COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

[BroMikey]

Mario's Wave Quadrants

Hello Group Members

Mario has found a good start for a serps wave. I hope you don't mind Mario.

I have studied both wave with their contours and irregularities and have rearranged the wave form by quadrant.




I don't know how you are going to get the waves quadrants in this formation but this is how it is shown in the SERPS.


Mike

[Mario]

Hi Mike,

the waves they showed (the ones you are comparing mine to) I actually managed to get earlier when my circuit was in parallel-charge series-discharge mode. Only that the wave discharge wave (with the sharp tip) was smaller, which seemed normal to me since when you do this with caps (par-series) you loose half of the energy just by doing this. I don't know how they're getting that waveform exactly, maybe they use inductors in series, don't know.
I know that in order to be able to discharge almost immediately after the cap charge up (sine peak) like they show in the scope shot they must have doubled the cap voltage, because otherwise at voltage peak you wouldn't have any voltage difference between cap and inductor for the cap to discharge into. The current can only build up slowly while the voltage in the inductor decreases. So I went back to look at Jim's earlier scope shots.

Look at the scope shot I posted where the current becomes almost a perfect sine wave. Everything is exactly as in the other two shots, I only delayed the discharge part slightly so that it would overlap the next charge quadrant, and what do you get? Almost perfect resonance. Current sine wave 90 d. out of phase with voltage. It's hard to explain in words everything you see when you're experimenting with a circuit like this. I can get many wave variations, but I don't have a week to try to explain them all , that's why it is important that others work on it too.

When you try to analyse waveforms, always keep in mind what actually happens with the cap and inductor in every moment. Start with a basic tank circuit, study it, better yet experiment with it until you're comfortable and understand what is happening in every moment.
I think this process is easy. It is complicated for me because I'm trying to get my audio amp to not see the load, so my version has a bit more to do with standard resonance also. But I think doing this with a generator or the line with a zero crossing detector circuit is much easier. Heck you only have throw back what you borrowed!

If there would be more people working on this we would have it way sooner…

regards,
Mario

[Mario]

Hi Mike and all,

here's a scope shot that I get when I use the circuit in "charge caps in parallel, discharge in series" mode. As you can see the waveforms look closer to Murray's and Babcock's latest setup, but the current going back is much lower, this because you loose half the energy just by doing the parallel-series thing with caps. Who has worked on the Tesla switch and scalar switch knows that.
I've also tried to use a narrower duty cycle, close to theirs, but then waveforms change again, it depends on cap size, load, etc…

regards,
Mario

[BroMikey]

Super Simulated SERPS

Hi Mike and all,

here's a scope shot that I get when I use the circuit in "charge caps in parallel, discharge in series" mode. As you can see the waveforms look closer to Murray's and Babcock's latest setup, but the current going back is much lower, this because you loose half the energy just by doing the parallel-series thing with caps. Who has worked on the Tesla switch and scalar switch knows that.
I've also tried to use a narrower duty cycle, close to theirs, but then waveforms change again, it depends on cap size, load, etc…

regards,
Mario

Super Mario (Just a small Joke)

Now that is the wave for sure. That is the SERPS wave, totally great work. I can't believe you did so fast, well at least you are getting us all within proximity so the tweaking can begin. Wow that is great work Mario, you are the first one.

The wave with it's quadrants are arranged just like the SERPS no doubt about it and that to me me is a mind blower I didn't think you had it in you to flip and mirror all of the wave quadrants around so fast. Outrageous. Humm..

Yeah well nobody else is working on it seems or they are awful quiet about it but some won't share their work you know because it's all about them and their tiny existence. Oh many guys come to these forms saying they want to save the planet blah blah blah until they get what they came for and when they progress and actually get results, they change and vanish.

Using the slogan "Save the world or planet" is generally a ploy to get inventors to give away their secret and that person getting the free info will run when they get it working, but not you Mario. You are wiser than this.

It's guys like you who are hero's, look at all of our hard working researcher on this list and around the globe, a few I agree but they are hero's to offer freely their time.

I don't know if I will ever be able to do what you have done Mario but I can be glad with you because you have a gift to unlock doors.

Mike

[Mario]

Come on Mike, I certainly am not a hero....or a genius as you wrote earlier. Stop this crap or I'll get really embarrassed..

