similar problem of insufficient voltage maintained over the discharge perod, to obtain a discharge current the same magnitude as the charge current. The inductor provides an initial high current spike but the area under the pulse is still less than the charge pulse.

I think x 3 caps in series would be required to achieve this, so... whats the minimum switch scheme to charge 3 in parallel and discharge 3 in series?

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: gotoluc on August 12, 2014, 04:33:14 PM
Nice setup and demonstration Farmhand!

Thanks for taking the time to share your experiments.

Luc
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 12, 2014, 05:36:57 PM
Thanks Luc, Mario and Listener are doing great work also, they have almost perfectly replicated the SERPS wave forms, even I
hope that they will be successful, if it makes free energy then so be it. Doesn't hurt to be a bit skeptical, I still hope for some free
energy like most everyone.

Nice work Mario and Listener !

Go well all.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 12, 2014, 05:44:39 PM
Listener, What about switching the bulbs from a parallel to a series configuration for the duration of the cap discharge as Stefan
suggested ? Or was it the other way around ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: gotoluc on August 12, 2014, 06:32:03 PM
Listener, What about switching the bulbs from a parallel to a series configuration for the duration of the cap discharge as Stefan
suggested ? Or was it the other way around ?

..

I would be very interested in seeing the scope results of a double capacitor Tank being charged in parallel then discharged (through load) in series would have. It would also be nice to test the opposite (series to parallel)

This makes the circuit much more complicated but I'm sure you're up to the task Farmhand ;)

Luc
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 12, 2014, 06:50:25 PM
Hi Farmhand,

That last scope shot was for parallel charge and series discharge caps.

As this will also simulate on Falstad, I have tried 3 caps in parallel and series discharge, with no improvement in discharge amplitude.

I have also tried simulating two inductors charging and discharging. The charge waveform is fine but the discharge waveform although initially a high voltage spike, hence high current, rapidly collapses, so the situation is similar to the parallel/series caps... less area under the discharge pulse  compared with the charge pulse.

To get the PF/phase shift that Babcock/Murray have achieved, i.e. equal areas under the pulse, something else is required.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 12, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
Well, if as Mario said on the other forum the power is just borrowed and returned….


These are actually not my words but Murray's.


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 13, 2014, 12:12:37 AM
Attached Falstad capture. Switched identical loads so you can see the power in both directions.

26.12W charge
13.22 discharge 

40W input from source


$ 1 5.0E-6 14.841315910257661 43 5.0 50
w 464 304 464 256 0
w 464 304 400 304 0
c 464 336 464 400 0 6.0E-6 -62.310406866095015
c 464 496 464 576 0 6.0E-6 -62.310406866095015
178 400 304 400 384 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 576 416 576 496 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 464 400 576 400 0
w 512 464 464 464 0
w 512 464 512 512 0
178 720 512 720 416 1 1 1.0E-9 -9.999999999999999E-6 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 720 512 512 512 0
w 576 400 576 416 0
w 528 416 528 368 0
w 544 416 544 368 0
w 544 368 608 368 0
w 528 368 528 320 0
w 608 368 608 320 0
v 528 320 608 320 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 352 304 352 272 0
w 352 272 528 272 0
w 528 272 528 320 0
w 368 304 368 288 0
w 368 288 608 288 0
w 608 288 608 320 0
w 672 416 672 368 0
w 672 368 608 368 0
w 688 416 688 352 0
w 688 352 512 352 0
w 512 352 512 368 0
w 512 368 528 368 0
w 464 464 384 464 0
w 384 464 384 384 0
w 560 496 560 576 0
w 560 576 464 576 0
w 736 416 736 400 0
w 736 400 576 400 0
T 112 448 208 368 0 4.0 1.0 0.3013013529432025 -0.35694394279911656 0.999
w 208 176 208 288 0
w 208 448 208 576 0
r 112 448 48 448 0 0.01
w 48 368 112 368 0
v 48 368 48 448 0 1 50.0 155.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 208 576 464 576 0
w 208 288 208 368 0
w 1008 176 992 176 0
w 1008 256 1008 176 0
w 912 304 912 288 0
w 896 304 896 272 0
178 944 304 944 384 0 1 1.0E-9 1.099E-320 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 1008 304 944 304 0
w 1008 304 1008 256 0
r 928 496 928 576 0 200.0
r 976 512 976 576 0 200.0
w 976 176 992 176 0
w 464 256 464 224 0
w 464 224 784 224 0
w 784 224 784 576 0
w 320 176 976 176 0
v 880 224 960 224 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 3.141592653589793 0.5
w 464 304 464 336 0
w 464 464 464 496 0
w 928 416 928 384 0
w 960 384 976 384 0
w 784 576 928 576 0
w 928 576 976 576 0
w 320 176 208 176 0
w 928 416 928 496 0
w 880 224 880 272 0
w 880 272 896 272 0
w 912 288 960 288 0
w 960 288 960 224 0
w 976 384 976 512 0
o 41 64 1 291 160.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 51 64 1 35 18.707220957835556 9.765625E-55 1 -1
o 52 64 1 35 40.0 2.44140625E-5 2 -1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 13, 2014, 09:41:04 PM
FarmHand,

Your scope shots where you've added the "Take"
and "Give" regions (http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/msg413999/#msg413999) are quite good.

Interestingly, the Take and Give timings are just
the opposite of what a Reactive component would
do.

I can see how this would confuse the Power Meter.

Extracting power from the input waveshape on the
downward slope is easy stuff for Power Factor Correction
Circuits such as those used in Compact Fluorescent Lamps.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 14, 2014, 08:15:00 PM
This simulation uses two parallel charge series discharge circuits each handling a half cycle. Careful use of squarewave sources with duty cycle setting and phase shifts was required to get the pulse switching pattern, which you can see if you scope the signal sources. Falstad could do with a decent pulse generator!

The discharge is switched out to an identical transformer which has an arbitrary load on the secondary.

Unfortunately Falstad is a lacking an RMS or average function on the metering. The current peak on the discharge is missleading as in practice you dont see this, and also looking at a visual average of the discharge its no more than 25% whereas in the real circuit this is closer to 66%, as measured.

This setup does illustrate what happen to the input when the power is not being returned. You can see the power developed in the discharge load resistor and the power developed in a resistor across the substitute transformer secondary.

The discharge power developed in a generator would depend on winding impedance.

Anyway I will let you all pick over the bones of this.

Barry




 

$ 1 5.0E-6 382.76258214399064 43 5.0 50
w 544 128 544 80 0
w 544 128 480 128 0
c 544 160 544 224 0 6.0E-6 76.52592094483336
c 544 320 544 400 0 6.0E-6 76.52592094484348
178 480 128 480 208 0 1 1.0E-9 -6.76E-321 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 656 240 656 320 0 1 1.0E-9 -6.76E-321 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 544 224 656 224 0
w 592 288 544 288 0
w 592 288 592 336 0
178 800 336 800 240 1 1 1.0E-9 9.999999999999999E-6 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 800 336 592 336 0
w 656 224 656 240 0
w 608 240 608 192 0
w 624 240 624 192 0
w 624 192 688 192 0
w 608 192 608 144 0
w 688 192 688 144 0
v 608 144 688 144 0 2 50.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.25
w 432 128 432 96 0
w 432 96 608 96 0
w 608 96 608 144 0
w 448 128 448 112 0
w 448 112 688 112 0
w 688 112 688 144 0
w 752 240 752 192 0
w 768 240 768 176 0
w 592 176 592 192 0
w 592 192 608 192 0
w 544 288 464 288 0
w 464 288 464 208 0
w 640 320 640 400 0
w 640 400 544 400 0
w 288 272 288 400 0
r 192 272 128 272 0 0.01
w 128 192 192 192 0
v 128 192 128 272 0 1 50.0 155.0 0.0 3.141592653589793 0.5
w 288 400 544 400 0
w 288 112 288 192 0
w 992 128 992 112 0
w 976 128 976 96 0
178 1024 128 1024 208 0 1 1.0E-9 9.999999999999999E-6 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 1088 128 1088 80 0
w 544 80 544 48 0
w 544 48 864 48 0
w 864 48 864 400 0
v 960 48 1040 48 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 3.141592653589793 0.5
w 544 128 544 160 0
w 544 288 544 320 0
w 1008 240 1008 208 0
w 1040 208 1056 208 0
w 960 48 960 96 0
w 960 96 976 96 0
w 992 112 1040 112 0
w 1040 112 1040 48 0
w 544 624 544 656 0
w 544 464 544 496 0
w 288 736 544 736 0
w 640 736 544 736 0
w 640 656 640 736 0
w 464 624 464 544 0
w 544 624 464 624 0
w 592 528 608 528 0
w 592 512 592 528 0
w 768 576 768 512 0
w 752 576 752 528 0
w 688 448 688 480 0
w 448 448 688 448 0
w 448 464 448 448 0
w 608 432 608 480 0
w 432 432 608 432 0
w 432 464 432 432 0
v 608 480 688 480 0 2 50.0 5.0 5.0 3.141592653589793 0.25
w 688 528 688 480 0
w 608 528 608 480 0
w 624 528 688 528 0
w 624 576 624 528 0
w 608 576 608 528 0
w 656 560 656 576 0
w 800 672 592 672 0
178 800 672 800 576 1 1 1.0E-9 1.099E-320 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 592 624 592 672 0
w 592 624 544 624 0
w 544 560 656 560 0
178 656 576 656 656 0 1 1.0E-9 1.7944E-320 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 480 464 480 544 0 1 1.0E-9 8.14E-321 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
c 544 656 544 736 0 6.0E-6 -1.0305017283594964
c 544 496 544 560 0 6.0E-6 -1.030501728409758
w 544 464 480 464 0
w 544 464 544 416 0
v 752 128 832 128 0 2 50.0 5.0 5.0 4.71238898038469 0.25
v 752 464 832 464 0 2 50.0 5.0 5.0 1.5707963267948966 0.25
w 768 512 832 512 0
w 832 144 832 176 0
w 832 144 832 128 0
w 832 176 768 176 0
w 752 128 752 192 0
w 752 464 752 528 0
w 832 464 832 512 0
w 656 224 784 224 0
w 784 224 784 240 0
w 656 560 784 560 0
w 784 560 784 576 0
w 1088 80 1088 16 0
w 1088 16 288 16 0
w 288 16 288 112 0
w 288 400 288 736 0
w 640 736 1104 736 0
w 1104 272 1104 736 0
w 1024 128 1088 128 0
178 960 240 960 320 0 1 1.0E-9 9.999999999999999E-6 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 992 112 960 112 0
w 928 240 928 144 0
w 928 112 960 112 0
w 960 96 912 96 0
w 912 128 912 240 0
w 960 240 992 240 0
w 1104 224 1104 192 0
w 992 256 1104 256 0
w 1104 256 1104 224 0
r 1056 208 1056 400 0 200.0
r 944 320 944 400 0 200.0
w 864 400 944 400 0
w 944 400 1056 400 0
w 544 416 864 416 0
w 864 400 864 416 0
w 912 96 912 128 0
w 928 112 928 144 0
r 1200 192 1200 272 0 400.0
T 192 192 288 272 0 6.0 1.0 0.014459698315488212 -3.333165821949591E-4 0.999
w 992 240 992 256 0
T 1104 192 1200 272 0 4.0 1.0 0.25660762824587957 -0.2570513548740243 0.999
o 35 64 1 291 80.0 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 120 64 1 35 32.73390607896142 9.765625000000001E-155 1 -1
o 119 64 1 35 37.41444191567111 9.765625E-55 2 -1
o 127 64 1 35 74.82888383134222 9.765625E-55 3 -1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 15, 2014, 10:42:01 AM
Ok so I took the liberty of modifying your wave form again with blue lines to show approximately what the current trace would be.
From that we can determine the normal "not switched" load power. If we assume the voltage trace to be 560 volts peak to peak
and the current trace to be 0.076 volts peak to peak and sensed through a 0.1 Ohm resistor, then we would need to convert to
RMS voltage on both so that would be 198 volts and current trace (0.027 volts across the 0.1 Ohms) or 0.27 Amps RMS.

Remember I'm just working this out based on what I think the traces mean.

Normal Not switched load power.
So 198 Volts RMS x 0.27 Amps "RMS" = 53.46 VA RMS then if we look at the phase it seems to be 30 degrees or
0.866 power factor. So 53.46 x 0.866 = 46.29 Watts "real load power" with 53.46 VA which would leave 7.17 VAR. 

Now if we move more current from in phase to "out of phase" we will change the power factor and therefore the real load power
will reduce even though the 53.46 VA won't change, there will be more VAR and less "real load power". That's just the load power.

Obviously the switched load power must be less than the not switched load power.

We also need to consider that some current is taken from one half cycle "in phase" and returned to the next half cycle
(opposite polarity and mostly out of phase). An energy meter would likely not deal well with that.

But we can calculate what the effect of the moving of the current actually does to the load power, and the reactive power due to
the switching will be returned. If the input wave forms mirror the output then we can determine the powers that way as well.

..

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 16, 2014, 09:53:17 AM
Hi Farmhand,

Cheap energy meters see the peak of the projected current sine over the gap between charge and discharge pulses, hence for this waveform on my setup, the meter displays 34W, 93VA, 0.37PF so 59VAR, 68 deg.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 16, 2014, 08:21:42 PM
Attached is a circuit that I am prototyping for a new hi power Bi-directional power switch.

As SERPS is hard switching at various points on the incoming AC sine wave, both IGBTS and MOSFET's have a hard time with this, as their SOA's accommodate high current pulse switching with limited duty cycle.

When you look at their high duty cycle or continuous ratings, they paint a sad picture, with many 100A peak rated devices only handling 10A or less in the 100 to 230V region. Their square RBSOA's mean they can turn off at max current and max voltage rating. Most IGBTS operating on AC circuits are zero voltage switched to avoid the turn on limitations.

This switch uses an IGBT in series with an SCR.
The IGBT turns on before the SCR and can handle 40A under this condition and is used to turn the SCR off.
The SCR I am using can turn on within 900ns and can switch at full current and voltage rating. The IGBT can turn on in 43ns and turn off within 127ns. The IGBT only sees  its CE volt drop during switching.

The SCR has a delay applied to its gate of 100ns obtained via the propagation delay of 4 inverters. The delay always ensures the the SCR turns on after the IGBT. After testing  the SCR 900ns turn on time v 43ns IGBT turn on time may  confirm that no additional delay is necessary.

The TLP351F is used as a compact isolator driver for both devices. The output current rating allows it to also provide the trigger current for the SCR, whereas many opto couplers have boarderline  capability to trigger the 25TTS12PbF SCR  i.e. 40-60mA.

