COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

[SilverToGold]

Luc's circuit was AC>cap>resistor.

But it had no active switching transistors - so it seems his positive results were measurements error. It's all in his thread and on his YouTube channel. It's been a while so I don't recall much more.

Thanks for the info on the switching.

I really need to see the schematic.

Inductors aren't needed. The heating resistors can be non-inductive ones.

AC > cap > resistor or AC > resistor > cap ?

Switching time is 100% important - can't just let it bounce back to the source whenever the circuit happens to pop it back.

[SilverToGold]

Ok, given Aaron's hints and the video - here's what I see going on - not that I fully get how it's done but I think I get the main idea.

1) Here is a circuit that has only real power. Note that the power curve is above the zero line.



2) Here's a circuit that has reactive power. This is a capacitive circuit. Note that the power is above part of the time and below part of the time. The sum is zero power transfer. The power goes into the capacitor and then back out the next cycle. NOTE: The power is inverted in this diagram (see from 0-90 degrees ::: -V x +I = - Power!!! not + Power) The power is wrong!! So you have to invert the power to get the correct picture.



3) In the scope shot of Jim's setup, the scope shot has to be of the incoming power source for it to be worth anything. The top one is voltage since the voltage from mains is not going to change. The lower one is a "chopped" up current. If you look at it, the current is chopped/switched exactly for 50% of the total cycle (1 cycle being 360 degrees - or one full sine wave). If you divide the voltage into 4 parts, 90 degree phase each for a total of 360 degrees - you will see that the current is inverted for 90 degrees of the 1st half of the cycle and they un-inverted for the next 90, then inverted again for another 90 and then un-inverted the last 90.

To try and make this clearer, look at the this image again Fig A:



and this one where the power is correct (see fig 4):



1) In the first part (in Fig A) 90-180 where the power is positive (ie it is being used by the system), Jim just switches/inverts the current - so the power is now negative (it is being returned to the system).

2) In the next part, 180-270, he does nothing (ie turns off the switching/inverting) since the current and voltage are already opposed. He already is getting reactive power here (ie the system is returning power).

3) In the 270-360, again we would just invert the switch/current again. And get negative power again.

4) In the 360-450, we leave it alone.

Through all of this, power is created since it goes through the load but to the system - no power is being used.

By doing this, Jim can make the circuit perform in a way where it is fully reactive. Meaning it just returns power back to the source but does real work because there is current flowing through say a resistive load.

In other words, by keeping the current in opposition to the voltage, the power is always negative (in an ideal case). So Jim just switches the circuit at the correct time to keep current and voltage opposed. That is that when the voltage is positive, the current is negative and when the voltage is negative, the current is positive.

I am just not sure how he switches it to achieve this exactly.

Anyways, that's my take on this thing. Switch the circuit to get reactive power ONLY and use the current to power your load as the current goes back and forth - never looking to the powering system that it's being loaded down - but as if it's being returned power!

I have no idea exactly the circuit involved or how it's switched, I just see that's what's happening from the graph and from Aaron's comments.

So you can probably do this with just a capacitor connected with some cleaver switching to an AC source.

Here's how a system looks that is generating power - say you have a home generator and it's putting power into the grid:



Note how the power curve is all under the zero line. This is a generator, in opposition to a purely resistive load we saw in 1.

Jim's system synthesizes this without a generator, he uses switches.

Comments?

[Aaron]

Dynaflux Alternator

2000% MORE WORK DONE THAN IS TAKEN FROM THE POWER SUPPLY

JIM MURRAY DISCUSSES HIS 2000% SERPS TECHNOLOGY!


The Dynaflux Alternator invented by Jim Murray is the origin of his SERPS solid state circuit that demonstrates over 2000% more work done than is drawn from the power supply.

1. Watch the youtube video on this page for a NEW INTERVIEW with both Jim Murray and Paul Babcock, which was filmed yesterday. It is the FIRST Youtube video on the page. http://www.emediapress.com/go.php?offer=qiman&pid=16

2. After the interview, support Jim Murray by scrolling down the page and getting your own copy of Jim Murray's FULL DEMO that includes not only the SERPS but demonstrations of his Dynaflux Alternator and the Transforming Generator.