There are way smarter guys than me, and I haven't figured things out yet. As I said, yes the wave looks closer to their latest one, but I still don't think parallel-series is the way to go, as you can see...only half the current back...
Not there yet.

regards,
Mario

[BroMikey]

Genious

Come on Mike, I certainly am not a hero....or a genius as you wrote earlier. Stop this crap or I'll get really embarrassed..

There are way smarter guys than me, and I haven't figured things out yet. As I said, yes the wave looks closer to their latest one, but I still don't think parallel-series is the way to go, as you can see...only half the current back...
Not there yet.

regards,
Mario

Hey Dude

You may not think so but genious is 99 percent perspiration, You are the man sweatin it out on the job. Then you share freely. I hope others can as well but I fear they will take the attitude that it is to hard to explain "so whats the use"??

It is your turn Mario to lead the way.

Mike

[SilverToGold]

Good work Mario, I like how quickly you work.

Mario, how is it that one looses half the energy going between series and parallel? The math does not say so. Parallel, E=(2C)xV^2/2=CV^2. Series, E=(C/2)x(2V)^2/2=CV^2. If you think about it a little, it makes sense. You store energy in each cap in parallel, you change the configuration, you still have the same energy but differently arranged. It can't just disappear.

What kind of Capacitance are you working with and what kind of load resistance? Maybe your circuit is fine. A larger cap may be the answer. Remember Jim used larger caps to store larger energy and was able to power larger loads. Your caps may be too small to get the results you want. The only difference between your curve and Paul's as I see it is that you got some puny caps on there with little return power, so they can't reflect back as much as you'd like. I assume your latest scope shot was V and I across your transformer?

Keep it up Mario!

[Joit]

From: What is reactive power


What is reactive power?
Warda Shokry Updated Answer
Reactive power is an odd topic in AC (Alternating Current) power systems, and it's usually explained with vector mathematics or phase-shift sinewave graphs. However, a non-math verbal explanation is possible. Note that Reactive power only becomes important when an "electrical load" or a home appliance contains coils or capacitors. If the electrical load behaves purely as a resistor, (such as a heater or incandescent bulb for example,) then the device consumes "real power" only. Reactive power and "power factor" can be ignored, and it can be analysed using an AC version of Ohm's law. Reactive power is simply this: when a coil or capacitor is connected to an AC power supply, the coil or capacitor stores electrical energy during one-fourth of an AC cycle. But then during the next quarter-cycle, the coil or capacitor dumps all the stored energy back into the distant AC power supply. Ideal coils and capacitors consume no electrical energy, yet they create a significant electric current. This is very different from a resistor which genuinely consumes electrical energy, and where the electrical energy flows continously in one direction; moving from source to load. In other words, if your electrical appliance contains inductance or capacitance, then electrical energy will periodically return to the power plant, and it will flow back and forth across the power lines. This leads to an extra current in the power lines, a current which heats the power lines, but which isn't used to provide energy to the appliance. The coil or capacitor causes electrical energy to begin "sloshing" back and forth between the appliance and the distant AC generator. Electric companies must install heavier wires to tolerate the excess current, and they will charge extra for this "unused" energy. This undesired "energy sloshing" effect can be eliminated. If an electrical load contains both a coil and capacitor, and if their resonant frequency is adjusted to exactly 60Hz, then the coil and capacitor like magic will begin to behave like a pure resistor. The "energy sloshing" still occurs, but now it's all happening between the coil and capacitor, and not in the AC power lines. So, if your appliance contains a large coil induction motor, you can make the motor behave as a pure resistor, and reduce the current in the power lines by connecting the right value of capacitance across the motor coil. Why is reactive power so confusing? Well, the math is daunting if not entirely obscure. And the concept of "imaginary power" puts many people off. But this is not the only problem. Unfortunately most of us are taught in grade school that an electric current is a flow of energy, and that energy flows back and forth in AC power lines. This is completely wrong. In fact the energy flows constantly forward, going from source to load. It's only the charges of the metal wires which flow back and forth. Imagine that we connect a battery to a light bulb. Electric charges already present inside the wires will begin to flow in the circle, and then electrical energy moves almost instantly to the light bulb. The charge flow is circular like a belt, but the energy flow is one-way. Now imagine that we suddenly reverse the connections to the battery. The voltage and current will reverse... but the energy still flows in the same direction as before. It still goes from battery to bulb. If we keep reversing the battery connections over and over, we'd have an AC system. So, in an AC system, only the voltage and current are "alternating," while the electrical energy flows one-way, going from source to load. Where AC resistive loads are concerned, electrical energy does not "alternate." To understand energy flow in AC systems, it's critically important that we understand the difference between charge flow (current, amperes) and energy flow (power, watts.) What is imaginary power? Simple: it's the unused power which flows backwards and forwards in the power lines, going back and forth between the load's coil or capacitor and the distant AC generator. If your appliance was a pure capacitor or inductor, then it would consume no electrical energy at all, but instead all the flowing energy would take the form of "sloshing energy," and we'd call it "imaginary power." Of course it's not actually imaginary. Instead it's reflected by the load. What is real power? Even more simple: it's the energy flow which goes continuously from the AC generator and into the appliance, without any of it returning back to the distant generator. Finally, what is "reactive" power? It's just the combination of the above two ideas: it is the continous-forward-moving or "real" energy flow, combined with the sloshing or "imaginary" energy flow.