An SCR with a larger current rating could also be used with this IGBT  to extend the rating of the switch to 40A if required.

The ULN2804A transistor array is used to drive the photo coupler led's. 4049's could provide enough drive current for this but in the past, heating of this inverter was a problem and the rise time is better via the transistor array approach.

I have tested one SCR IGBT section of the switch and it looks to be good.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 17, 2014, 03:52:52 AM
Hi Farmhand,

Cheap energy meters see the peak of the projected current sine over the gap between charge and discharge pulses, hence for this waveform on my setup, the meter displays 34W, 93VA, 0.37PF so 59VAR, 68 deg.

Barry

Yes but don't you have a control wave form, with input and output powers while powering the load without the switching in place
but with the same applied voltage ? At least then we can see the effect of the switching. If we take switched and un switched
wave forms from the input and the output then we can determine the input and load power in both cases without meters.

I think that is a much more scientific way to go.

..

Impressive work with the circuit. Great work on producing the wave forms/replication.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 17, 2014, 12:29:17 PM
Hi Barry,


great, thanks for sharing :)


regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 17, 2014, 02:07:30 PM
Yes but don't you have a control wave form, with input and output powers while powering the load without the switching in place
but with the same applied voltage ? At least then we can see the effect of the switching. If we take switched and un switched
wave forms from the input and the output then we can determine the input and load power in both cases without meters.

I think that is a much more scientific way to go.


Hi Farmhand,

When you say "no switching", if the charge/discharge switches are turned off, there is no circuit for current through the load?

Could you explain the configuration you would like me to try without  switching?

Re the switch circuit..appreciate your thanks!


Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 17, 2014, 09:32:56 PM
Well I guess just power the load from the supply that feed the switching circuit power rails, like just bypass the switching circuit
altogether by powering the load from the AC source that is being switched now. But only if it's convenient if it's a lot of trouble
don't do it on my account. Just curious is all.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MileHigh on August 17, 2014, 09:42:00 PM
Farmhand:

I note that you are being bashed on the mirror thread by a few Ignorance Enforcers and you are holding your own very well.  Aaron was one that really beat you up.  I also note that after 10+ years, he still cannot string five sentences together about an electronic circuit that make sense.

It would be great if somebody actually made the power-in and power-out waveform measurements in a proper fashion like you have been stating.  One can only hope.

What makes this one extra distasteful is that I think you have to buy the DVD to "really" discuss the alleged system.

MileHigh
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 17, 2014, 09:55:45 PM
Like water off a ducks back ! Gotta keep ya eye on the ball ! Don't listen to the crowd heckling and don't let an unfair ref get you're back up ! Easy.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on August 18, 2014, 06:42:54 AM


Don't forget that when switched, the load will run on the differential voltage between input source voltage and the cap voltage. It will not see the source voltage.

I don't think it is imperative to buy the video. Of course it helps, but enough has already been discussed here and elsewhere to understand the basic concept which, once understood, is quite simple.

regards,
Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MileHigh on August 18, 2014, 07:17:59 AM
If those guys are claiming COP 20 for a black box with some kind of AC signal at the input, and some kind of AC signal at the output into some kind of a load, then proper measurements of the input voltage and current and output voltage and current are the bare minimum requirements.  Typically you would use a DSO to do the instantaneous power measurements and then average them over several cycles.  If the bandwidth in the signals is low enough (and I believe they are), you can do it with a cheap USB-style scope that you connect to a home computer.

The goal is to measure the average power input and average power output.  It's the same standard technique for any similar proposition.  It doesn't matter what kind of circuit is inside the black box.  And many participants in the thread on EF seem to be actively resisting this, when in fact they should be encouraging this.  It boggles the mind sometimes.

Also, this proposition is not much different than many other propositions that have been seen over the years.  But Aaron thought that it was a good one to make money on.  So presumably he cut a deal with the two guys and they made a DVD.  It's like a vampire bat feeding on the blood of a cow at nighttime.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 18, 2014, 08:20:32 AM
There may be much more than what is presently believed
to this device.  Apparently much more than simply charging
and discharging capacitors or inductors at critical points
repetitively within each cycle of Input (well timed periods
of Taking then Giving Back) Voltage and Current.

What would it take to perfect the illusion of being able to
return to the Source nearly all of the power extracted by
the load;  in such a way that power measurement devices
are incapable of recognizing the illusion?

Is it a scheme of high speed extraction and return of energy
for very brief periods multiple times during the duration of
each Input Cycle?

Obviously, whatever is taking place to produce the "Magic"
is quite complex and at a considerably higher frequency than
the power line.  Why else would the device need electronic
switches which are capable of nanoSecond speeds?

It is a very clever scheme, to be sure.  Playing Ponzi on the
Source with what appears to be reliability.

Miles Higher,

"Trash Talk" is a Man thing.  Although it may seem "unfriendly"
it generally isn't.  You'd have to have been a Sailor or a Soldier
(or a Grunt) who's been through Dire Straits with trusted
companions to appreciate its purpose.  It is a Test.

Theo Ap is a colorful guy and I can't see any evidence that he's
mis-interpreting the various sources he's presented.  Fascinating
possibilities!

Erron, on the other hand, is a crybaby and his 'trash talk' is truly
pathetic as you've correctly noted.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 18, 2014, 09:07:26 AM
Some questions need to be asked directly of the guys who claim this stuff not through Aaron as a third party.

1) The output says VA.
2) The current trace shows double the Line frequency I think not 4 x as the picture says but the effect would be similar.
3) The Math trace on the input transformer side we see the part under the line as returned power that also powered the globes,
that is not true as that power was put "out of phase and does not contribute to the load power (output).
4) There is no Voltage trace on the input side scope shot, this means we cannot see the voltage to current phase relationship.

Starting to look a bit more amateurish to me.
..
Even the dynaflux thing just takes power from the motor as well as flyback and returns it to the capacitor bank by the looks of it.
It only takes one dishonesty to be proven while they maintain honesty to totally ruin their credibility.
..
P.S. Oh and as well as that the current, voltage and the power trace are not symmetrical on the output trace, but they are symmetrical on the input trace, shots taken quite some time apart !!!!.
Could there be an offset at play as well (icing on the cake) ?
..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: nelsonrochaa on August 18, 2014, 01:24:36 PM


Obviously, whatever is taking place to produce the "Magic"
is quite complex and at a considerably higher frequency than
the power line.  Why else would the device need electronic
switches which are capable of nanoSecond speeds?



Hi Sea Monkey,
It is not necessary to use high frequency ,you can use the same frequency of the grid but you need to use only a half wave in the input. 1-0-1-0-1 . The results will vary every time the point of resonance of the inductor change. Why people always take the harder path?



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on August 18, 2014, 10:38:16 PM
The FTW QEG produces the "Batman waveform".... and it looks like those folks are producing the "Batman and Robin" waveforms!

Err-on is a notorious scope abuser from way back. Are those traces that he presented?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 19, 2014, 12:24:57 AM
Quote from: nelsonrochaa
Hi Sea Monkey,
It is not necessary to use high frequency ,you can use the same frequency of the grid but you need to use only a half wave in the input. 1-0-1-0-1 . The results will vary every time the point of resonance of the inductor change. Why people always take the harder path?

There may be several ways to pull off the illusion
but some would be readily visible to certain monitoring
equipments.

In order to make the illusion as fool-proof as possible
it may be necessary to resort to a more complex
methodology.  As an example of the benefits of high
frequency switching:  Modern Pure Sine Wave Inverters
(12 Volts DC to 120 Volts AC) make use of high speed
Pulse Width Modulation.  The end result is a Pure Sine
Wave.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 19, 2014, 09:15:44 PM
Hi Farmhand,

Attached shows my load 2 x 50W bulbs, without switches or caps.

The current clamp is 10mA/mv so using the RMS readings about 39W developed in the load, which is what you would expect for 141V RMS input.

This is about 15V under the cap switching test voltage , the most the power amp will produced without clipping  under this direct load.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 19, 2014, 09:41:29 PM
Awesome, phase is dead on looks like, Are the bulbs brighter when powered directly ? Thanks for that.

I have some interesting results with a fluro powered by a tuned circuit that I didn't expect. My results in my opinion support the
theory that out of phase current can be made to be "in phase to power a load" and I get a similar result, in that the light lights up
but the input is small, and with my setup it indicates that the load doesn't consume as much power as would be normal.

Very interesting. I hope you see what I'm getting at. It's interesting and I think an explanation of exactly what is going on
would be good if we can get there.

This is a shot of the fluro (load traces) and the tank feeding it below, we can see the effect of the load on the tank.
But what does it all mean ? Free light ? Or do we pay to make the (activity) or reactive power so we can do it or does
the power company pay to make the reactive power so we can do it. I know what it cost me to light my fluro. The supply is
DC. I can use a battery and the input is the same and smooth.

Interesting, I've always just wanted an explanation. Why they cannot give it, if they know it is beyond me. Sales ?

Here's my experiment on my messy bench.  :-[ The CSR's I used were not appropriate so this is just a test nothing accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFOHk_0IDZg

I see I'm paying for 3.8 Watts, but the tube isn't using that and it's lighting right up while the calculated power consumed
is only 0.5 Watt. We're on the same team guys, and we are allowed to disagree and collaborate. If we want.
..
.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 19, 2014, 10:33:46 PM
Attached is page 129 of the TPS-2024 scope being used for measurement in the presentation ppt.

This explains why the Math result for V X I is VA  not W.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on August 19, 2014, 10:59:28 PM
Yes if it's just RMS V x RMS Amps then the power factor needs to be determined and applied to get the load power.
Do they rectify their output and run the globes from DC ?
The cost of running the generator should be included, see my post linked below.
http://www.overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg415016/#msg415016

If there is something to this we need to nail it down by investigation. You're doing a very good job at that. Good Job !  :)

I need to keep my mind on my own experiments and go to a resistive load. Maybe an AC primary circuit and load switching later.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 19, 2014, 11:38:58 PM
Hi Farmhand,

For the same input voltage the directly connected lamps were brighter.

No surprise there, as the power developed in the lamps diminishes as the caps charge.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 19, 2014, 11:47:38 PM
Hi Farmhand,

They state in the presentation, that they rectified the output to the lamps (load).

Their negative half cycle charge current looks to be about 10% greater than the positive haf cycle, probably due to a difference between switches.

This shows up in the rectified current pulses.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on August 20, 2014, 12:27:57 AM
Hi Farmhand,

The voltage across and current through the load are in phase, see attached scopp shot.

The other attached scope shot is interesting, as its the same as the first but averaged over many samples...note how the charge and discharge pulses average.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 04, 2014, 11:16:44 PM
All,

Attached are  prints from a Rigol DS1104Z scope, which has a Math function. A differential probe was used for the voltage measurement and a clamp for current. You can see the RMS values displayed for voltage and current and the AxB function is used to display Watts (peak). So far I have not found a way to apply an RMS value to the Math function.

The shot with in phase V & I is the load.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2014, 12:11:13 AM
Nice displays. The scope is pretty smart: when you are using a current probe it displays in Amps and when it sees that you are multiplying Amps x Volts it gives you the result in Watts. But why would you want to apply RMS to an instantaneous power trace?  "RMS Watts" really has no physical meaning. It is the _average_ Watts value, not RMS, that represents actual dissipated power over a time interval.

When using active differential voltage probe and current clamp probe, the probes will have slight time delays. This will cause phase angle errors which in turn will affect the instantaneous power calculation. This problem is generally called "probe skew" and many advanced scopes have a probe de-skewing menu and options to correct for these time delays. Here's a short article from Tektronix talking about the issue with their scopes and probes.

http://www.newark.com/pdfs/techarticles/tektronix/Probing_power_measuremets.pdf
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on September 05, 2014, 04:20:59 AM
All,

Attached are  prints from a Rigol DS1104Z scope, which has a Math function. A differential probe was used for the voltage measurement and a clamp for current. You can see the RMS values displayed for voltage and current and the AxB function is used to display Watts (peak). So far I have not found a way to apply an RMS value to the Math function.

The shot with in phase V & I is the load.

Barry

I think the questions most folks might be wanting to ask are.

1) What was the input power from the wall socket and the power factor there ?

2) What was the output power, or what was the power consumed by the bulbs ?

Those figures would allow folks to gauge to some degree what is going on.

eg. if at the wall socket the power factor is bad and VA and VAR are high compared to Watts in, and Watts in are more than
watts consumed then we could roughly determine the effect and magnitude of VAR at the socket.

I find it difficult to believe that a person would do all that setup and experiment without determining the input and power factor
from the wall socket at the wall socket, and therefore already have a figure of some kind for efficiency, apparent and real powers.

Where was the setup probed for the shots ?

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 05, 2014, 08:29:22 AM
This is exactly the same setup as before with the Owon scope.

The out of phase V&I waveforms were at the input from the source (secondary of transformer). The in phase waveforms were taken across the load.

Farmhand mentioned this before, and by comparing with a voltage sample across a shunt resistor, I demonstrated that the current clamp does not have skew.

The RMS function was applied to the measurements at the bottom of the display for comparison with an energy monitor that is at the input.

The Math function AXB, is a sample by sample calculation and is displaying the power waveforms.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 05, 2014, 08:34:44 AM
Regarding the differential probe. I will check the skew against a grounded probe, but the V I phase looks the same as the previous waveforms taken on the Owon scope.

The reason for the differential probe is so I can measure anywhere in the switching circuit, without probe reference issues.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 05, 2014, 08:49:13 AM
I can apply average measurements to the V&I displayed however, I have not found a way to apply an average to the Math function AXB, so I only have the peak power values. This DS1104Z is a new scope for me, so if anyone knows how this may be done, please let me know.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 05, 2014, 10:19:36 PM
Attached are some results from a single cap variant.

Note: the Rigol scope has bug in the way it handles units for Math functions. In this case it uses the Amps units set on channel 1 unless I change channel 1 units to Watts.
The calculation of (VXA) is appears to be correct.

Anyway power is the main concern for measurement. The scale for power is 20W per division. The source display is showing two divisions forward and one division reverse power. The zero line indicted by the bottom of the switches off period.

The load display shows V & I pretty much in phase and one division of power.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 05, 2014, 11:05:26 PM
These shots are with a 6uF cap replacing a 4uF.

I have opened the switching dead period so the zero line can be clearly determined.

The source shot appears to show almost equal power being returned to the source. The source power measurements show an average close to zero, max 30W min -30W.

