COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

[SilverToGold]

You guys are missing something really simple right in front of you that should reveal the "secret" of the switching configuration.

Look at the current, is it the same in magnitude during charging and discharging? Why or why not?

The waveforms are not the same as a simple RC circuit because either 1) it is actually an RLC circuit and/or 2) this is not a simple passive oscillator but a forced oscillation which changes things. I don't really know which it is but I suspect the later. Those large transformers as I see it are just isolation transformers so Jim can measure the power properly I could be wrong.

You guys have to figure something basic out, how does the switching configuration occur for the circuit? There are actually not many options here and there is really only 1 that matches all the data points.

[Mario]

You guys are missing something really simple right in front of you that should reveal the "secret" of the switching configuration.

Look at the current, is it the same in magnitude during charging and discharging? Why or why not?

The waveforms are not the same as a simple RC circuit because either 1) it is actually an RLC circuit and/or 2) this is not a simple passive oscillator but a forced oscillation which changes things. I don't really know which it is but I suspect the later. Those large transformers as I see it are just isolation transformers so Jim can measure the power properly I could be wrong.

You guys have to figure something basic out, how does the switching configuration occur for the circuit? There are actually not many options here and there is really only 1 that matches all the data points.

Hi Silvertogold,

if done with one cap a bridge has to be used as you said in the beginning, to flip the caps polarities at the right times.
I see it as a LCR, since the supply is an inductor in series with the load and cap (assumed). But as you say it doesn't behave as a natural tank circuit at resonance because here it is forced.
I assumed the 1/4 cycle from 90 to 180 (and 270 to 360) to be cap charge because you can see the voltage is being dragged down somewhat, as if loaded. When in the end he dials for returning power to the grid you can see the 1/4 cycle from 180 to 270 (0 to 90) getting larger, current I mean, with respect to the first current hump (cap charge). Also what leads me to determine what is cap charge and what is cap discharge are the current waveforms. Cap charge starts immediately from max going down, while cap discharge back to the inductor (source) starts slowly because of the inductors initial reactance.
Thus is just speculation…


regards,
Mario

[SilverToGold]

Hi Mario,

Instead of saying cap discharge or charge, I see it as the circuit either acting as a generator or a load, either way, current is being ran through the resistor (the power is additive through the resistor but subtractive from the main's perspective). When the the circuit is more in generator mode, the efficiency goes up. When the circuit is returning 30 watts to the mains, it is just more in the generator mode than the load mode.

I do believe that you guys are right about one thing, there are in practical terms only 2 caps, 2 x 2 sets of electrolytics back to back to form 2 sets of non-polarized caps. This is important in unraveling the mystery.

In regards to the timing, it is more than just equal 1/4 timing. Can anyone explain to me the timing Jim is using? Look at the first timing and then look at the -30 watts timing.... how does it work? He tweeks one knob and it goes from a being a load to more of a generator.

Hi Silvertogold,

if done with one cap a bridge has to be used as you said in the beginning, to flip the caps polarities at the right times.
I see it as a LCR, since the supply is an inductor in series with the load and cap (assumed). But as you say it doesn't behave as a natural tank circuit at resonance because here it is forced.
I assumed the 1/4 cycle from 90 to 180 (and 270 to 360) to be cap charge because you can see the voltage is being dragged down somewhat, as if loaded. When in the end he dials for returning power to the grid you can see the 1/4 cycle from 180 to 270 (0 to 90) getting larger, current I mean, with respect to the first current hump (cap charge). Also what leads me to determine what is cap charge and what is cap discharge are the current waveforms. Cap charge starts immediately from max going down, while cap discharge back to the inductor (source) starts slowly because of the inductors initial reactance.
Thus is just speculation…

regards,
Mario

[SilverToGold]

Hi David, I just want to respectfully say that this makes no sense to me - why use 2 sets of caps to discharge one for one cycle and the other for the other? If cap 1 is discharged for cycle 1, why not just reuse it for cycle 2?

You just may be barking up the wrong tree here.

I do believe that you are correct in regards to there being only 2 effective caps in the circuit.

I understood it to be that at 0d when V = 0 and voltage start to go positive we discharge cap no 1. At 90d when Vmax we charge cap 1. At 180d we discharge the cap 2. At 270d we charge cap 2. And we repeat.

So each cap is is used on each half cycle with one cap charging on 1/4 cycle, then discharge next 1/4, then for next 2/4 cycles the other caps handles. The unit could be simplified to use only one half cycle and one cap set rather than full cycle ?!

I have to say though that when I was able to replicate the measurement by connecting the watt meter to the input transformer and was able to straight away get such measurements I lost all faith in this.