[mikrovolt]

It can be said that there is drag inside a motor and drag inside a generator.
If it is possible to overcome this drag then the efficiency is of great benefit.

It is possible to interlace energy back to the prime mover source.
The SERPS system does this which reduces diesel fuel consumption.

When you borrow some force from that motor and use it then it becomes motive force.
Motive force overcomes counter motive force so the torque on the motor goes way down. Again the drag is cancelled by the motive force.

As an example pumping water uphill for storage it can be used for generating
Power during peak hours. Simularly this concept of storing and switching power is done
In milliseconds at precise timing.

It is urgent that engineers realize that SERPS be included in energy design systems at the earliest. The discussion of esoteric theory should be avoided since the concept will relate to a lot of ongoing research it is distracting to go outside the electrical laws that will be discussed.

At the same time there is a vital need for academic support to correctly restoration of the original Maxwell’s equations. Those who are responsible for what is taught must be held accountable for the slowing of this technology and the profound effects on the health and safety by the related secret technologies disguised and kept hidden.

[Aaron]

reactive watts

Ok, given Aaron's hints and the video - here's what I see going on - not that I fully get how it's done but I think I get the main idea.

I'd say you're touching pretty dang close to what is going on here. Best guess from what I've seen anywhere.

Obviously, I can only say so much, but I'll ask if someone can give some clarification to your comments.

[SilverToGold]

Thank you Aaron, would love to hear more input. The system I tried to describe above is a purely capacitive system. With a capacitor and resistor, the waveform changes some - but in the end you want to reflect more power back than you take in.

But Jim's system is way better than 2000% efficient!

It's can be ran as a generator. In the video, Jim's talks on connecting the system to a wind "generator" and the device making the wind "generator" running faster - actually making it into a wind motor! No longer a wind generator.

Makes me think this is probably how the Lockridge Device actually worked. And that was all mechanical switching. This concept is not new and very simple in theory. With simple switching and passive components (R,L & C), one can have a self running motor/generator (depending on how you look at it).

I'd say you're touching pretty dang close to what is going on here. Best guess from what I've seen anywhere.

Obviously, I can only say so much, but I'll ask if someone can give some clarification to your comments.

[Mario]

Hi Silvertogold,

that's good thinking, thanks for the ideas and graphs. I have built quite a few resonant circuits and am wondering too how he's able to achieve this.
How do you picture the load is connected? Source to cap (like your drawing above) and then from there through an FWBR to output caps with the load in parallel, the switch between the FWBR to output caps/load?

regards,
Mario

[SilverToGold]

I hope jim gives enough info at the conference for everyone to understand how things work.

[Aaron]

reactive power

Thank you Aaron, would love to hear more input. The system I tried to describe above is a purely capacitive system. With a capacitor and resistor, the waveform changes some - but in the end you want to reflect more power back than you take in.

But Jim's system is way better than 2000% efficient!

It's can be ran as a generator. In the video, Jim's talks on connecting the system to a wind "generator" and the device making the wind "generator" running faster - actually making it into a wind motor! No longer a wind generator.

Makes me think this is probably how the Lockridge Device actually worked. And that was all mechanical switching. This concept is not new and very simple in theory. With simple switching and passive components (R,L & C), one can have a self running motor/generator (depending on how you look at it).

Yes, can be purely capacitive.

And when the waveform changes and 30 watts are sent to the power supply, that would be helping the windmill turn as a motor.

I agree on the Lockridge.

[gotoluc]

Hi Aaron,

Luc's circuit eventually in it's final form came to be very simple with no inductors. The circuit was connected to an AC power source and consisted simply of a 10 uF cap in series with a 10 ohm load resistor in series with a 0.1 ohm current measuring resistor. So basically, an AC source with a cap and resistor all in series. He originally measured the system returning power back into the grid with this setup. There was no controlled switching in Luc's system (as Jim's obviously has) - just purely passive elements.