The load is showing 16W average.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 01:05:56 AM
I repeated one of the load shots. This is the one I should have uploaded.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Void on September 06, 2014, 02:34:28 AM
Hi Listener191. You are doing excellent work on this. Those are really interesting results. Because there have been so many
ideas and possible capacitor and switching arrangements discussed, I am not clear on what switching
arrangement and switching timing you are currently using. Would it be possible for you to upload a 
simplified wiring diagram showing how the caps and switches are arranged in your current setup,
and what your current switch firing sequence is with that arrangement. Only if you have time of course.
I am having a hard time visualizing this...   :)

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Hi Void,

Attached

1. power switch circuit with timing
2. timing circuit
3. zero cross circuit

The cap switch is a variation on a circuit that Mario has already tried.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 09:02:21 AM
Sorry didn't attach
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
Hi TinselKoala,

Attached is a scope shot showing differential v grounded scope probes.

I have shifted the traces vertically so you can see there are two traces, otherwise they align perfectly.

As you can see there is no skew.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2014, 01:01:46 PM
Hi TinselKoala,

Attached is a scope shot showing differential v grounded scope probes.

I have shifted the traces vertically so you can see there are two traces, otherwise they align perfectly.

As you can see there is no skew.

Barry
Thanks for posting the shot... but.... it's always something. I don't know which channel is the diff probe and which the passive probe, the channels are set to different attenuations, there is at least half a volt DC offset coming from somewhere on one channel, and it _does_ look to me like there is a couple degrees skew. Look at where the zero crossings are, don't try to match peaks. This means, of course, that the baselines for the two channels have to be in the same place vertically... and they aren't.
Further, why isn't your scope actually computing the phase angle between the two displayed signals? I've seen several screens, like this one, where the phase angle computation comes up "asterisks".


ETA: I see why _this_ screen doesn't compute the angle, you are asking it to compute with a channel that doesn't have a signal. One wonders why you haven't asked for the phase angle between the two signals that _are_ displayed.
 
If both probes are hooked to the same signal, shouldn't the voltages agree? Yet one is indicating ten times the voltage of the other.


Please do this if you have a chance. Set both channels and both active and passive probes to the same attenuation, connected to the same sine wave signal from a signal generator at the same frequency as your DUT . Set the vertical positions so that both of the baselines are _exactly_ on the center graticule marker. Set the scope's computations to compute the phase angle between the two signals of interest!
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 03:14:14 PM
Hi Tinselkoala,

The Rigol scope is only a day old and so I am still learning its operation.

The differential probe has x20, x50 & x200 selections. I kept the x200 setting as I cant make the comparison with the x10 ground probe, exactly as you requested.

The previous shot before was done quickly as to not disturb my setup, henec the use of Chl2 & Chl3. The rigol measurement functions are over whole cycles so any display that shows less than a whole cycle results in blanked fields.

The phase shift according to the measurement function is 0.865deg.

When I tried to increase my vertical resolution from 20V/div to 10V/div there was an overange situation.

I tried the setup on my old Owon scope and set the max resolution I could, and measured 10us (approx 0.2deg) skew between the probes.

Which ever one you take,  0.865deg or 0.2deg  the skew is under a degree and so has little effect on the AxB (VxA) function computation.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2014, 06:42:01 PM
Hi Tinselkoala,

The Rigol scope is only a day old and so I am still learning its operation.

The differential probe has x20, x50 & x200 selections. I kept the x200 setting as I cant make the comparison with the x10 ground probe, exactly as you requested.

The previous shot before was done quickly as to not disturb my setup, henec the use of Chl2 & Chl3. The rigol measurement functions are over whole cycles so any display that shows less than a whole cycle results in blanked fields.

The phase shift according to the measurement function is 0.865deg.

When I tried to increase my vertical resolution from 20V to 10V there was an overange situation.

I tried the setup on my old Owon scope and set the max resolution I could, and measured 10us (approx 0.2deg) skew between the probes.

Which ever one you take,  0.865deg or 0.2deg  the skew is under a degree and so has little effect on the AxB (VxA) function computation.

Barry


Heh.. Now I'm convinced! Thanks for taking the time to do that. I can believe around 1 degree of difference between the active and passive probes at that slow frequency, and it will be the diff probe lagging of course. It might be interesting (but not really relevant here) to repeat that comparison at a much higher frequency to see if the scope's measurements of the shift changes at all. I would expect the phase angle between the Diff probe and the passive probe to increase with increasing frequency.


So here you've compared the Differential Voltage probe with a passive probe, right? And you've shown that the phase shift is very small. That's great! Now you should do the same thing with your current clamp probe, comparing the signal from it and from a passive probe across a current-viewing resistor in series with the circuit you are measuring with the current clamp.
 
Really, we want to see if there is a phase shift between the current clamp probe and the differential voltage probe. So by comparing both of them separately to a standard (the passive probe) you can get an idea if there is a shift introduced by your measurement.
 
I'm convinced that the shift from the Diff probe is small compared to the passive probe, but even such a small shift will have a measurable effect on the power function when near 90 degrees.


So if you could please do the comparison between the Current Clamp, and the passive probe looking at a CVR, then we'll know for sure that your measurements aren't introducing any phase shift into the computation of the power function.


I'm taking for granted that you have properly adjusted the compensation caps on your passive probes, etc.


Again, thanks for taking the time and trouble to perform these calibrations. I'm really jealous of your new scope; I wish I had a modern DSO in my lab to play with. In a pinch I can borrow a high-end Tek scope but it's kind of a hassle, involving 4 or 5 hours of driving.
 :-\


--TK
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Void on September 06, 2014, 06:42:02 PM
...
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2014, 06:51:08 PM
@listener191:
On the Owon scope, you have the baselines set 2 minor divisions apart vertically. If you look where the zero crossings are you can see that if the lower trace were raised up 2 minor divisions to compensate for the baseline difference, there would still be one minor division vertical separation at the zero crossings. There is a measurable shift shown on the traces on the Owon scope.
For the best visual quantitative interpretation, and even for proper math computations on some scopes, both channels of concern should be set to the _same_  center graticule baseline, very accurately. If you want to separate the traces for some reason, like qualitative examination of waveform shapes or etc, _please_ set the baselines directly on major graticule markers, to aid in visual interpretation of the traces.

Also it's a lot easier to read the thread if you limit your images to under 1024 pixels wide!

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 07:37:38 PM
Hi Tinselkoala,

As I said previously to Farmhand, I have already posted details of the current clamp and it shows no appreciable skew.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 07:40:56 PM
Hi Void,

No the switching arrangement is the one I posted not Marios. Mario uses two switches on his original scheme because he uses a sound card to generate the pulses and he could not mix the channels onto a single bidirectional switch.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
Hi Void,

I have added the transformer to the circuit, so it should be clear now.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 06, 2014, 08:13:45 PM
Hi TinselKoala,

Attached are scope shots of shunt monitored current versus clamp monitored current and shunt monitored current against voltage.

As you can see, my current clamp does not skew phase.

Barry

Hi Tinselkoala,

I stand corrected, I made the check on the current clamp at your request not Farmhand.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Void on September 06, 2014, 09:19:54 PM
Hi Void,
I have added the transformer to the circuit, so it should be clear now.
Barry

Thanks. I have deleted my previous post so as not to confuse anyone
with the wrong switching/cap arrangement.
All the best...



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 07, 2014, 05:03:45 PM
All,

Not wishing to mislead anyone, I discovered that I had my voltage probe across the switches,  instead on the source input. Just forgot to put it back after looking at transients across switches!

Having corrected the monitoring I changed the 6uF cap to 4uF to get the greatest V & I phase shift. The best I could achieve was approx 60 deg.

Looking at ratios not absolute measurements, for the source I have about 52.8W forward and 37.6W reverse (peak). The average power is 7.03W

For the load the average power is 6.21W 

So I have not got close to replicating the Babcock Murray results yet.

Barry
 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 07, 2014, 09:06:55 PM
Attached are a new set of scope shots which now correcty show the best I have been able to achieve.

3.21W average input for 2.84W average in the load.

V & I phase 72deg.

Cap is 4uF and this restricts the forward and reverse current considerably. Increasing value increases power in load but reduces V & I phase shift and hence reactive power.

Not sure that this arrangement will achieve a PF close to zero.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 16, 2014, 07:26:01 PM
All,

After trying many schemes, the parallel charge series discharge scheme with an added shunt cap across the source transformer secondary, appears to provide the correct conditions.

The switching does not have a gap between charge and discharge  so the waveforms are not exactly the same as the Babcock Murray ppt presentation. My setup is in a different configuration at the moment, so I will have to make changes again to try this out.

Barry


$ 1 5.0E-6 17.532943091211475 50 5.0 50
r 576 208 672 208 0 200.0
w 800 288 800 240 0
r 800 288 800 320 0 0.01
c 800 320 800 384 0 8.0E-6 -20.254189688161517
r 800 448 800 480 0 0.01
c 800 480 800 560 0 8.0E-6 -20.254189688161503
178 736 288 736 368 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 912 400 912 480 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 800 384 912 384 0
w 848 448 800 448 0
w 848 448 848 496 0
w 912 384 912 400 0
w 864 400 864 352 0
w 880 400 880 352 0
w 880 352 944 352 0
w 864 352 864 304 0
w 944 352 944 304 0
v 864 304 944 304 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 688 288 688 256 0
w 688 256 864 256 0
w 864 256 864 304 0
w 704 288 704 272 0
w 704 272 944 272 0
w 944 272 944 304 0
w 800 448 720 448 0
w 720 448 720 368 0
w 896 480 896 560 0
w 896 560 800 560 0
T 448 432 544 352 0 4.0 1.0 -4.1811425302460865 4.630913361807858 0.999
w 544 432 544 560 0
r 448 432 384 432 0 0.01
w 384 352 448 352 0
v 384 352 384 432 0 1 50.0 230.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 736 288 736 208 0
w 592 560 544 560 0
w 736 208 688 208 0
w 592 560 800 560 0
w 544 240 544 352 0
w 736 208 800 208 0
w 800 208 800 240 0
c 544 352 544 432 0 5.7499999999999995E-5 40.649719064582946
w 848 496 928 496 0
w 928 496 928 480 0
w 576 208 544 208 0
w 544 208 544 240 0
w 672 208 688 208 0
o 0 64 0 291 164.0373635303281 0.8201868176516406 0 -1
o 0 64 1 291 109.8546543268058 3.0517578125E-205 1 -1
o 32 64 0 291 458.22246269559935 9.16444925391199 2 -1
o 32 64 1 291 1047.4849945267654 4.8828125000000005E-155 3 -1
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 28, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
All,

After experimenting with various schemes, I eventually came up with a charge push scheme that uses an additional 115V (but even better results with 230V) winding, to supply an in phase half sine push to the cap after charging. This allows the cap to discharge just after the peak of the half sine and allows an average return power equal to the average forward power through the load. The attached were taken using dual 115V windings. The attached shows 1.58W average power (differential) from source and  8.07W average in load.

Use of a 230V push winding allows larger caps to be used for example 150uF, and the best achieve with the scheme so far is about 30W averag in load for 4W average source power (differential).

Barry   
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 28, 2014, 09:33:51 PM
All,

Attached is a shot of the load voltage/current and power measurements for the latest trasnformer setup with a 230V push winding. The discharge waveform now has almost equal area as the charge waveform. A further improvement might be to phase shift the push sine slightly, so the peak is on the charge sine falling edge. This would reduce the fall off on the discharge pulse trailing edge.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on September 29, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
All,

The 26W load average shown in the previous post is being supported by 42.5W average on the primary. The cap charge and discharge with push is clearly seen as forward power on the primary, with no sign of any power return.

The unloaded transformer draw is about 2.5W

On the secondaries the charge/discharge power averages to 3W or so over the two half cycles.


It remains to be seen if the return power truely manifests as negative torque on a generator.


Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: popolibero on September 30, 2014, 07:05:13 PM
Hi Barry,


excellent work. I'm working on the generator side of things, but am waiting for a new one to do some better testing with it.


Mario
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Mr Summitville on October 01, 2014, 11:17:00 PM
Older Electric Meter on the House Mains ...
It has been stated that the older Analog Electric Meters billed exactly the same way
regardless of whether the amperage was "flowing in / consumed" or "flowing out / generated"
in relationship to the voltage cycle.
The Lead/Lag Phase Angle matters but "0 Degrees vs 180 Degrees" did not matter.
Anyone trying to install a Grid-Tie Inverter could not get the benefit of "pushing" amperage
into the Grid until they got a permit and a newer meter.
We MUST get a permit to "push" amperage into the grid.

Offsetting some incoming amperage may be possible, without a permit, though.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on October 07, 2014, 12:50:38 AM
Hi! Mr Summitville.

Very understand what you have stated but if all done through a transformer and that transformer sees indeed the back and forth power at its secondary to ONLY consum the difference in mean of real power at the primary, this primary been feed by the grid through any power meter you want, the the problem would be no more; wouldn't it?

Cheers.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Mr Summitville on October 07, 2014, 04:12:15 AM
Hi! Mr Summitville.

Very understand what you have stated but if all done through a transformer and that transformer sees indeed the back and forth power at its secondary to ONLY consum the difference in mean of real power at the primary, this primary been feed by the grid through any power meter you want, the the problem would be no more; wouldn't it?

Cheers.
Khwatz,
 There is a slight language barrier here which is making it hard for me to fully understand exactly what you are stating. so I will re-phrase ...
 If all you have is an old style Load Meter, a transformer, a Load and this COP20 circuit then you will *PAY* to pull amperage (consume) from the Grid and you will *PAY* to push amperage (generate) into the Grid.
 If there are other loads on the Mains then you may offset / reduce your Billable amperage.

 Other issues ...
 1) Motors and other inductive loads may not like the instantaneous switch from the Plus Peak Voltage to the Minus Peak Voltage or the instantaneous switch from the Minus Peak Voltage to the Plus Peak Voltage
 2) Does the Capacitance value need to be tuned to each specific load value?
 3) Does the transformer need to increase sqrt(2) the Mains voltage to compensate for the Capacitor "stealing" half the power in the first quadrant since that is the power that is returned to the load by the caps in the 2nd quadrant.
 4) The harmonics are very nasty

 OK, this may "work" with small 100 Watt Incandescent Bulb but ...
 will it "work" with a 5KW Hot Water Heater?
 will it "work" with any device / appliance with a motor?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on October 07, 2014, 06:44:34 AM
 Mr Summitville.

Sorry if my English is not good enough to give you certainty about what I was saying.

What I have understood is that on the old meter you talk about, it could register both back and forth power and we would pay in both cases.