Also check out my posting about the plans how to build an LC_meter to find the resonance from a coil. It can maybe make things easier.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...culations.html

[Mario]

Good work Mario, I like how quickly you work.

Mario, how is it that one looses half the energy going between series and parallel? The math does not say so. Parallel, E=(2C)xV^2/2=CV^2. Series, E=(C/2)x(2V)^2/2=CV^2. If you think about it a little, it makes sense. You store energy in each cap in parallel, you change the configuration, you still have the same energy but differently arranged. It can't just disappear.

What kind of Capacitance are you working with and what kind of load resistance? Maybe your circuit is fine. A larger cap may be the answer. Remember Jim used larger caps to store larger energy and was able to power larger loads. Your caps may be too small to get the results you want. The only difference between your curve and Paul's as I see it is that you got some puny caps on there with little return power, so they can't reflect back as much as you'd like. I assume your latest scope shot was V and I across your transformer?

Keep it up Mario!

Hi Silver,

you are right in that the energy in the caps remains the same. But for instance in a scalar charger setup where you do the same with caps but with a battery as the source you loose power. I think it has to do with the fact that if you charge a battery or a cap from another cap, the higher the voltage difference between source and receiver, the more energy will be lost. For instance, apart from the fact that we all know what pulsing batteries with cap pulses does to the battery, electrically speaking pulsing from 24V to 12V is way less efficient then say 14V to 12V.
Now here the source is not a battery, it's a dynamic source and I think this is the reason why in the single cap setup almost everything I borrow goes back to the source. I still don't know why when I put the circuit in parallel charge - series discharge I loose about half. But this you can see from the scope shots.
V is across the transformer primary and I is across the load, which is the same as in the secondary winding since they're in series.

This is why I think parallel-series setup is not the way to go. I don't think it's the caps that are bad since in the single setup current in is basically the same as current back. I have tried with different cap and load sizes.

The only thing that speaks for the fact that they may be using parallel-series is the fact that from their latest scope shots they seem to discharge back right after the sine peak, which you couldn't do otherwise since at that moment the cap has the same voltage as the coil. But how..? I actually don't care too much as what counts is that I'm able to send back what I borrowed with the single cap setup. Just have to either find a small generator to play with, or find some other type of dynamic source since my audio amp doesn't know what do with the sent back energy.

regards,
Mario

[boguslaw]

During switching you have to limit resistance below some milliohms...or you get big loose

[SilverToGold]

Hello Mario,

Looking over your switching scheme (how you actually switch your mosfets not the configuration of the switching placement), it concerns me a little. I don't think it is correct. You NEED isolated grounding (a floating power supply) to switch these mosfet pairs correctly. This is exactly what Jim did in his original setup - and I was trying to get people to study more. Without the proper floating ground, you are going to lose energy through ground, which is what I believe is going in with your circuit my friend. The energy is not just "disappearing", it is getting sinked directly to ground and "disappears" since it does not go through the load. I believe this is the case since in your scope shot. the voltage of the discharge is NOT twice the charging voltage for the caps as it should be (look closely at Jim's original scope shots). IE, you charge the caps to V in parallel, you will get 2V and 2 times the current in discharge in series... which I am NOT seeing in your scope shot. So I know something is wrong with your grounding. You are losing the enery of one capacitor directly to ground, which is why you are only getting half the energy! You threw away the other cap's energy to ground.

Go look around the web and find the proper isolated floating ground AC MOSFET switching circuit - this is the issue with your circuit. You are close. Keep at it my friend.