[Listener192]

Power Factor Correction

Hi All,

Long before the Babcock patent "controllable universal supply with reactive power management" was applied for, a Japanese Professor had already patented a more elegant scheme which basically does the same thing as Babcock's device, except soft switching is used, rather than the hard switching technique that Babcock uses. Both schemes rely on being able to interrupt current and recover the voltage from the inductive load, into a capacitor, which then can be used to assist a rapid rise of current in the next switching cycle. In the AC bridge configuration the MER's device can restore a power factor of close to 1, as seen by the generating source. The timing of switching is dependant on the phase difference between voltage and current and you can see in the example provided in the link above, that the voltage waveform is essentially brought into alignment with the current waveform by essentially chopping it. The MERS's device soft recovers the inductive energy, whereas the Babcock device relies on fast (hard) switching just ahead of current turn off.

The PWM version of this scheme actually allow retention of the sine wave, which is highly distorted in the simple time based switching scheme. Babcock scheme basically does the same thing.

If you can arrange for the source always to see a very low power factor reactive load which either of these devices is coupled to the other side of, feeding say a resistive load, the device could be used to align the voltage and current wave forms to apply real power to the load, assuming phase change is not reflected back to the generating source.

Many papers are available on the MERS device that describe the practical applications and having built a similar device (but with differences) I can confirm the operational principle is effective. This I used on a replication of the power gain SRM that Dave Squires presented two years ago, in place of the choke scheme he utilized. Unfortunately there were some operational considerations that's were not modelled in FEMM, that gave the impression that power gain was possible from this design.

Barry



http://www.nr.titech.ac.jp/~rshimada/?plugin=attach&refer=2005%C7%AF%C5%D9&openfile=IPE C2005_narushima.pdf

[SilverToGold]

An awesome video by Jim will be coming out soon going over more of his work on this topic.

Any updates Aaron? Thanks!

[Spokane1]

First Impressions

Gentlemen,

I was at the Bedini convention this last weekend and witnessed the lecture, the hardware, and the latest video. I even has the chance to converse a little with Jim Murray and Paul Babcock at lunch .

I haven't dug into the topology of the circuit demonstrated, but I do have questions about the over all engineering approach. In the lecture the basic theory of operation had to do with passing electrical energy through a resistor load and then storing it in a capacitor. OK, that costs the I**2R in the resistor to get that energy into the capacitor and is dependent upon how fast this is done. Then in a different part of the AC cycle this stored energy is released back from this storage capacitor to do some more I**2R work in the same resistor. The claim is that the electrical energy can be used twice. Well, perhaps I don't know. But it seems that the maximum COP could only reach 2.0 since the energy is being used only twice in this configuration. In the lecture Paul mentioned that Dr. Tesla claimed he could achieve a COP of 50,000 with his work. The implication is that this technology may have the same potential.

The demonstration device had two scope traces and provided some power measurement data attached to them. The load appeared to be two incandescent lamps (I didn't observe the wattage). In the normal mode (no electrical intervention) the data listed a power level of 50 units (I assumed VA) in the power saving mode this value dropped down to 1 unit. This ratio of change 1:50 is far more than a COP of 2.0.

Perhaps the construction and operation of this system is far more complicated than the simple explanation provided in the lecture. To achieve the performance claimed then the original parcel of energy would have to be have been reused several times.

Now the description of this process was "Reactive Power". A substantial transformer is required as part of the circuit, so the simple resistor-capacitor analogy may not actually apply in practice. I suspect that the interaction of some serious inductance is also required.

The video was a demonstration of some version of an unloaded pulse motor shaped like a torus with a bar for a rotor . It drew about 10 amps in the normal more. After all of the transistors were switched into the circuit the current had dropped down to around 1 Amp. The contention was that the speed did not change at all during this transition. Well, to me this kind of demonstration would have been more effective if the absolute power into the system were being viewed and shown to drop, not the current parameter alone. It is hard to say what is going on in an unloaded motor application. I suppose that the video's main intention was to show that this technology can be applied to pulsed motor systems as well as resistor heating/lighting applications.

I have always been suspicious about power measurements with non-sine wave currents. In talking with Jim Murray at lunch he maintained that he has an advanced power analyzer to make these determinations with. I don't know what type or model it is, but I shall take his word for it.

This new technology is going to provide for some interesting discussion once reproduction circuits can be built by others.

What amazed me was the Bold presentation of such a technology, with working apparatus, at a convention of this sort. They say they have a patent to cover the fundamentals but are seeking more money to patent other features of this circuit. If this work proves to meet or exceed their claims then I would think that the MIB might be paying them a social call as soon as 3rd party verification becomes public.