What I say is that is it not relevant note if we use a transformer and that only the difference between the forth power and back power is seen at the primary of the transformer.

e.g. let's say we have 1kW forwarding toward the load at the secondary side of the transformer and 0.9kW of returning power form the load, still at the secondary side. I assume we would have only ~0.1 kW of real power drained from the grid by the primary of the transformer.

Then, if we have very very little proportion of real power registred by the grid power meter, we don't care of the characteristics of the power grid meter because this meter is in a way "insulted" from the much higher power (active and reactive) which runs on the secondary side of the transformer.

To sum-up, we could even use a battery and an inverter to feed the primary of the transformer and be completely "unplug" and self-running while charging time to time the battery with the secondary power.

If It is not clear enough, I am afraid I am not able to do better explanation in English.

For your other notes in your last post, yes, I do think they could be relevant and just to be checked; imho.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on October 13, 2014, 01:38:23 PM
* Correction: "this meter is in a way "insulated" from" ....
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on October 13, 2014, 09:30:05 PM
I like "insulted" better.
 ;)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on October 14, 2014, 11:15:15 AM
I like "insulted" better.
 ;)
lol
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: scifi123 on November 01, 2014, 08:51:39 PM
All,

After experimenting with various schemes, I eventually came up with a charge push scheme that uses an additional 115V (but even better results with 230V) winding, to supply an in phase half sine push to the cap after charging. This allows the cap to discharge just after the peak of the half sine and allows an average return power equal to the average forward power through the load. The attached were taken using dual 115V windings. The attached shows 1.58W average power (differential) from source and  8.07W average in load.

Use of a 230V push winding allows larger caps to be used for example 150uF, and the best achieve with the scheme so far is about 30W averag in load for 4W average source power (differential).

Barry

  So you managed to achieve an input power of 1.58W and an output power of 8.07W (average) calculated by your DSO ?
  Can you post the schematics for the circuit that achieved those results ?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on November 03, 2014, 08:34:23 PM
Hi Scifi123,

That circuit was returning power but not where it was needed for a generator.

I have since found a couple of ways in simulation to achieve the desired result.

The first shot most closely replicates the Babcock/Murray waveforms.

At the moment transformer and switch issues need to be resolved for high power testing.

Simulation allows the effect of transformer parameter changing to be determined but there are a lot of variables to be optimised for a practical working circuit.   

During the Babcock/Murray telephone call-in, they requested that those of us that had been experimenting and getting results, not post details of their work, so their patent application would not be made more difficult.

I don't have a problem with this and so the attached shots only show simulated results and not the circuits that produced them.

One of these shots shows the power developed in two separate loads. Power is sampled on the source side of the transformer so includes the magnetising current component.

Barry
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on November 04, 2014, 11:28:15 AM
 8) Great to see Barry that you respect the wills of the inventors to help them in their patent application. :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: thngr on November 05, 2014, 02:25:54 AM
there must be some stealing involved, you can not do it with your own generator! in likely event charge capacitor on low voltage slope and cut the line so meters can not read as full load! low voltage can be step up to use or to give back with sencron converters. There is no free energy in it.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on November 05, 2014, 08:01:04 AM
there must be some stealing involved, you can not do it with your own generator! in likely event charge capacitor on low voltage slope and cut the line so meters can not read as full load! low voltage can be step up to use or to give back with sencron converters. There is no free energy in it.
Lol! Just tell me: how well you guy know about "versors"? Difference between efm and voltage and their de-copling? About Steinmetz? de Haas? How Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz thought electromagnetism, because without this knowledge and understanding, how can you claim such a things?  ???
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on November 05, 2014, 09:02:05 AM
This is a description I found elsewhere that sums up what is happening.
Barry


SERPS & Dynaflux

The most important thing to understand is that Power and Energy are two completely different things.
 
Energy is measured in joules as a finite quantity with no respect to time
Power is measured in joules per second with respect to time
Theoretically you can derive an almost infinite amount of power from a small amount of energy. It all depends on the time frame. However there is another aspect to this that Jim Murray introduces that is particularly novel.
In conventional electrical terms it is thought energy can be only used once, and that all the energy is contained within the magnetic and dielectric fields.
Jim Murray makes the point that energy can be used multiple times over giving more power than has traditionally been thought possible. This “extra” energy comes from a momentum like component in electricity that has been largely ignored in the scientific community.
“Maxwell thought that all the electrical energy was carried in the magnetic and electrical fields. 30 years later Einstein and De Haas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect) found that there was addition energy that was carried by the current itself and not by the fields. (They decided not to correct this.)
In a normal situation the reactive power is defined as a form of restorative power in which the average value is zero. The problem with that is the current and voltages are usually out of phase by 90 degrees so that you cannot use it. What this devise allows you to do is create watts that go back and forth doing the same thing and the watts become reactive.”
This understanding forms the crux of Jim Murray’s invention

Reactive Power: This instantly confuses pretty much everyone listening to Jim Murray. Most people when they hear the terms “reactive power” think current and voltage that are out of phase as in the traditional sense. THIS IS NOT WHAT JIM MURRAY MEANS. When current and voltage are out of phase you get the units called a “var”. When they are in phase you get real power in kW.
The condition of reactance is created by the phenomena of reflection. In normal reactive power a portion of the current independent of voltage is reflected meaning it is sent back to the source.
In Jim Murray’s case however current AND voltage are reflected back to the source at the same time and are considered “reactive” however in this case they are both in phase and thus instead of being reactive “vars” they are considered reactive “kW”.
This ability for energy to reflect on the same line causes an increase of power without violating the law of conservation of energy! This is what he terms Energy Resonance, which is NOT the same as frequency resonance.
This is the principle behind the SERPS technology which really was initially developed by Tesla when creating his Tesla Magnifying Transmitter. Reflection is what creates a standing wave and this while a well known phenomenon has some unique effects in electrical terms.
While it us unclear to me if the Dynaflux makes use of “Energy Resonance” in the reflected way… it does something else to recycle energy. The alternator works on the principle of pulsing a large magnetic field and causing a rotor to spin based on geometry. The energy used to pulse the rotor is recovered/recaptured and then sent back to the input. This is very similar to the Bedini spike capture technology in principle. It is also what Paul Babcock is attempting to do with his motor.
The unique thing about the dynflux is that it creates a rather interesting almost paradoxical case.
From the patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US8482181?dq=ininventor:%22James+F.+Murray%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D2eJU8-vNpXsoAS_l4D4Cw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBDgK):
 
Overall Motor Efficiency=79.84%
“Apparent System Efficiency=2,606.296 watts/918.758 watts×100%=283.676%.
It’s the recovery of the energy used to spin the motor which creates this over-unity like condition.
Again energy can be recycled, more than thought possible leading to above 100% efficiency from a conventional point of view.
To reiterate, this is NOT free energy or a break in the law of conservation. This merely requires a paradigm change in what we think is possible to do with a finite quantity of energy. Eventually ALL the energy does get used up and released as heat, so this is NOT a perpetual motion machine. It can not be bootstrapped as one might think 100%+ efficiency implies.
The dynalfux or the SERPS will always require energy input, it’s just that they need less energy and can create more power. You can even send back more power than you are using, however you can not send back more energy than you are using.
Again the distinction between energy and power needs to be made crystal clear here.
 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on November 05, 2014, 09:14:31 AM
 :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 31, 2015, 07:13:04 AM
Is there anybody that saw the demonstration unit and knows the number of transistor/scr switches that the 2014 SERPS demonstration had?


Thanks


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Spokane1 on April 02, 2015, 09:37:37 PM
Is there anybody that saw the demonstration unit and knows the number of transistor/scr switches that the 2014 SERPS demonstration had?


Thanks


Dave
Dear Dave,
The device that was displayed at the 2014 Bedini Convention had more devices that what were actually used. I understand that Paul Babbcock took some switching network cards form his other prototype circuits to compose this proof of principle device for the convention. So it is difficult to determine exactly just how many switches were used in this implementation. However each "switch" is composed of three(3) discrete solid state devices. One is an SCR and another is an IGBJT (or MOSFET for low power applications). I don't know what the third one is, perhaps a fast steering diode.
I know this is not much help.
Mark McKay, PE
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 03, 2015, 05:28:07 AM
Dear Dave,
The device that was displayed at the 2014 Bedini Convention had more devices that what were actually used. I understand that Paul Babbcock took some switching network cards form his other prototype circuits to compose this proof of principle device for the convention. So it is difficult to determine exactly just how many switches were used in this implementation. However each "switch" is composed of three(3) discrete solid state devices. One is an SCR and another is an IGBJT (or MOSFET for low power applications). I don't know what the third one is, perhaps a fast steering diode.
I know this is not much help.
Mark McKay, PE


Hey Mark,


It is actually of more help that you'd realize.  It just so happens that between this post and another post in the Energetic  Forum that you made that I've pieced together some more of the puzzle in my head.  I've been studying the scant amount of SERPS imagery from Aaron's website and from watching the conference presentation.  It seems from the wires that are leaving the prototype board terminals and going to the load, caps and transformer that they are using 6 different switches.  This would line up with them being able to arrange a parallel charge/series discharge in both polarities of the 60 Hz sine wave. 


I've been reading over Eric Dollard's work on the differences of EMF and voltage, as well as MMF and displacement current and how they apply to power production.  I think I'm starting to see something come together that might be useful and engineerable.  I just need to get a switching scheme down so I can take it to the bench.


Thanks,


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 06, 2015, 06:30:12 PM
Did anybody catch any details about this circuitry that can be seen peeking over the waveform on the top left?  I can't really make out anything significant.  Were there components with heat sinks?  Another switching element, maybe?  How many wires were going into this circuitry?


Thanks,


Dave



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 11, 2015, 06:23:03 AM
Does anybody know of a readily available MOSFET that has a switching fall time of 5 ns or less?  I'm searching and am finding potential candidates, but none of them seem to be distributed in smaller quantities due to lack of demand and manufacturing protocols.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Janya on April 23, 2015, 08:56:53 AM
Hi Dave,

How voltage you MOSFET need? For find transistor you need know Voltage, RDS On.

May be this IXTY08N50D2 like for you. Breakdown Voltage is about 500 v.

Try looking for in the HEXFET(it just Power MOSFET) or in the DirectFET(Digital Audio MOSFET).

May be this IRFH5215. The Fall Time is 2.9 ns on the Gate Resistans 1.3 Ohm. Breakdown Voltage is 150 v and RDS On 45 mOhm. This is HEXFET.
Or IRF7665S2. The fall time 3.9 ns with the Gate Resistans 6.8 Ohm. This is DirectFET. If you place a gate resistor less, you will decrease a Fall Time.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on July 06, 2015, 01:14:52 AM
OMG lol, waflobs.  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOu9uBmPN8

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2015, 04:47:21 AM
I have a circuit up on my bench right now that produces a 5 ns falltime at the load , at a frequency around 270 kHz, using an ordinary IRF830n mosfet driven by a TC4420 driver chip.The driver chip is fed by the output of a Schmitt trigger inverter, and I'm using a 4.7 ohm series gate resistor between the 4420 and the mosfet Gate pin. 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 06, 2015, 04:53:25 AM
OMG lol, waflobs.  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOu9uBmPN8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOu9uBmPN8)

Of course. Consider the source....
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 08, 2015, 06:23:11 AM
I have a circuit up on my bench right now that produces a 5 ns falltime at the load , at a frequency around 270 kHz, using an ordinary IRF830n mosfet driven by a TC4420 driver chip.The driver chip is fed by the output of a Schmitt trigger inverter, and I'm using a 4.7 ohm series gate resistor between the 4420 and the mosfet Gate pin.


Does the fall time go up the lower the frequency you go?  I am trying to get as close to what Paul said as possible when he very seriously stated that the fall times of his switching need to be 5 ns or less.   What kind of fall time would happen if you had these mosfets running steady state DC and then shut them off?


Thanks,


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MarkE on July 08, 2015, 06:38:05 AM

Does the fall time go up the lower the frequency you go?  I am trying to get as close to what Paul said as possible when he very seriously stated that the fall times of his switching need to be 5 ns or less.   What kind of fall time would happen if you had these mosfets running steady state DC and then shut them off?


Thanks,


Dave
Fall time does not have a relation to switching frequency.  It is a function of how fast charge can be driven into the MOSFET gate, and the MOSFET's characteristics: particularly drain to gate capacitance.  Pick an appropriate MOSFET, pair it with a good driver, layout the circuit properly and you can get really fast rise and fall times.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 08, 2015, 07:06:31 AM
Fall time does not have a relation to switching frequency.  It is a function of how fast charge can be driven into the MOSFET gate, and the MOSFET's characteristics: particularly drain to gate capacitance.  Pick an appropriate MOSFET, pair it with a good driver, layout the circuit properly and you can get really fast rise and fall times.


Yeah, I understand that.  Sorry about the shortness of my original post.  I'm more curious about slowing the switching frequency down because I'm sure the inductance @270khz in that circuit is causing an impedance which is limiting current.  From my experiements, faster fall times are easier with smaller currents.  I'm just curious if the circuit would still show fall times of 5 ns with heavy current flow.


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on July 08, 2015, 08:52:46 AM
Well, here are the scopeshots at maximum (~272 kHz) and minimum (~2.5 kHz) and the board layout.

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 11, 2015, 07:59:41 AM
Well, here are the scopeshots at maximum (~272 kHz) and minimum (~2.5 kHz) and the board layout.



Wow, thank you for that detailed imagery.  I've been poking around with Babcock's switching technology.  I'm trying to get everything as close to right as possible before I start buying semiconductors.  This helps a lot as to what my options are.


I think I've figured out some novelties in the SERPS based off of Eric Dollard's description of EMF vs electrostatic voltage.  It lines up with the hints that Paul and Jim have given us.  Jim hints that his circuit is operating on a distinction between EMF, E, and electrostatic voltage, e.  Paul mentions that a center tapped transformer is key to getting 'magic' to happen.  Mark Mckay's interview with Paul indicates the SERPS was originally designed with two loads (Two loads lumped into one at the 2014 conference, hence two light bulbs).  These details are key in the theory that I'm about to lay out.


Let's take a look at some simple circuit diagrams.  First we have a few different capacitor arrangements, this all being analyzed simply by using Psi = eC, lines of dielectric force.


