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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.... based on the device and measurements I showed in the QEG thread.
.... and if that reactive power is not returned to the grid ...
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 systemSurely without a good block or circuit diagram it is hard to grasp.
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.
..
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.
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.
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.
Aaron is a dishonest person. Just look at the ASEA scam he is supporting.
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
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
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 ?
..
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.
The Wattmeter and the scope traces don´t lie !
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.
I already knew the answer MarkE but just so there wouldn't be any argument about it here's top of the GoogleIn over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.
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.
In over three decades in the business I have never seen a circle with an X in it used for a light bulb.
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....
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
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look like don't work for me here...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.....Hi TinselKoala,
;)
TK, what do your postings have to do with the Murray SERPS circuit ?
What is your circuit diagram ?
...people look at and think that it is a device (used to deceive meters).
Most power company provided KiloWatt Hour Meters have theTraditional 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.
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.
"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.
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
"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.I see there is commonality in the extraction of the VAR energy. The Russian device is similar.
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.
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. ???
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.
@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.
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.
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 ?
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.
@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.
Surely we can agree on those simple points.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.
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.
..
All,I see, this is their circuit.. They discharge the positive cap charge in the negative half cycle, and vice-versa.
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
In layman's terms, energy is supplied by a power transformer to run the lights and then is stored in a capacitor. The capacitor is then discharged back through the lights again to the power supply in a way that neutralizes the load seen by the power supply.
The consequences of this energy oscillation is that the load (bulbs) can be powered twice while the net energy supplied by the power supply is reduced to a very small value. The implications of this technology for energy use in the future is absolutely astonishing!
Here is an example of the input compared to the output as measured by a Tektronix scope... What this graph shows is that the SERPS device is drawing 1.1 WATTS net from the power supply but the light bulbs are actually burning 52.7 WATTS. 52.7 watts divided by 1.1 watts = a COP or coefficient of performance of 47.90, which is 4790% more energy than is required to run the machine.
The input represents the difference between the energy provided and the energy returned. The output represents the work accomplished as this energy oscillates in and out of the system.
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.
@x_name41Nice !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 :)
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 :)
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.
Once again the simulator will not allow me to set the switching arrangement required but this result shows 320W real for 831W reactive.http://realstrannik.ru/forum/39-kapanadze/134930-ustanovka-ruslana-kulabuxova.html?start=468#229933
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
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,SCR IGBT hybrid used in railgun design
I would be interested in your switch. Please email me: gotoluc2@gmail.com when you have them available.
Thanks
Luc
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
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
Tinselkoala,Exactly (more or less.)
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
Tinselkoala,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 :)
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
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.Sure.
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."
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?with your actions TinselKoala i think you earn the ban. Please moderation to take the necessary actions!
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!
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.
"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."
"VARs can be converted to real power but not at a rate of more than the supply can provide it."not, you are mistaken because i showed you that the resonance may not to destroy, but you continuing to you insist the opposite
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.
"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."
"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."
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
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
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.
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.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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaHXLZ6QJss)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.
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 ?
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?
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.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.
TinselKoala a like your reviews and videos.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.
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 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.
I'm always open to healthy criticism :)
not, you are mistaken because i showed you that the resonance may not to destroy, but you continuing to you insist the oppositeYou have shown me nothing! But if you bother to look, you might see that I am showing you something.
TinselKoalaOf 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....
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....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
:P
Or you can tell us the story of his laboratory at the University in Canada. Why is he no longer working there?
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?
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 voltand sample of the tar, don't you want?
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 ?
..
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 ?
..
Well I don't want anything really.Farmhand calmly I can tell you that you are idiot, my conscience is clear!
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.
..
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!
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)
???
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 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
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 ?
..
Well, if as Mario said on the other forum the power is just borrowed and returned….
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.
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?
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
Hi TinselKoala,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.
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
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
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 Void,
I have added the transformer to the circuit, so it should be clear now.
Barry
Hi! Mr Summitville.Khwatz,
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.
I like "insulted" better.lol
;)
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
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? ???
Is there anybody that saw the demonstration unit and knows the number of transistor/scr switches that the 2014 SERPS demonstration had?Dear Dave,
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
OMG lol, waflobs. ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOu9uBmPN8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOu9uBmPN8)
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.
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.
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.
Well, here are the scopeshots at maximum (~272 kHz) and minimum (~2.5 kHz) and the board layout.
Sorry to sound like mr know it all but in fact I do hahah
ATOM1
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.
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
Hello ATOM1, surely you're a Very Trained Engineer
@ web000x
That was on a common video call I had participated too in real time.
Regards,
Didier
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
I don't think they ever said to stop pursuing the technology. I never heard that...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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Your circuit doesn't utilize parametric variations.
Here's a video: They claim power's generated by the current, voltage out of phase 90 degrees.What is input and output? Input is DC or AC? And output DC or AC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk&list=UU-41VqjATdRAlN7ztX8S30A)
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
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.
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)
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.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.
I watched your video more closely and like what I've seen. Hopefully i've got something to share soon..
Dave
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.Here you go:
Regards AG
@AC:Your talking about the infinite number of monkeys.
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.
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...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.
Dave
What is the difference between the "SERPS concept" and what I showed in the video linked above?Hi TinselKoala,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
..
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.
My circuit is arranged differently now than it was when I made those posts some time ago.ok :)
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.
hence the reason the current waveform was 180 degrees out every other half cycle.. . . Need you schematic, for now, don't follow you :/
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.
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! ^_^
Thanks,Thanks to you to still be interested in this subject if I got some doubts about
Dave
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
Sacred geometry seems to be more useful in orgone energy devices.
Dave
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)Dear Dave, sorry for the very late reply :/
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
There may be much more than what is presently believedHi SeaMonkey! That is exactly my intuition when I saw the video where they demonstrate to a Japanese wind-turbine investor.
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 energyI am more and more afraid that You're right :/
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.
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.
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
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)
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
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
How to transform reactive power to the active
@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.