I have no doubts about Jim or Paul's technical qualifications. In talking with them their discussion is very professional and centers on specific engineering descriptions. Fortunately they claim that this technology does not extract energy from the "Vacuum" of the "Zero Point". All of the processes are based upon classical engineering theory. What makes this work viable today,(and not in the past) is the availability of modern solid state high speed switching devices.

I'm certainly going to follow up on these developments concerning this technology and see where it leads. It could well end up like the Cold Fusion breakthrough.

Spokane1

[Aaron]

Jim Murray SERPS

In the lecture the basic theory of operation had to do with passing electrical energy through a resistor load and then storing it in a capacitor. OK, that costs the I**2R in the resistor to get that energy into the capacitor and is dependent upon how fast this is done. Then in a different part of the AC cycle this stored energy is released back from this storage capacitor to do some more I**2R work in the same resistor. The claim is that the electrical energy can be used twice. Well, perhaps I don't know. But it seems that the maximum COP could only reach 2.0 since the energy is being used only twice in this configuration.

In the lecture Paul mentioned that Dr. Tesla claimed he could achieve a COP of 50,000 with his work. The implication is that this technology may have the same potential.

The video was a demonstration of some version of an unloaded pulse motor shaped like a torus with a bar for a rotor . It drew about 10 amps in the normal more. After all of the transistors were switched into the circuit the current had dropped down to around 1 Amp. The contention was that the speed did not change at all during this transition. Well, to me this kind of demonstration would have been more effective if the absolute power into the system were being viewed and shown to drop, not the current parameter alone.

In talking with Jim Murray at lunch he maintained that he has an advanced power analyzer to make these determinations with. I don't know what type or model it is, but I shall take his word for it.

Fortunately they claim that this technology does not extract energy from the "Vacuum" of the "Zero Point". All of the processes are based upon classical engineering theory. What makes this work viable today,(and not in the past) is the availability of modern solid state high speed switching devices.

Hi Mark,

It does seem like 2.0 would be max, but it is important to point out that on the return trip back to the source, that return brings the net draw to almost nothing - if it was a generator for example instead of a wall transformer, the output would be generator mode, through a resistor to the cap and on the way back from the cap through the resistor to make more heat back into the generator - that generator is turned into a motor for that moment making the net draw almost nothing. The only thing that has to really be supplied then are the losses, which is next to nothing. So as that happens on each cycle so that all that work is done in the resistor/bulb but the net draw from the generator/transformer is the loss. That is why the demonstration was a COP of 50.0 instead of 2.0.

Tesla's claims you refer to are from the notes from Tesla's deposition where he explained his work in very layman terms. Those are in Leland Anderson's books.

That motor was Paul's motor. He showed some clips in the last 2 years but now that the patent is granted, he was able to show "overunity", which means on the practical side that you can create 1 HP for a fraction of 746 watts. I believe he focused on the current because the voltage is constant no matter what speed it is going.

One of Jim Murray's power analyzer is a Japanese unit. I believe it is a Yokogawa but I don't know what the exact model is.

I would disagree that it is not from the vacuum because all source potential comes from there anyway utilizing potential differences as the "conduit" for it to come into the circuits. But it isn't necessary to believe that to engineer the device and make it work. Just my opinion.

I think it is potentially more important than cold fusion because it is completely predictable and replicable.

[Spokane1]

The Fate of Cold Fusion

I think it is potentially more important than cold fusion because it is completely predictable and replicable.

Dear Aaron,

I agree with you completely on that point.

What I was attempting to point out (very vaguely) was that after the initial breakthrough announcements in Cold Fusion there was a flood of scientific and political recriminations to follow. - The two well qualified scientists were then essentially ran out of the country. (They were department heads at their respective universities). Both of them ended up in Japan and continued to make advancements in their discovery there. It took about 10 years for the Navel Labs to verify their work. In the mean time our country lost all that knowledge and allowed the Japanese to benefit from it because of our inability to make better judgments.

It was so unnecessary. If the scientific community has just held the attitude of "Sounds interesting lets see what happens" the researchers would have arrived at a better explanation (and data) in good time. As it was the violation of the "Conservation of Energy Law" was so antagonistic to current thought that a wasted witch hunt develop from people who didn't have a clue as to what was really going on.

I hope that doesn't happen in this case. Fortunately Jim and Paul are not members of the established scientific fraternity.

Spokane1

[SilverToGold]

Thanks for the update Spokane1. Question, do you think there was enough info from the seminar for someone to replicate this device?

Aaron, the only question I have is when will the video be released?