Single Capacitor
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/Single%20Cap_zps8jvtj6sv.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/Single%20Cap_zps8jvtj6sv.png.html)
e = 10 volts, C = 10 Farad
Psi = 10v*10F = 100 Lines of Dielectric Force


Two Capacitors in Parallel
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/Parallel%20Caps_zpso1hxyofr.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/Parallel%20Caps_zpso1hxyofr.png.html)
e1 = 10 volts, C1 = 10 Farad, e2 = 10 volts, C2 = 10 Farad
Psi = 10v*(10F + 10F) = 10v*20F = 200 Lines of Dielectric Force


Two Capacitors in Series
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/Series%20Caps_zpsy9g4wdwo.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/Series%20Caps_zpsy9g4wdwo.png.html)
e1 = 10 volts, C1 = 10 Farad, e2 = 10 volts, C2 = 10 Farad
Psi = (10v+10v)*((10F*10F)/(10F + 10F)) = 20v*5F = 100 Lines of Dielectric Force


WE'VE LOST HALF THE CHARGE!!!


You can clearly see that discharging capacitors in this configuration forfeits 1/2 of the lines of dielectric force.
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/Series%20Caps%20Windings_zpsrjknoaro.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/Series%20Caps%20Windings_zpsrjknoaro.png.html)


However, in this configuration where the center tap is used, there is a mathematical conservation of dielectric lines of force in the total system by separating into two conjoined systems.
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/Series%20Caps%20CT%20Windings_zpsifmagdae.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/Series%20Caps%20CT%20Windings_zpsifmagdae.png.html)


Although this conservation of charge doesn't show any difference in RC time constants of the total system, it does beg the question of what exactly it was that Jim Murray was speaking of when he spoke about needing to know the difference between the EMF, E, and voltage, e, in the generator windings.  See video reference: [size=78%]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chHnLyHVF8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chHnLyHVF8)[/size]  9:20-10:25


It would seem that there is some type of conservation in a force going on that has otherwise been taken for granted.  The interactions of the quadrapolar forms of electricity, { E, e, I, i }, are probably doing something novel,  especially since I=Dielectric Lines of force divided by time, Psi/t.  Right now, I am unable to take any theoretical ideas to the next level due to my overall lack in understanding, but this is worth investigating on the bench since it is the only thing novel that I've found that engenders all of the tips and hints that Paul and Jim have given us.


Here is a proposal of how they pulled off the DC measurements of the load at the 2014 conference.
(http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/DC%20Load%20Measure_zpszblhutuf.png) (http://s1082.photobucket.com/user/web000x/media/DC%20Load%20Measure_zpszblhutuf.png.html)


I have been wanting to build this for months but have been really looking into the details since and have been patient so far.  Finally, I'm at a point where I want to buy semiconductors and unexpected bills hit.  Yay...  This is me giving this idea to you guys so that maybe someone who is better equipped than I can take this forward.  And I need this thread to light back up.  This is the one for which we've been waiting.


Dave


PS   Pictures are in order relative to the links above.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 11, 2015, 08:02:04 AM
If anybody knows how to insert images into your posts instead of links or lumping all of the pics at the bottom, let me know.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: ATOM1 on July 11, 2015, 12:18:59 PM
10 F at 10v is 100 watts over one second ! but if you pules it a compression wave is produced and its nothing with the dielectric or rather the dynamic harmonic response ! the term for dielectric is now out dated as all emf is in fact just resonance and that is just harmonic boundaries of force !

There is a mass density increase and is why you get more lights per charge ect ! That is due to the event horizons on the electrons attempting to increase in the out side diameter ... That means that there event horizon is speeding up ! Keep it simple and dump the data bomb ! This is a matter of quantum mechanics not electrical engineering ....

The event horizon for an electron is spinning at 10% to the speed of light, but if you  increase the speed than its obvious you have gained power but not more energy ! power and energy are not the same. That may sound nuts but in fact its true power is the total mass over speed energy is the conversion of the power.

The central EQ position for the pulse connection is important but its not as good as a set of harmonic positions set out in quantized values along the central harmonic plane on the inside diameter of the coils ! Also adding other free electrons from priming the primary coils with silver gold platinum is most advisable !

I am building 10 , 1 000 000 watt advanced systems of this kind ! Also the dynamic interphase for electron density along the harmonic is quantized by default between the fth note dynamic of electron scales ! you need to know the quanta of electrons per mm of wire and the distance between them .. This set up only works with DC pulse input with the correct cap banks ! look at the wire as string rather than a length of resistance !

The end result is always 10 times more kinetic power available and no more than that ! But the energy conversion of the power depends dramatically on the values of harmonic receiving loads ! A load is also a string !

Sorry to sound like mr know it all but in fact I do hahah

ATOM1

   


     

 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 14, 2015, 05:22:43 AM

Sorry to sound like mr know it all but in fact I do hahah

ATOM1

 


All of your fancy words just lost meaning to me due to this enlightening statement you made.  You may know everything, but I think it is engineerable using simple electrical engineering formulae.  Paul basically stated this clearly.  I spent many hours in contact with Eric Dollard speaking about electricity.  Dielectric is only outdated if you choose to keep your mind shut.  This circuit still needs to be tested and I will eventually do so.


Can anybody come up with an alternative, good reason that Paul stated that a center tapped transformer was key to putting the power back and why Jim's SERPS has two loads?

The only reason I can see for Jim needing two loads and a center tapped transformer is the circuit I described in my last post. 

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 06, 2016, 03:05:30 PM
10 F at 10v is 100 watts over one second !
Hello ATOM1, surely you're a Very Trained Engineer but as myself electrician, I do see not how you can write: "..F at ..V is ..W"; for me, before to come to any wattage calculation it would need at least to know the resistance through the capacitor will charge or discharge while controlling the corresponding current.

Maybe you have made a short-cut in your expression but if so, I think that is VERY NOT the place to do so! unless your purpose was just to align abstruse words to put you under the light but not to help :/

So, if you really wanted to help, make PLEASE the effort to be understandable by those who may read your post and rewrite your post :)

Regards,
Didier
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 06, 2016, 03:13:40 PM
To everyone and especially Barry,

Would it be possible that been genuine at the beginning, Jim and Paul realised that they've mistaken about the interpretation of their results but not have the courage now to recognise it now?

Indeed, it would explain why they asked to not go further in our experiments and why they refuse individual financial helps but only ask big funds of big compagnies (for "moral" reasons). It would explain why they couldn't realise a loop between a alternator and their device (which by their own theory should be possible, if their device really works)...

I remember you also that in the demo of 2014 they don't show IN REAL TIME measurements of in and out power! :/

What do you think?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 07, 2016, 03:13:59 AM
Khwartz,

Can you link me to where they told people to stop pursuing their experiments into the SERPS concept?

Thanks,

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 20, 2016, 03:21:14 AM
@ web000x

That was on a common video call I had participated too in real time.

Regards,

Didier
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 20, 2016, 03:24:12 AM
https://youtu.be/-chHnLyHVF8 (https://youtu.be/-chHnLyHVF8)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: tinman on March 20, 2016, 04:51:27 AM
but as myself electrician, I do see not how you can write: "..F at ..V is ..W"; for me, before to come to any wattage calculation it would need at least to know the resistance through the capacitor will charge or discharge while controlling the corresponding current.

Maybe you have made a short-cut in your expression but if so, I think that is VERY NOT the place to do so! unless your purpose was just to align abstruse words to put you under the light but not to help :/

So, if you really wanted to help, make PLEASE the effort to be understandable by those who may read your post and rewrite your post :)

Regards,
Didier

Quote
Hello ATOM1, surely you're a Very Trained Engineer

No he's not
Quote-10 F at 10v is 100 watts over one second
10F with a potential of 10v is 500 joules of energy.
1 watt is the flow of 1 joule of energy per second.-->W=J/s--> 100 watts is 100 joules over 1 second. 10F @10v is 500 joules--not 100 joules.


Brad
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 20, 2016, 04:38:40 PM
@ web000x

That was on a common video call I had participated too in real time.

Regards,

Didier

I don't think they ever said to stop pursuing the technology.  I never heard that...

I have been actively piecing together a replication for the SERPS concept.  I'm working on a microprocessor program for the switching at the moment.  I'll keep everyone posted if I stumble upon anything interesting.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 20, 2016, 09:39:16 PM
Did anybody at the conference happen to catch the approximate value of the capacitor banks?  Or if the caps were electrolytic or nonpolarized?  Or the electrical rating of the light bulbs?

This info would help me greatly...

Thanks

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 26, 2016, 09:07:14 PM
No he's not
Quote-10 F at 10v is 100 watts over one second
10F with a potential of 10v is 500 joules of energy.
1 watt is the flow of 1 joule of energy per second.-->W=J/s--> 100 watts is 100 joules over 1 second. 10F @10v is 500 joules--not 100 joules.


Brad

Hello Brad,

Yes, indeed! Sorry, I had missed the "over one second" (as you see in my sequence of signs: ""..F at ..V is ..W""), don't know why! ^_^ But very thanks for having taken time to quietly specify :)

Regards,
Didier

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on March 26, 2016, 09:15:23 PM
I don't think they ever said to stop pursuing the technology.  I never heard that...

I have been actively piecing together a replication for the SERPS concept.  I'm working on a microprocessor program for the switching at the moment.  I'll keep everyone posted if I stumble upon anything interesting.

Dave
Just check the video: they said they didn't want to have problems to get their pattent while we would disclose the technology and asked us to not publish our results. The reason they have given at least, but since, NOTHING has moved on their side either; I mean nobody granted them enough credit to finance them like they wanted: in the range of a million dollars.

Up to know, just applying their exact advices and explanations have never brought us to a successful result.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 27, 2016, 11:12:12 PM
I haven't read this thread in it's entirety but did read the thread on this at Energetic Forum.  It seems only a select few people even pursued this much past some initial tests.  Barry, listener192, seems to be the only one that has really posted much experimental data  and it seems he's fallen off the map...  His user name is 'listener' and he joined the EF back in 2009 with a total of 22 posts.  Could it be that he gathered enough info to successfully replicate the effect and is why he's disappeared?   He seemed very determined to follow this one through.  I am surprised that more people didn't try to replicate this.  Paul and Jim seem to be some of the more technically competent and honest researchers out there...

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on March 28, 2016, 06:07:15 AM
Reactive power excites you? Maybe you'll find this video interesting... and instructive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 28, 2016, 11:35:29 PM
Reactive power excites you? Maybe you'll find this video interesting... and instructive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xuXBHJcNsk)

Have you built and tested the SERPS concept?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on March 29, 2016, 05:01:30 AM
Have you built and tested the SERPS concept?

What is the difference between the "SERPS concept" and what I showed in the video linked above?

By the way, the Video URL has changed: It is now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74

Same video, just a different URL.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: e2matrix on March 29, 2016, 06:56:57 PM
Not sure I understood the last few things you said in the video TK.  It seemed you were saying the phase angle calc would still have your setup generating overunity.  Is that correct?  I didn't hear applause (LOL) at the end so one has to wonder what you are really saying.
I didn't read the video comments before posting this so I think I understand now after reading those. 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 30, 2016, 03:04:30 AM
What is the difference between the "SERPS concept" and what I showed in the video linked above?

By the way, the Video URL has changed: It is now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74)

Same video, just a different URL.

Your circuit doesn't utilize parametric variations. 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on March 30, 2016, 03:07:16 AM
Not sure I understood the last few things you said in the video TK.  It seemed you were saying the phase angle calc would still have your setup generating overunity.  Is that correct?  I didn't hear applause (LOL) at the end so one has to wonder what you are really saying.
I didn't read the video comments before posting this so I think I understand now after reading those.

He is playing on the QEG nonsense and calling it out on the poor measurement techniques used to claim OU.  There was a whole bunch of nontechnical hype generated by the QEG. 
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on March 30, 2016, 05:24:09 AM
Your circuit doesn't utilize parametric variations.

Fair enough. But consider my circuit (and the SERPS thing) as a "black box" that is given an input and produces an output. How does the output "know" whether it was produced by an ordinary fixed L-C oscillator, or a parametric oscillator? What is the difference in the output? Does a parametric oscillator produce some particular, special kind of Reactive Power that is somehow different from the Reactive Power in a tank circuit with fixed L and C?

If so, what is the difference, how is it special?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: MenofFather on March 31, 2016, 11:05:28 AM
Here's a video: They claim power's generated by the current, voltage out of phase 90 degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A)
What is input and output? Input is DC or AC? And output DC or AC?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: a.king21 on March 31, 2016, 05:26:08 PM
Fair enough. But consider my circuit (and the SERPS thing) as a "black box" that is given an input and produces an output. How does the output "know" whether it was produced by an ordinary fixed L-C oscillator, or a parametric oscillator? What is the difference in the output? Does a parametric oscillator produce some particular, special kind of Reactive Power that is somehow different from the Reactive Power in a tank circuit with fixed L and C?

If so, what is the difference, how is it special?


Then here is the million dollar question.  Can you convert reactive power to real power without destroying the oscillation?


I believe that TK can do it.




To that applause question.   TK is taking the P out of Hope girl's video.  The "applause" is from Hope Girl's video. ;D

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on April 01, 2016, 03:44:23 AM

Then here is the million dollar question.  Can you convert reactive power to real power without destroying the oscillation?


I believe that TK can do it.




To that applause question.   TK is taking the P out of Hope girl's video.  The "applause" is from Hope Girl's video. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXrhRqlQE4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk

Actually... the applause in the first video may _sound_ like it's from one of HypeGirl's videos, but it is actually a free sound effect from this website:
http://www.pacdv.com/sounds/index.html
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 01, 2016, 04:51:24 AM
What is the difference between the "SERPS concept" and what I showed in the video linked above?

By the way, the Video URL has changed: It is now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74)

Same video, just a different URL.

To be honest, TK, I am a jackass.  I watched the video while I was getting ready for work in the morning and not fully paying attention.  I caught the total wrong impression of the video because I heard the applauses and "Texas Resonance" thinking you were debunking the QEG as it stands from the hype generated over standard reactive power measurements.  My apologies.

I watched your video more closely and like what I've seen.  Hopefully i've got something to share soon..

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: a.king21 on April 01, 2016, 06:54:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXrhRqlQE4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXrhRqlQE4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk)

Actually... the applause in the first video may _sound_ like it's from one of HypeGirl's videos, but it is actually a free sound effect from this website:
http://www.pacdv.com/sounds/index.html (http://www.pacdv.com/sounds/index.html)


Maybe Hope Girl used the same sound effect library lol


So what happened to the loop back?


BTW if you want to sell your queg, I'll buy one.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2016, 06:13:33 AM
To be honest, TK, I am a jackass.  I watched the video while I was getting ready for work in the morning and not fully paying attention.  I caught the total wrong impression of the video because I heard the applauses and "Texas Resonance" thinking you were debunking the QEG as it stands from the hype generated over standard reactive power measurements.  My apologies.

I watched your video more closely and like what I've seen.  Hopefully i've got something to share soon..