God Bless

Hi Silver,

you are right in that the energy in the caps remains the same. But for instance in a scalar charger setup where you do the same with caps but with a battery as the source you loose power. I think it has to do with the fact that if you charge a battery or a cap from another cap, the higher the voltage difference between source and receiver, the more energy will be lost. For instance, apart from the fact that we all know what pulsing batteries with cap pulses does to the battery, electrically speaking pulsing from 24V to 12V is way less efficient then say 14V to 12V.
Now here the source is not a battery, it's a dynamic source and I think this is the reason why in the single cap setup almost everything I borrow goes back to the source. I still don't know why when I put the circuit in parallel charge - series discharge I loose about half. But this you can see from the scope shots.
V is across the transformer primary and I is across the load, which is the same as in the secondary winding since they're in series.

This is why I think parallel-series setup is not the way to go. I don't think it's the caps that are bad since in the single setup current in is basically the same as current back. I have tried with different cap and load sizes.

The only thing that speaks for the fact that they may be using parallel-series is the fact that from their latest scope shots they seem to discharge back right after the sine peak, which you couldn't do otherwise since at that moment the cap has the same voltage as the coil. But how..? I actually don't care too much as what counts is that I'm able to send back what I borrowed with the single cap setup. Just have to either find a small generator to play with, or find some other type of dynamic source since my audio amp doesn't know what do with the sent back energy.

regards,
Mario

[Mario]

Hello Mario,

Looking over your switching scheme (how you actually switch your mosfets not the configuration of the switching placement), it concerns me a little. I don't think it is correct. You NEED isolated grounding (a floating power supply) to switch these mosfet pairs correctly. This is exactly what Jim did in his original setup - and I was trying to get people to study more. Without the proper floating ground, you are going to lose energy through ground, which is what I believe is going in with your circuit my friend. The energy is not just "disappearing", it is getting sinked directly to ground and "disappears" since it does not go through the load. I believe this is the case since in your scope shot. the voltage of the discharge is NOT twice the charging voltage for the caps as it should be (look closely at Jim's original scope shots). IE, you charge the caps to V in parallel, you will get 2V and 2 times the current in discharge in series... which I am NOT seeing in your scope shot. So I know something is wrong with your grounding. You are losing the enery of one capacitor directly to ground, which is why you are only getting half the energy! You threw away the other cap's energy to ground.

Go look around the web and find the proper isolated floating ground AC MOSFET switching circuit - this is the issue with your circuit. You are close. Keep at it my friend.

God Bless

Hi Silver,

no that's not the case. I think I described this earlier in this thread, but every single mosfet has its own dedicated and isolated mini DC-DC converter (1W, 12V to 15V) for proper switching. Basically for driving each mosfet the pos. rail of dc-dc conv. goes to the opto output collector, the emitter feeds the gate of the mosfet. Ground of the conv. goes to mosfet source. There's a 820 ohm resistor between source and gate for proper switch off. I chose this resistor carefully so that I had the fastest turn ON and OFF times the opto would allow which is not very fast but ok (4-5 microsecs).

I there would be something wrong with the circuit I would have problems with the single cap setup as well.

regards,
Mario

[SilverToGold]

Mario,

Look at your circuit here:



What happens when you turn on the improperly grounded signal at (2) and (4)? It creates a short circuit of the lower cap and it does NOT discharge through the load. Only the top cap's energy gets reflected back to the load. You have totally tossed out the lower cap by short circuiting it directly to your ground!

See it?

Get the correct switching circuit and you're there.

[SilverToGold]

Hi Mario,

Didn't see that post. So you are certain that the groundings are isolated.... I still do not see what would be expected in the discharge voltage being twice the charge voltage.

I didn't look closely at your single cap scheme. Was that just a test for your switching?

Well, I don't have any more suggestions at the moment but I wish you the best and keep at it.

God Bless

Hi Silver,

no that's not the case. I think I described this earlier in this thread, but every single mosfet has its own dedicated and isolated mini DC-DC converter (1W, 12V to 15V) for proper switching. Basically for driving each mosfet the pos. rail of dc-dc conv. goes to the opto output collector, the emitter feeds the gate of the mosfet. Ground of the conv. goes to mosfet source. There's a 820 ohm resistor between source and gate for proper switch off. I chose this resistor carefully so that I had the fastest turn ON and OFF times the opto would allow which is not very fast but ok (4-5 microsecs).

I there would be something wrong with the circuit I would have problems with the single cap setup as well.

regards,
Mario

[Mario]

Silver, I've attached a schematic to my previous post.

regards,
Mario