[Aaron]

videos

Aaron, the only question I have is when will the video be released?

Next week I'm working on getting all the videos ready with our cameraman and I'll be releasing one every two weeks. In what order, I'm not sure yet.

[Spokane1]

Reverse Engineering of the SEARS Device

Thanks for the update Spokane1. Question, do you think there was enough info from the seminar for someone to replicate this device?

Dear SilverToGold,

The brains of this technology is a microprocessor. In listening to Paul Babcock in the lunch room I got the impression that his proprietary switching technique involves a "Jedi" type of anticipation to achieve the 4 ns switching times. I would guess he is using some kind of software feed-forward scheme to start the switching signal ahead of when it is needed. The processor has to learn and adjust to the field conditions to keep up with this. Self modifying code is a *****.

One could probably duplicate the actual storage and load section of the device, perhaps even the solid state switches. But, I really doubt you would have much luck reverse engineering the contents of the computer algorithm with out a lot of "Skilled in the Craft" experience. This is not a simple circuit, probably two orders of magnitude more complex than the most advanced Bedini SG motor.

Jim and Paul provided the demo unit (for two days mostly unattended) knowing full well that those in attendance could take hundreds of photos and still have nothing (or very little) of engineering usefulness.

Spokane1

[Aaron]

make before break

I would guess he is using some kind of software feed-forward scheme to start the switching signal ahead of when it is needed.

The switch has to make before the break. Paul's switching patents are in the patent databases.

[SilverToGold]

Hi Spokane1 and thanks for the info.

Jim made the device work before Paul's switching was used on it and it seemed to work fine. I looked at the video and I know exactly what switching Jim used and it's not complex.

With the 60 CPS line frequency, it wouldn't seen that ns timing would be required. I know with Paul's unit, it is but the reactive power unit is a different bird of sorts.

Maybe I'm all wrong here and you're correct but it'll be interesting to see the video and what actually was shared.

Thanks again.

Dear SilverToGold,

The brains of this technology is a microprocessor. In listening to Paul Babcock in the lunch room I got the impression that his proprietary switching technique involves a "Jedi" type of anticipation to achieve the 4 ns switching times. I would guess he is using some kind of software feed-forward scheme to start the switching signal ahead of when it is needed. The processor has to learn and adjust to the field conditions to keep up with this. Self modifying code is a *****.

One could probably duplicate the actual storage and load section of the device, perhaps even the solid state switches. But, I really doubt you would have much luck reverse engineering the contents of the computer algorithm with out a lot of "Skilled in the Craft" experience. This is not a simple circuit, probably two orders of magnitude more complex than the most advanced Bedini SG motor.

Jim and Paul provided the demo unit (for two days mostly unattended) knowing full well that those in attendance could take hundreds of photos and still have nothing (or very little) of engineering usefulness.

Spokane1

[Spokane1]

4 ns for 60 Hz?

Hi Spokane1 and thanks for the info.

With the 60 CPS line frequency, it wouldn't seen that ns timing would be required.

Dear SilverToGold,

I was wondering the very same thing myself about that fast timing issue with 60 Hz. being the fundamental frequency. But I'm a real newbie when it comes to this branch of OU research.

You are also right about the unaddressed "Reactive Power" issue and how it works in this system.

I suppose we will have to extract operational details from any patents that might be granted in the next couple of years. Maybe take a second look at all the old ones.

In a preview of the 2 hr presentation here is what I recall. Jim talked for the first hour and reviewed his past work with several novel motor designs that have some very interesting rotors and a lot of complex switching. He has slides of 6 or 8 designs. All I could see was $$$ in those prototypes. He said that the investors had supplied about $3 million in venture capital during the duration of that project. I certainly don't doubt it.

At lunch he explained just how this business arrangement came to an end when he thought they were so close to another major breakthrough. He did end up with all those prototypes in his possession.

Paul spoke for the next hour and started off with some comments by Dr. Tesla from court documents about taking 100 HP and converting it to 5,000,000 HP (An implied COP of 50,000). I don't know if this was a continuous conversion or a pulse conversion, the time period was not mentioned. Then Paul reviews a technical experience he had while working in Alaska. He discovered that a standby generator would use 75% less fuel to power 2 kW worth of incandescent lamps if the inductance of some HID ballasts were connected in parallel with them (HID bulbs removed). The actual fuel used was 32 oz. vs. 8 oz. per hour.

He then discusses the basic conceptual theory of operation of the SERPS device with a number of slides. Next he showed his video of the torus motor. Then more basic theory. Then questions.

I'm sure the video will be well worth the price for those wanting to dig deeper into this breaking technology.

Spokane1