Dave
No, you're not a jackass. I absolutely am trying to get people to think clearly about the FTW QEG claims and posted measurements. Note the high similarity between my waveforms and those shown in the most recent "who we work for" video from James Robitaille. My MicroQEG does _the same thing_  as theirs (even if it isn't a parametric oscillator), but at a higher frequency and with a greater ratio of VARs to input power. And it does it cheaply and silently. And the schematic is freely available, works the first time and doesn't require some expensive core assembly that shorts out and needs to be rewound at great expense.  Yet nobody has given me hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why is that, since I've shown even more evidence of "Overunity" performance -- "OU in VARs" that is -- than any of the FTW QEG builders or the Robitailles themselves? Think about it.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on April 02, 2016, 06:19:04 AM

Maybe Hope Girl used the same sound effect library lol


So what happened to the loop back?


BTW if you want to sell your queg, I'll buy one.

I'll show you mine looped back.... just as soon as the FTW QEG people show theirs, started with a crank mechanism and self-running and powering a home, like it says it WILL do in the FAQs included with their "open source" plans.  LOL....  and I can give you the same excuses that HypeGirl gives for not demonstrating self-running, etc.

It's not even worth the shipping for me to sell you mine. You can build one yourself for under 20 dollars US.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: allcanadian on April 02, 2016, 07:43:12 AM
@TK


Quote
Fair enough. But consider my circuit (and the SERPS thing) as a "black box" that is given an input and produces an output. How does the output "know" whether it was produced by an ordinary fixed L-C oscillator, or a parametric oscillator? What is the difference in the output? Does a parametric oscillator produce some particular, special kind of Reactive Power that is somehow different from the Reactive Power in a tank circuit with fixed L and C? [/size]If so, what is the difference, how is it special?


I have a standard AC capacitor and a standard inductor as an LC circuit and when I add energy to the system it oscillates between the two in known ways. Now I deconstruct the single capacitor into 100 separate plate pairs each plate pair separated by random distance in a random space. Then I deconstruct the single inductor into 100 separate inductors each inductor separated by a random distance in a random space.


Which do you think would be more susceptible to a variation in some parameter within the system due to some unexpected interaction.?. Both are in fact an LC circuit by definition however intuitively we know they are not the same thing. I have to wonder how many different parallel, series, inductive, capacitive, field variations there could possibly be?.


On a note of interest there are 80, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 ways to arrange a deck of 52 cards... that is 67 zero's. There are more ways to arrange a simple deck of cards than there are atoms, atoms!, on this Earth. The fact of this matter is that not you nor I or any know supercomputer could ever calculate the odds of the possible interactions between 100 random capacitor plates and inductors within a given space.


Now don't get me wrong, I generally agree with your point of view however the math does not lie and we honestly do not know what could happen when the possible combinations of doing something and possible interactions are damn near infinite. So no a simple capacitor and inductor LC circuit is not the same-same thing as a parametric circuit containing multiple elements...obviously.


You have to intuitively know what your looking for and follow through by proving it otherwise, I'm sorry, your basically screwed. I know it sucks but that's the way it is and if you cannot imagine another way, a better way,  then again your screwed.


AC
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Dog-One on April 02, 2016, 08:26:54 AM
On a note of interest there are 80, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 ways to arrange a deck of 52 cards... that is 67 zero's. There are more ways to arrange a simple deck of cards than there are atoms, atoms!, on this Earth. The fact of this matter is that not you nor I or any know supercomputer could ever calculate the odds of the possible interactions between 100 random capacitor plates and inductors within a given space.

For those where math wasn't their strong suit, so to speak:
http://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

By the way AC, my graduate statistics class kick my butt.  Big numbers tend to do that to me.   ;)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: AlienGrey on April 02, 2016, 01:35:12 PM
I'll show you mine looped back.... just as soon as the FTW QEG people show theirs, started with a crank mechanism and self-running and powering a home, like it says it WILL do in the FAQs included with their "open source" plans.  LOL....  and I can give you the same excuses that HypeGirl gives for not demonstrating self-running, etc.

It's not even worth the shipping for me to sell you mine. You can build one yourself for under 20 dollars US.
Tinsel Hello! ;) Re your QEG I would like to be able to replicate your device just for my own use any chance you have a layout for the PCB I ask that as i know you use a saw to ingeniously cut the tracks. Also glad ti see you have reloaded your 2 videos on the QEG.

Regards AG
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 02, 2016, 11:02:12 PM
Been piecing together a test bed for the SERPS using Babcock style switching techniques for about a year now.  I think I have figured out how the circuit is arranged.   I'm getting some pretty amazing results.  I have much to do to prepare my switching circuits to be able to handle some higher power levels but here is a preview of the waveforms I've been able to achieve.  The low power calculations are looking very promising.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/FIG001_zpsij6nvm3s.png (http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/FIG001_zpsij6nvm3s.png)

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/FIG002_zpsfahlcdms.png (http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/FIG002_zpsfahlcdms.png)

Blue waveform is transformer voltage, yellow is current thru the capacitor bank, and red is a multiplication of the two waves, or the power wave.  In the first image, the waveform in the center is correctly phased for power calculations.  The current is traveling through one half of the CT transformer on one half cycle and thru the other half of the transformer on the second half cycle.  So to get the correct power phasing for the outter two half cycles, I'd need to connect my probe to the other side of the transformer.  If you're imaginative, you can just visualize the power wave to be mirrored on the 0V axis and you can get an idea of the power flow on that half cycle.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2016, 12:23:45 AM
Tinsel Hello! ;) Re your QEG I would like to be able to replicate your device just for my own use any chance you have a layout for the PCB I ask that as i know you use a saw to ingeniously cut the tracks. Also glad ti see you have reloaded your 2 videos on the QEG.

Regards AG
Here you go:
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: TinselKoala on April 03, 2016, 12:30:03 AM
@AC:
Say I shuffle a deck of cards and deal them all out face-up. And you go through all your 8 gazillion bazillion permutations until you find the exact same layout and deal them out. Then Alien Gray comes along and tries to tell which layout was produced by which method. He can't do it (unless he notices that it took you a _lot_ longer to produce your layout.)

Get the picture? Two "black boxes" that both produce the same kind of output.... by looking at the output, you cannot tell which process was used to produce the output.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 03, 2016, 07:11:31 AM
TinselKoala

What's your email address?

I have an offer for you, an invitation, to a cooperative build of the MetaQEG.

http://overunity.com/16511/metaqeg-an-invitation-to-tinselkoala-to-a-cooperative-build/
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: AlienGrey on April 04, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
@AC:
Say I shuffle a deck of cards and deal them all out face-up. And you go through all your 8 gazillion bazillion permutations until you find the exact same layout and deal them out. Then Alien Gray comes along and tries to tell which layout was produced by which method. He can't do it (unless he notices that it took you a _lot_ longer to produce your layout.)

Get the picture? Two "black boxes" that both produce the same kind of output.... by looking at the output, you cannot tell which process was used to produce the output.
Your talking about the infinite number of monkeys.
 anyway you must be psychic I use to work at some electronic firm, the owner use to ask me to do just that, a sort of electronics detective. I did it for 5 years then he got some religious freak manager who expected me to accurately estimate the time each job would take oh lord did he do my head in ;) Anyway thanks for the layout I will try that when I can get round to it !

Also have you read any of Henry Morays writings he talks about a spark gap but also describes some out of this world happenings and goings on produced by his work, once he had the spark, he then talks about cosmic radiation and ions.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on April 05, 2016, 04:26:40 AM
I haven't read this thread in it's entirety but did read the thread on this at Energetic Forum.  It seems only a select few people even pursued this much past some initial tests.  Barry, listener192, seems to be the only one that has really posted much experimental data  and it seems he's fallen off the map...  His user name is 'listener' and he joined the EF back in 2009 with a total of 22 posts.  Could it be that he gathered enough info to successfully replicate the effect and is why he's disappeared?   He seemed very determined to follow this one through.  I am surprised that more people didn't try to replicate this.  Paul and Jim seem to be some of the more technically competent and honest researchers out there...

Dave
My buddy  listener192 have ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMED to me that he never succeed, and I had very very closely followed his work and made my own simulations and else.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on April 05, 2016, 06:01:23 AM
What is the difference between the "SERPS concept" and what I showed in the video linked above?

By the way, the Video URL has changed: It is now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74

Same video, just a different URL.
Hi TinselKoala,

VARs are not the principle the SERPS was supposed to work but indeed, what you did on the video is clearly VARs.

That's all the problem, BTW: you may accumulate 100 W of energy to oscillate between the coil and the caps tank, it is just like a mechanical flywheel  you have fed with energy by turning it, (same with a pendulum but just by swinging it at the beginning) it will continue to turn and you can calculate the "mechanical reactive power" so obtained, but as soon you will use the energy stored in the flywheel, the "reactive power" of the fly wheel will drop and even nullify if not fed back the very same time. In fact, this is mostly ENERGY but NOT// Power.

Your LEDs doesn't bright at all more than 4 W so you are, for now, far to be in overunity :/ You will only demonstrate overunity when your will be able to light with no doubt more than 4 W of light bulbs with full brightness. For this, you need to take a witnessing LED of 4 W (or an equivalent set) fed by its nominal voltage, it will be the unity of lightning, then we will able to compare the power you get with the sames LEDs you put as output but up to 5, 6, or more watts; 8 W, the double, would be very convincing.

For the SERPS principle, it was to reverse a quarter of period the sinusoid one on tow of the Power Curve, so that only "positive" and "negative" sinusoids parts nullifies each other in regard to the power meter. This was supposed to be a Power CONTINUOUSLY produced and so CONTINOUSLY "consumable" (not like a tank circuit which is a limited energy RESERVOIR.

regards,
Didier
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on April 05, 2016, 06:25:41 AM
The current is traveling through one half of the CT transformer on one half cycle and thru the other half of the transformer on the second half cycle.
How can it be? :/ If I take your 8th picture when the primary coil of your transformer is powered one way, the curent in your two halves output coils just go the very same way in the main loop of your circuit; isn't it? I mean, I don't see where and how the quarters of power curves are shifted nor that the current would be out of phase of 99° or around between the to coils output transformer. Could clear that for me? please.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 09, 2016, 03:26:11 AM
How can it be? :/ If I take your 8th picture when the primary coil of your transformer is powered one way, the curent in your two halves output coils just go the very same way in the main loop of your circuit; isn't it? I mean, I don't see where and how the quarters of power curves are shifted nor that the current would be out of phase of 99° or around between the to coils output transformer. Could clear that for me? please.

My circuit is arranged differently now than it was when I made those posts some time ago. My caps are arranged on the center tapped leg of the transformer and only allowing the caps to charge in one polarity, hence the reason the current waveform was 180 degrees out every other half cycle.  However, it seems I've made a measurement error and that last waveform I posted is meaningless.  I've corrected it and my waveforms look more in line with convention now. 

Are you in contact with listener192? Or do you know how to contact him?

Thanks,

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 10, 2016, 11:02:50 AM
Problem I've never heard that putting cap to series/parallel can give OU, the energy state still the same because capacitance reduce when put in series...

That being said, Hector Perez (the guy with his rotoverter) claimed in special resonant configuration, that you can extract real power from the reactive one, playing with phase (usually three phase power) is the key.
According to him he reversed current in the battery through the inverter ("reverse" power factor correction).
The load and the inductor act "negative" but a lot of impedance matching is necessary.
In the "combine" PDF you can read that is when R is at current node it's powered by "radiant energy" full light with 1/10 of the input voltage...
This theory is worth what it worth...
Anyway I would like to see a schematic of that circuit before making my definitive opinion.

When I see words like this,
"...Virtual power RE Radiant Energy or RADIO SIGNAL...", or I see sacred numbers such as pi 3.14159 or the golden ratio 1:1.618 showing up in Hector Torres/Rortoverter literature, I know its time to do some serious reading and play follow the leader. Meta.

__________


http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Rotoverter

(quote)
Response from MJ:

Any tuned circuit generates lots of virtual power. The one-million question is how to convert that to real power! It is the electric engineering "holy-grail". Any attempt to extract real power will reflect to the source.

Response from Hector Torres:

Idea is to CAPTURE a SAFE portion of the OVERUNITY PF Virtual power RE Radiant Energy or RADIO SIGNAL (think, Gerrard Morin. Meta) being created ... .382 of 1.618 as a sample of 10 x averaged energy .

The DIODE plug energy as transfered to a CAPACITOR becomes REAL joule potential ... ( no longer virtual and is discharged being non reflective to source) Thats all to it , people that do the lab and the math can loop the system , that is already done also (Over 7 looped systems already ) so whats the issue ? I say start on the power savings ones ..
(end quote)


(quote)
Sometimes we need the circuits to extract power from resonance or virtual reactive power circulation.

Sometimes just to limit the voltage growth in a BEMF collection capacitor.

Hector's claims that the resonance holds the radiant energy circulation - where we can extract a large portion of it without stopping the resonance.

(Quote) A simple LC has a DECAY value in time; the only energy you need to supply is the one lost to decay, as if the system source were a negative inductor to LC (as in the case of RV alternator). Normal entropy decay is 0.618 of 1.618 as logarithmic time receding signal (search for Seike work in ultra-relativity concepts), so the gain is also in atropic system of 1.618 where frequency increase in octaves may increase amplification by a factor of 3.141592 where the spiral resonant circular projection can be expressed in a 12,000 4d polygon structure (as similar to double helix DNA structure - reason human system is OU by all definitions). Remember LOGARITHMIC SPIRALS ORBITAL DECAY PATH IS RELATIVE to gravity as SIGNAL DECAY OR GAIN IS RELATIVE TO LC Q and parameters in a working ZPE system.

It can be done either way, using a reactance to charge a cap, or discharge a cap in a reactive circuit; the resonant condition creates a logarithmic path where VAR power is created and carries a magnetic amplification component with it.
(End quote)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 10, 2016, 03:58:18 PM
From Farmhand on page 9

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.

..

Here's a strange thing you don't know of and I doubt that Murry and Babcock know of it either.

The Electron Theory of electrons moving from positive to negative, has a diametrically opposite partner called the Hole Theory where electrons move from negative to positive and I make use of it in the MetaQEG device. Electrons move both ways, spiraling around a wire.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: tinman on April 10, 2016, 04:14:41 PM
From Farmhand on page 9

Here's a strange thing you don't know of and I doubt that Murry and Babcock know of it either.

The Electron Theory of electrons moving from positive to negative, has a diametrically opposite partner called the Hole Theory where electrons move from negative to positive and I make use of it in the MetaQEG device. Electrons move both ways, spiraling around a wire.