The problem was if I recall correctly, his scope was not connected correctly or the invert function was on/off on one of the scopes when it wasn't suppose to be and that threw off the power measurements. He admitted it was his error and that was that.

Hi SilverToGold and all,

just to clear my scope settings error found by user name .99 (aka poynt)
My scope math power calculation was out a little since my probes were set to AC coupling. Once I set them to DC coupling it was under unity.

As for Jim Murray, after seeing the video the thought that came to me is, maybe Jim created a (grid mirror) circuit that is 90 degrees out of phase with the grid, so current may just rocks back and forth (between circuit and grid) through the large transformer we see?
If the transformer resistance is low, I think it may return most everything back to the grid.
The circuit may also be alternating between capacitors in series and parallel.

This is just a guess of course.

Luc

[mikrovolt]

I hesitate to speculate and I am usually incorrect.
They deserve a standing ovation and loud applause at the convention.
If the number of people helps the momentum then I am willing to add input to the discussion
right or wrong to encourage those to make it to the live presentation as
another milestone in alt energy 2014.

A fast oscilloscope math function for showing power seems like part of the algorithm that could indicate
turning on and off when crossing a threshold up and down the wattage wave.
The yellow wave chart is helpful to compare and distinguish that Jim Murray's
waveforms are unique employing both flux symmetries that overcomes drag.

The story of the first version using vacuum tube reminds me of the pulse forming network that
Dollard employed years ago. Even if it was another it is interesting because what history books
mention early telegraph and later Wilhelm Cauer or possibly Foster around WW2.
The understanding of the magnifying transmitter and some other aspects of Tesla
That Jim mentioned is curious development.

The simple form resistive load presentation is often used for credibility, however
The new and useful feature appears to be the axial flux path design
in both dynaflux alternator and the SERPS system.

In the development of SERPS the fast bidirectional inductive switching was
prone to mosfet failure. It was the flyback switching approach that made a difference.

Paul Babcock's Bidirectional flyback switching is also new to me.
Possibly flyback A is connected to flyback B. A bidirectional controller
connects A and B by coax forming an HF transceiver interleaving primary and secondaries.
The HF is rectified to DC into storage capacitors and converted to AC for both
motor and generator that are modified with dynaflux conversion.

[forelle]

Hi all,
I have watched the video with Murray and Babcock and thought that this device falls in the same category than Tom Beardens "The final secret of free energy"?

[mikrovolt]

There is another motor patent this one by Paul and David Babcock that has another geometry includes the segmented toroids that again overcomes drag:

Patent US20110156522 - External field interaction motor - Google Patents

I can also see there was strong focus on magnetic energy recovery.
In both Murray and Babcock positioning the flux off the coils (space coupling)
resulting in free movement between armature and stator at the same time having enough power to perform useful work.

Tom Bearden refering to faraday's law said that inside the conventional motors energy was being wasted.
He said It is like having two sumo wrestlers inside the motor fighting.
Paul talks about conventional motor drag that the flux in one body (Stator) is pushed into other (Armature).

How to teach principles and at the same time reach the right market means energy from the vacuum would not
be easily accepted at this time and that not taking a position is good business.

Many niche markets exist for this technology. Take an average mom and pop car mechanic that wants to install kits.
Small car dealerships could sell 2004 Prius with the enhanced electrical system because that market has already accepted
the technology and are happy to support a niche market. The real intellectual property value of the company is very high
and could be realized if a trend became popular, finance would lend money and dealers would sell the product.
The mechanics have to see it touch it drive it. The demand is already there. The synergy motor is not lacking much
so a modification kit would completely blow people away.

[Aaron]

Free Energy

Paul Babcock's interview from last year: Free Energy

This is good to watch to learn more about Paul Babcock who will be co-presenting with Jim Murray at the conference.

[Mcc]

$400 ! nothing else... it's only for make money. If you found something:

1/ You share your idea to comunity

2/ You patent your idea and say nothing

3/ You try to develop with a goverment

2/ and 3/ => maybe you die shortly...

The worst case for money is 1/ but you have a Nobel Price, and I'm sure a lot of people give money for share this idea (even $10 by 1000.000 people around the world) is big money.