Wow-you just discovered true and conventional current flow ;)


Brad
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Farmhand on April 12, 2016, 09:53:38 AM
Tinman, is there any chance you could take my name out of that quote ? I have nothing to do with that statement.

Just to make clear the statement in the previous post does not have anything to do with me ! Just sayin.

..
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on April 15, 2016, 08:55:46 PM
My circuit is arranged differently now than it was when I made those posts some time ago.
ok :)

Quote
My caps are arranged on the center tapped leg of the transformer and only allowing the caps to charge in one polarity, 
How you do that? You use polarised caps or some diodes? could you make an update schematic please? Dave.

Quote
hence the reason the current waveform was 180 degrees out every other half cycle. 
. . . Need you schematic, for now, don't follow you :/

Quote
However, it seems I've made a measurement error and that last waveform I posted is meaningless.  I've corrected it and my waveforms look more in line with convention now.   
. . . Noticed.

 
Quote
Are you in contact with listener192? Or do you know how to contact him?
Just PM him but I am afraid he will answer you just what he answered to me! ^_^

Quote
Thanks,

Dave
Thanks to you to still be interested in this subject if I got some doubts about
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: citfta on April 15, 2016, 09:59:29 PM


Here's a strange thing you don't know of and I doubt that Murry and Babcock know of it either.

The Electron Theory of electrons moving from positive to negative, has a diametrically opposite partner called the Hole Theory where electrons move from negative to positive and I make use of it in the MetaQEG device. Electrons move both ways, spiraling around a wire.

Maybe you should go to one of those schools you despise so much.  You have that theory exactly backwards.  Electrons are negatively charged so they go from negative to positive.  And the holes move in the opposite direction.  Or is it that things in your Meta World work backwards to the real world?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 15, 2016, 11:35:58 PM
ok :)
How you do that? You use polarised caps or some diodes? could you make an update schematic please? Dave.
. . . Need you schematic, for now, don't follow you :/
. . . Noticed.

 Just PM him but I am afraid he will answer you just what he answered to me! ^_^
Thanks to you to still be interested in this subject if I got some doubts about

This is my generalized schematic:  http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/image_zpsq8bci5qx.jpeg (http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/image_zpsq8bci5qx.jpeg)

S3 and S4 open when their respective side of the transformer winding goes positive.  When S3 is open, S4 is closed and visa versa.  This allows for the caps to only see one polarity.  You can see in Jim's old SERPS videos that he used polarized caps.  Trying to use unpolarized caps and running the circuit according to my original diagram produces a waveform that is nothing like what paul and jim showed at the conference.  The caps being seated on the center leg of the xfmr and only charging to one polarity is much closer to their waveform.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 29, 2016, 05:24:38 AM
From page 22

There may be much more than what is presently believed
to this device.  Apparently much more than simply charging
and discharging capacitors or inductors at critical points
repetitively within each cycle of Input (well timed periods
of Taking then Giving Back) Voltage and Current.

What would it take to perfect the illusion of being able to
return to the Source nearly all of the power extracted by
the load;  in such a way that power measurement devices
are incapable of recognizing the illusion?

Meta: Access the high freq and high voltage of the 4th dimension that measuring instruments cant reach.

Is it a scheme of high speed extraction and return of energy
for very brief periods multiple times during the duration of
each Input Cycle?

Meta: Very brief....nano seconds.

Obviously, whatever is taking place to produce the "Magic"
is quite complex and at a considerably higher frequency than
the power line.  Why else would the device need electronic
switches which are capable of nanoSecond speeds?

Meta: The magic comes when we recognize these 3 dimensions are actual 6. Or, they recognize these 3 need the 4th where the HF/HV is and then they feed it back into the circuit at least 2 times in one cycle.

It is a very clever scheme, to be sure.  Playing Ponzi on the
Source with what appears to be reliability.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 29, 2016, 05:54:18 AM
From page 25

Meta: I think this is worth forwarding.


This is a description I found elsewhere that sums up what is happening.
Barry


SERPS & Dynaflux

The most important thing to understand is that Power and Energy are two completely different things.
 
Energy is measured in joules as a finite quantity with no respect to time

Power is measured in joules per second with respect to time
 
Theoretically you can derive an almost infinite amount of power from a small amount of energy. It all depends on the time frame. However there is another aspect to this that Jim Murray introduces that is particularly novel.

In conventional electrical terms it is thought energy can be only used once, and that all the energy is contained within the magnetic and dielectric fields.

Jim Murray makes the point that energy can be used multiple times over giving more power than has traditionally been thought possible. This “extra” energy comes from a momentum like component in electricity that has been largely ignored in the scientific community.

“Maxwell thought that all the electrical energy was carried in the magnetic and electrical fields. 30 years later Einstein and De Haas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect) found that there was addition energy that was carried by the current itself and not by the fields. (They decided not to correct this.)

In a normal situation the reactive power is defined as a form of restorative power in which the average value is zero. The problem with that is the current and voltages are usually out of phase by 90 degrees so that you cannot use it. What this devise allows you to do is create watts that go back and forth doing the same thing and the watts become reactive.”

This understanding forms the crux of Jim Murray’s invention

Reactive Power: This instantly confuses pretty much everyone listening to Jim Murray. Most people when they hear the terms “reactive power” think current and voltage that are out of phase as in the traditional sense. THIS IS NOT WHAT JIM MURRAY MEANS. When current and voltage are out of phase you get the units called a “var”. When they are in phase you get real power in kW.

The condition of reactance is created by the phenomena of reflection. In normal reactive power a portion of the current independent of voltage is reflected meaning it is sent back to the source.

In Jim Murray’s case however current AND voltage are reflected back to the source at the same time and are considered “reactive” however in this case they are both in phase and thus instead of being reactive “vars” they are considered reactive “kW”.

This ability for energy to reflect on the same line causes an increase of power without violating the law of conservation of energy! This is what he terms Energy Resonance, which is NOT the same as frequency resonance.
This is the principle behind the SERPS technology which really was initially developed by Tesla when creating his Tesla Magnifying Transmitter. Reflection is what creates a standing wave and this while a well known phenomenon has some unique effects in electrical terms.
While it us unclear to me if the Dynaflux makes use of “Energy Resonance” in the reflected way… it does something else to recycle energy. The alternator works on the principle of pulsing a large magnetic field and causing a rotor to spin based on geometry. The energy used to pulse the rotor is recovered/recaptured and then sent back to the input. This is very similar to the Bedini spike capture technology in principle. It is also what Paul Babcock is attempting to do with his motor.
The unique thing about the dynflux is that it creates a rather interesting almost paradoxical case.
From the patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US8482181?dq=ininventor:%22James+F.+Murray%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D2eJU8-vNpXsoAS_l4D4Cw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBDgK):
 Overall Motor Efficiency=79.84%
“Apparent System Efficiency=2,606.296 watts/918.758 watts×100%=283.676%.
 
It’s the recovery of the energy used to spin the motor which creates this over-unity like condition.

Again energy can be recycled, more than thought possible leading to above 100% efficiency from a conventional point of view.

To reiterate, this is NOT free energy or a break in the law of conservation. This merely requires a paradigm change in what we think is possible to do with a finite quantity of energy. Eventually ALL the energy does get used up and released as heat, so this is NOT a perpetual motion machine. It can not be bootstrapped as one might think 100%+ efficiency implies.

The dynalfux or the SERPS will always require energy input, it’s just that they need less energy and can create more power. You can even send back more power than you are using, however you can not send back more energy than you are using.

Again the distinction between energy and power needs to be made crystal clear here.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 29, 2016, 06:07:20 AM
From page 26


Hey Mark,


It is actually of more help that you'd realize.  It just so happens that between this post and another post in the Energetic  Forum that you made that I've pieced together some more of the puzzle in my head.  I've been studying the scant amount of SERPS imagery from Aaron's website and from watching the conference presentation.  It seems from the wires that are leaving the prototype board terminals and going to the load, caps and transformer that they are using 6 different switches.  This would line up with them being able to arrange a parallel charge/series discharge in both polarities of the 60 Hz sine wave. 


I've been reading over Eric Dollard's work on the differences of EMF and voltage, as well as MMF and displacement current and how they apply to power production.  I think I'm starting to see something come together that might be useful and engineerable.  I just need to get a switching scheme down so I can take it to the bench.


Thanks,


Dave

How many wires, corresponding to how many switches: 6

How many dimensions in our 3 dimensions? 6

Pay attention people, these are not just coincidences.

Remember the Law of 3,6,9.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on April 29, 2016, 06:53:34 AM
Maybe you should go to one of those schools you despise so much.  You have that theory exactly backwards.  Electrons are negatively charged so they go from negative to positive.  And the holes move in the opposite direction.  Or is it that things in your Meta World work backwards to the real world?

You're correct in this one thing. I do work backward from you. Also, the Other side is diametrically opposite to This side. DNA strands move opposite. The Mayan Calendar moves opposite halves. The chinese I-Ching moves in opposite halves. The human brain moves as opposite halves, the left brain (rational) is opposite the right brain (intuitive psyche). Our 3+1 dimensions has an opposite 5,6,7+1. Modern electrodynamic formulae have an equal and opposite set of backward formulae...the complete set are called Octonions.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: SeaMonkey on April 29, 2016, 09:15:50 PM
So the trick then is to achieve an electrical
"pushing back" against the source while at
the same time extracting power to accomplish
some work.

Without some sort of "timing diagram" to
illustrate how this is done it is very difficult to
comprehend.

Is the "taking" and "returning" done at a fairly
high frequency with short pulses over the
complete duration of each cycle of input from
the source?

Or, is it done differently?
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on April 30, 2016, 09:41:34 PM
So the trick then is to achieve an electrical
"pushing back" against the source while at
the same time extracting power to accomplish
some work.

Without some sort of "timing diagram" to
illustrate how this is done it is very difficult to
comprehend.

Is the "taking" and "returning" done at a fairly
high frequency with short pulses over the
complete duration of each cycle of input from
the source?

Or, is it done differently?

"The secret to engineer the dynaflux machine is such that the total reactance, in conjunction with the magnetic field strength, produces a system PF equal in magnitude to the mechanical angle of tilt utilized within the rotor design.  Once this feat has been properly achieved, the generator current will lag the spacial EMF by an angle of 45 degrees, thereby ensuring that the current will reach its maximum value when the rotor's Simple Harmonic Displacement is also a maximum.  This situation then, will foster a condition within  the generator such that the Lenz's force will be a maximum at the very instant at which the driving force reverses.  Thus, the Lenz force and the driving force suddenly become additive, causing an acceleration of the rotor and storage of reactive power in the form of angular momentum.  This stored energy, then becomes the source from which electrical power is derived during the next quarter cycle, and the entire process constitutes a form of resonance when the procedure is optimized."  -  Jim Murray

This is what he said in the Dynaflux Secrets video.  I am going nuts trying to figure out how he achieved this in a transformer with no changing flux paths.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 01, 2016, 03:04:54 AM
"The secret to engineer the dynaflux machine is such that the total reactance, in conjunction with the magnetic field strength, produces a system PF equal in magnitude to the mechanical angle of tilt utilized within the rotor design.  Once this feat has been properly achieved, the generator current will lag the spacial EMF by an angle of 45 degrees, thereby ensuring that the current will reach its maximum value when the rotor's Simple Harmonic Displacement is also a maximum.  This situation then, will foster a condition within  the generator such that the Lenz's force will be a maximum at the very instant at which the driving force reverses.  Thus, the Lenz force and the driving force suddenly become additive, causing an acceleration of the rotor and storage of reactive power in the form of angular momentum.  This stored energy, then becomes the source from which electrical power is derived during the next quarter cycle, and the entire process constitutes a form of resonance when the procedure is optimized."  -  Jim Murray

This is what he said in the Dynaflux Secrets video.  I am going nuts trying to figure out how he achieved this in a transformer with no changing flux paths.

Dave

RE: 45 degrees.

Jim Murry's Dynaflux rotor is angled at 45 degrees. Again, he discovers what I already told you previously about 1D=2D or 1=2, 2=4, etc....and about dimensions 1,2,3 and 4.
I wasnt just talking to hear myself.

Remember I said that 90 degrees in our world is 180 degrees in reality? Thats double 90 isnt it.

What is half of 90....wa la!!! 45 degrees....the same angle of the rotor, relative to the shaft, in Jim Murry's machine.

Where talking doubles and halves now.
90 degrees is for our world (3D)
Doubling is for the macro world. 180 degrees (reality, mind, space, 4D)
Halving is for the micro world. 45 degrees (actuality, atomics, 0D=4D)

Whats one half of 45? 22.5 degrees
Whats one half of 22.5? 11.25 degrees
Remember these numbers so you can use them in your machines.

From Dave, " I am going nuts trying to figure out how he achieved this in a transformer with no changing flux paths."

Dave, in your transformer, wind the coils at 45 degrees across the legs and tap the coils on the lowest and highest portions of the coil.

Also try 4 transformers on one axis, each rotated 45 degrees to the former transformer for a spiral total of 45+45+45+45=180 degrees in 4D.

You're catching on slowly, to sacred geometry...some will never listen.

Follow the laws of the universe and the universe will do what you want.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: a.king21 on May 01, 2016, 04:20:03 AM
RE: 45 degrees.

Jim Murry's Dynaflux rotor is angled at 45 degrees. Again, he discovers what I already told you previously about 1D=2D or 1=2, 2=4, etc....and about dimensions 1,2,3 and 4.
I wasnt just talking to hear myself.

Remember I said that 90 degrees in our world is 180 degrees in reality? Thats double 90 isnt it.

What is half of 90....wa la!!! 45 degrees....the same angle of the rotor, relative to the shaft, in Jim Murry's machine.

Where talking doubles and halves now.
90 degrees is for our world (3D)
Doubling is for the macro world. 180 degrees (reality, mind, space, 4D)
Halving is for the micro world. 45 degrees (actuality, atomics, 0D=4D)

Whats one half of 45? 22.5 degrees
Whats one half of 22.5? 11.25 degrees
Remember these numbers so you can use them in your machines.

From Dave, " I am going nuts trying to figure out how he achieved this in a transformer with no changing flux paths."

Dave, in your transformer, wind the coils at 45 degrees across the legs and tap the coils on the lowest and highest portions of the coil.

Also try 4 transformers on one axis, each rotated 45 degrees to the former transformer for a spiral total of 45+45+45+45=180 degrees in 4D.

You're catching on slowly, to sacred geometry...some will never listen.

Follow the laws of the universe and the universe will do what you want.


Is it possible that we could see your device?

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 01, 2016, 06:20:57 AM

Is it possible that we could see your device?

My only device is in PDF form, called the MetaQEG. There is no device. I want Dave to build his own transformer device.

Im merely telling Dave how the universe might expect him to wire his transformer to get the results he wants from it.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on May 02, 2016, 03:34:02 AM


You're catching on slowly, to sacred geometry...some will never listen.

Follow the laws of the universe and the universe will do what you want.

I've come to believe in the significance of sacred geometries for the basis of engineering more useful technologies but I have a feeling that the SERPS process can be achieved using standard transformers and generators.  Sacred geometry seems to be more useful in orgone energy devices.

Your theory is vague.  I need direct engineering ideas.  Like utilizing non linear permeability curves in transformer material that facilitates a rapidly changing inductance function that produces the result of negative resistance.  This I can chew on.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 02, 2016, 06:35:49 AM
I've come to believe in the significance of sacred geometries for the basis of engineering more useful technologies but I have a feeling that the SERPS process can be achieved using standard transformers and generators.  Sacred geometry seems to be more useful in orgone energy devices.

Your theory is vague.  I need direct engineering ideas.  Like utilizing non linear permeability curves in transformer material that facilitates a rapidly changing inductance function that produces the result of negative resistance.  This I can chew on.

Dave

You might enjoy chewing on Metglass which is the transformer material Bearden selected as the frame of his MEG.



Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 02, 2016, 10:39:55 PM
Dave,

metglas magnetic alloy 2714a

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=metglas+magnetic+alloy+2714a&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004 (https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=metglas+magnetic+alloy+2714a&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-004)

Metglas® 2714A Magnetic Alloy

http://www.metglas.com/products/magnetic_materials/2714A.asp
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 03, 2016, 12:45:21 AM

Sacred geometry seems to be more useful in orgone energy devices.

Dave

Ive never seen sacred geometry used in any orgone box, blanket, belt or cloud buster rods.

I ordered a orgone belt, a long time ago, and it does try to perfect everything it comes close to. It heals. It fights with DOR or EM radiation.

The belt is simply a inner layer of organic material (wool) then a outer layer of inorganic material (steel wool) then alternately repeat three times ending with the inorganic on the outside....this attracts orgone which has many other names as follows:

Aether has 13 other names: 

1 collisionless shock waves 
2 plasma; 
3 soliton* waves; 
4 radiant matter; a product of radiation. 
5 od (Scandinavia); 
6 prana (East India); 
7 etheric energy; a product of radiation. 
8 orgone; 
9 The 4th state of matter (plasma?); 
10 neutrino sea; 
11 graviton; 
12 Tachyon Field; 
13 Feinberg field.
 
*Soliton [MATH]: A solution of a nonlinear differential equation that propagates with a characteristic constant shape.     Thomas L. Navarro (http://www.supersymmetry.com/)

So, if you're familiar with any of these other names, you may be able to move forward.

Meta
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 03, 2016, 06:54:11 AM
Dave,

I noticed that solitons are listed as one type of non-linear behavior........

Types of nonlinear behaviors

Classical chaos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_chaos) – the behavior of a system cannot be predicted.
Multistability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistability) – alternating between two or more exclusive states.
Aperiodic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperiodic) oscillations – functions that do not repeat values after some period (otherwise known as chaotic oscillations or chaos).
Amplitude death (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude_death) – any oscillations present in the system cease due to some kind of interaction with other system or feedback by the same system.
Solitons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton) – self-reinforcing solitary waves
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on May 07, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
This is my generalized schematic:  http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/image_zpsq8bci5qx.jpeg (http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j365/web000x/image_zpsq8bci5qx.jpeg)

S3 and S4 open when their respective side of the transformer winding goes positive.  When S3 is open, S4 is closed and visa versa.  This allows for the caps to only see one polarity.  You can see in Jim's old SERPS videos that he used polarized caps.  Trying to use unpolarized caps and running the circuit according to my original diagram produces a waveform that is nothing like what paul and jim showed at the conference.  The caps being seated on the center leg of the xfmr and only charging to one polarity is much closer to their waveform.

Dave
Dear Dave, sorry for the very late reply :/

With your explanations and new schematic, I Perfectly Understand how now each half of the secondary of your transformer goes one way only alternatively; Very Thanks :) I updated my reading of the thread and will study your circuit after.

Regards, Didier.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on May 07, 2016, 07:55:47 PM
There may be much more than what is presently believed
to this device.  Apparently much more than simply charging
and discharging capacitors or inductors at critical points
repetitively within each cycle of Input (well timed periods
of Taking then Giving Back) Voltage and Current.

What would it take to perfect the illusion of being able to
return to the Source nearly all of the power extracted by
the load;  in such a way that power measurement devices
are incapable of recognizing the illusion?
Hi SeaMonkey! That is exactly my intuition when I saw the video where they demonstrate to a Japanese wind-turbine investor.
 
Quote
Is it a scheme of high speed extraction and return of energy
for very brief periods multiple times during the duration of
each Input Cycle?

Obviously, whatever is taking place to produce the "Magic"
is quite complex and at a considerably higher frequency than
the power line.  Why else would the device need electronic
switches which are capable of nanoSecond speeds?

It is a very clever scheme, to be sure.  Playing Ponzi on the
Source with what appears to be reliability.
I am more and more afraid that You're right :/

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 07, 2016, 11:27:10 PM
Quote from: Sea Monkey

What would it take to perfect the illusion of being able to
return to the Source nearly all of the power extracted by
the load;  in such a way that power measurement devices
are incapable of recognizing the illusion?

It would take nano second switching
OR
a 45 degree rotor that is offsetting all internal parameters
OR
both.

Meta
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on May 08, 2016, 12:26:16 AM
Hopefully I will be able to glean some insight when this year's  conference videos  start coming out.  Murray is  doing a presentation on the transforming generator which I have a feeling will be very helpful.  I have a modular test bed setup with which I can easily modify all circuit parameters, timing and duty cycles.  I'm poking around with a few experiments now but really could use some down to earth engineering direction for determining correct component values.  It is all still too much an enigma to me at this point.

Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on May 08, 2016, 12:49:33 AM
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 18, 2014, 08:20:32 AM (http://overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/msg414773/#msg414773)
<blockquote>
Quote
Is it a scheme of high speed extraction and return of energy
for very brief periods multiple times during the duration of
each Input Cycle?

Obviously, whatever is taking place to produce the "Magic"
is quite complex and at a considerably higher frequency than
the power line.  Why else would the device need electronic
switches which are capable of nanoSecond speeds?

It is a very clever scheme, to be sure.  Playing Ponzi on the
Source with what appears to be reliability.


From what I can tell, the nanosecond switching Paul developed was for his flyback energy capture in his motor design.  When he cuts the power flow to an inductor, he said he needed to make switching transitions in less than 5 ns in order to redirect the magnetic energy into his storage elements.  Otherwise, I think he was blowing up transistors or wasting too much stored energy into system losses.  What is curious to me is that in the scope shot from the conference, you can clearly see a dwell time between the switching transistions in the SERPS process that is much greater than 5 ns.  I wonder if Paul's fast switching was actually used here or if the switches were uses strictly for their mechanical-like nature.

Dave
</blockquote>
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 08, 2016, 04:19:52 AM
Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 18, 2014, 08:20:32 AM (http://overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/msg414773/#msg414773)
<blockquote>

From what I can tell, the nanosecond switching Paul developed was for his flyback energy capture in his motor design.  When he cuts the power flow to an inductor, he said he needed to make switching transitions in less than 5 ns in order to redirect the magnetic energy into his storage elements.  Otherwise, I think he was blowing up transistors or wasting too much stored energy into system losses.  What is curious to me is that in the scope shot from the conference, you can clearly see a dwell time between the switching transistions in the SERPS process that is much greater than 5 ns.  I wonder if Paul's fast switching was actually used here or if the switches were uses strictly for their mechanical-like nature.

Dave
</blockquote>

How much greater switching time, than 5 ns, was showing on the scope? ......I Skyped an engineer on the QEG build project who agreed with me that Bearden's switching times were between 5-30 ns. This is adequate to rip off a chunk of spatial, electron potential during the electron relaxation time, not electrons but potentials.

Meta
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on May 08, 2016, 07:10:57 AM
How much greater switching time, than 5 ns, was showing on the scope? ......I Skyped an engineer on the QEG build project who agreed with me that Bearden's switching times were between 5-30 ns. This is adequate to rip off a chunk of spatial, electron potential during the electron relaxation time, not electrons but potentials.

Meta

Clearly, between the switching there is some distance much greater than nanoseconds considering that scope resolution is at 5ms/div. 

As shown by this scope shot:  http://energyscienceconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140628_180102.jpg (http://energyscienceconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140628_180102.jpg)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on May 08, 2016, 12:07:12 PM
Clearly, between the switching there is some distance much greater than nanoseconds considering that scope resolution is at 5ms/div. 

As shown by this scope shot:  http://energyscienceconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140628_180102.jpg (http://energyscienceconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/20140628_180102.jpg)

I would make an educated guess that Murry and Babcock are using two of everything since I heard they are using two outputs, doubling the fast switches from 3 to 6 and the signal is a dual spike before it repeats again, flipping one half of the hardware inversely and backward to use it against the other half, which is the proper 2D shift of dimensions necessary in all over unity machines.

Also, since the scope is seeing a 5 ms/div time, they may be using lower, harmonic partials of the super fast 5 ns.

Thats all, folks.  8)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Khwartz on June 06, 2016, 02:46:40 AM
Hello Dave, it's been a long time and you know how sceptical I got on all the whole affaire but guess what, here something which gave me hope again about.

It is not Jim or Paul saying but Eric Dollard.

Hear the first minutes starting especially to minute 00:43; it is about charging in parallel and discharging in series (if my English were good enough to well understand - You may confirm my hearing ;) ) at very hight speed by vibrations.

https://youtu.be/vwu8rspxQWE (https://youtu.be/vwu8rspxQWE)

Best Regards,
Didier
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on June 06, 2016, 04:17:16 AM
Hello Dave, it's been a long time and you know how sceptical I got on all the whole affaire but guess what, here something which gave me hope again about.

It is not Jim or Paul saying but Eric Dollard.

Hear the first minutes starting especially to minute 00:43; it is about charging in parallel and discharging in series (if my English were good enough to well understand - You may confirm my hearing ;) ) at very hight speed by vibrations.

https://youtu.be/vwu8rspxQWE (https://youtu.be/vwu8rspxQWE)

Best Regards,
Didier


Yeah, when I worked with Eric Dollard, he always spoke about the series-parallel capacitor phenomena.  It's when I saw Jim's 2014 presentation that I really took it seriously.  Eric always spoke highly of Jim's work and almost started collaborating with Jim again but complications kept that at bay.  I feel like this is the one, but tuning is difficult.  It seems there are many factors in making this thing run right.  I'm feeling hopeful about the content regarding the transforming generator that Jim Murray will speak about in this upcoming conference.  I just hope the video comes out shortly after...


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: Meta on June 06, 2016, 12:08:15 PM
Eric Dollards comment "series-parallel capacitor charge/discharge" is Eric playing technician rather than scientist.

Technician or technique has a root called "I find a trick".

Eric, the technician, has found another trick or technique, to get the circuits to do what he wants.
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: arhitrade on June 24, 2016, 08:39:27 PM
How to transform reactive power to the active - http://gorchilin.com/articles/ideas/lick?lang=en (http://gorchilin.com/articles/ideas/lick?lang=en)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: listener191 on July 12, 2016, 04:07:14 PM
Hi All,

I can confirm that I tried every conceivable switching combination, without success.
Simulation rarely addresses all of the losses.

It is also very easy to fool your self even with digital scope power measurements by not monitoring current in the correct places.

I stopped working on it, so I could work on other projects.

Until Babcock & Murray reveal more in a patent, SERPS is not worth pursuing.

Barry

Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: web000x on July 16, 2016, 07:48:50 AM
Hi All,

I can confirm that I tried every conceivable switching combination, without success.
Simulation rarely addresses all of the losses.

It is also very easy to fool your self even with digital scope power measurements by not monitoring current in the correct places.

I stopped working on it, so I could work on other projects.

Until Babcock & Murray reveal more in a patent, SERPS is not worth pursuing.

Barry


I think you may be right about not pursuing it until enough info is gleaned.  I have a gut feeling that these guys are not BSing and is one of the reason that I built my test bed as fully as possible.  One day, I will have the info that I need to make this circuit function in reality.  Until then, it is time invested and I haven't been pouring energy into it.  Waiting to hear about the transforming generator...


Dave
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: arhitrade on August 23, 2016, 06:27:01 AM
How to transform reactive power to the active
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: arhitrade on August 23, 2016, 06:27:33 AM
 :)
Title: Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
Post by: robeyw on November 10, 2016, 07:19:17 AM
@SeaMonkey,


Milehigh's comparison of a spring to reactive power is completely false. A spring has real power stored in it. Reactive power is void of any real power. The claims of 20 times overunity may be false, but they have to be false for the right reasons. Milehigh really pumped way too much poop into his criticism.

The spring corresponds to a capacitor and the force on it is the voltage. A mass corresponds to an inductor and it's velocity corresponds to the current through it, so a LC oscillator can be made by putting a mass on the end of a spring with the other end fastened to a rigid object.

I looked at the video carefully and there is not enough of an explanation of what I see (including what the scope is connected to) to have an opinion. The one obvious point is that referring to a COP of 20 is meaningless. The controls can be adjusted to return whatever reasonable power is desired. The conference recording (being promoted in this video) shows different waveforms which are more switched and also makes a ridiculous statement that this is not a free energy device and works by putting the same energy through the resistor twice. When current goes through the resistor, the power IR is converted to heat and can only be recovered from heat. Stored energy can be put through the resistor the other way to return power to the source and delivering more energy to the resistor. Normally this would be the place to stop, but with the interest on this subject, I simulated 2 related circuits with LT Spice. The most useful circuit sends current through a resistor and into an inductor then returns energy through the same resistor to the source. The switches and inductor are near ideal and the diode is real world. The circuit and result is shown in the attached RL-recovery.gif. The circuit is powermag-ind.txt. The power from the source is calculated as 214.9 watts and the power dissipated in the resistor is 211 watts and is shown in the schematic. The blue trace is the input voltage, red is power into the source and green-yellow is power lost in the resistor. Replacing the inductor with a capacitor is not very interesting but the circuit is powermag.txt with the timing shown in the conference slides preset. To run these simulations, change the extension from txt to asc. The circuits may be modified as desired with the LT Spice editor.

This is what would be expected of a conventional circuit, so if the performance is different, there must be some other explanation.