COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

[Aaron]

Resistor does NOT burn everything up

Excellent Aaron!

The major premise I get after watching all of Jim's videos is this:

Electrical energy that passes through a load, does not get consumed by the load. The electricity merely excites the load. This is why loads have two wires connected to them; if they only had one, then obviously there is no return path for the electrical energy to go to next.

Jim, if I'm way-off in this assessment, then I certainly do not understand what the SERPS device is doing. On the other hand, if I am correct, the SERPS is but one example of a device that keeps electrical energy in motion so it can continue to do useful work. This truly opens the door to some big things to come.

Dog-one,

That is pretty much how I see it.

For example, the frauds who tried to debunk the old Ainslie experiments were making claims to the contrary. That isn't a COP 17 circuit, but point is, they (not mentioning any names) kept saying that after the mosfet is turned on and the inductive resistor is energized to produce heat, it is impossible to get any recovery since the resistor burns it all up.

Well, anyone who actually did the experiments can turn off the mosfet and see that you get a spike from the magnetic field collapsing from the inductive resistor that can be used to send back to the source battery through the intrinsic diode in the mosfet, charge a cap, etc... meaning that the resistor indeed did NOT burn up everything that went through it because if it did, we couldn't get any recovery.

And like you mention, the return path... if everything got burned up that entered the resistor, then how the heck can it ever make a loop?

I'm sure Jim can elaborate on this but the first comment from him I believe will explain his position in all of this for starters and then we can go from there. We will be having a live Q & A call for anyone that purchased Jim and Paul's presentation. We'll be doing that for all the presentations.

[Aaron]

Farmhand, the snake-tongued clown

I hope Jim will answer my question about the specifics of his claim.

Doesn't the claim made actually mean that the load is dissipating over 50 Joules
of energy per second while the supply is providing only just over 1 Joule of
energy per second to the device ?

Isn't that a claim of making energy ?

Seems like power is taken from one half cycle and dumped to the next. so it
seems that this power moved forward is borrowed right from the first cycle.

Just over 1 Joule per second input and just over 50 Joules per second output
is a claim of extra energy, where can this extra energy be measured to be
entering the circuit ?

Why is it not possible to run an inverter or electric motor generator from DC
and see the inverter or generator unloaded ?

It looks like the setup takes power from one polarity half cycle and dumps it
to the opposite polarity half cycle on a continuing basis I think that might
confuse the meters. I found most meters designed for AC power do not work
well and accurately with anything but sine waves.

I think we need to see the voltage and current wave forms from the AC line
before the variac. Then we can see the power - phase and energy transfer
from the AC supply line.

Or wave forms from both sides of the isolation transformer or variac the grid
side and the output side.

If in fact you can dissipate over 50 Joules per second in a load while
dissipating only just over joule per second as input energy (total) then you
have a world changing device which should make free energy possible for
every single person in the world if they have a device. Big claim. Huge claim.

The big question is why can we not see the grid line voltage and current as
that is the actual input for the claimed 1 Watt.

Sending power back to the grid is run of the mill, exporting energy to the grid
is a different matter, it requires a supply of energy to do that.

Cheers

I saw your other post a little while back - first of all, with all your slanderous remarks (in OU) against myself and then claiming that Jim and Paul are either frauds or they're making measurement errors - why the hell should anyone tell you anything??? You think you have everything figured out about me, ASEA (claming it is just salt water), this technology, etc... so what the hell do you have to ask anything at all seeing that you have all the answers?

You are so pathetically ignorant its laughable and I'm tired of your mouth - you don't really show anyone what you know, what you display is exactly what you DON'T!

First you should flush your arrogance down the drain and stop insulting my friends and associates and myself maybe you'll get a bit of help. You think you've been anonymous over the years with all your snaked-tongue garbage but people talk.

Start by learning how to comprehend the basic English definition of NET as it applies to all of this...

"a : remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss <net earnings> <net worth>"

If 50 watts leaves the power supply to light up 50 watts of bulbs and about that same amount lights the bulbs on the way back returning most to the source - say 49 watts after all is said and done, the bulbs are being lit by that wattage and NOT by the NET draw of 1 watt difference!!!

Those bulbs are NOT lit by 1 watt meaning energy is not magically being created here so get over yourself and realize that you are not even qualified to analyze this because your background and mentality does not permit for such a thing!

If you can't even figure out what has already been told to you in the presentation in very simple English, in the interview I did with Jim and Paul, etc... and can't figure out by now that they have defined that the 1 watt is the NET, then forget about it!

It shows that your massively flawed and delusional belief system that everything must be burned up moving through the circuit so therefore can't charge the caps, etc... is WRONG.

You're trying to analyze an unconventional technology with your very conventional beliefs - if you don't get why that is pathetic then you should take up basket weaving because none of this is for you and you're wasting everyone's time!

I'm ignoring the rest of your questions because quite frankly, with all the insults you've slandered me with and my friends, you don't deserve to know how any of this works so when youre lights go out, you can use a candle because that is all you can handle!

[BroMikey]

Thats what I been thinking for the last few months.

The kind gentlemen are hard to find. High minded and so forth are very difficult to work with, never answering any questions to really help just trying to show off and show up the next guy.

Don't get me started Aaron, I better go lay down

Mike

[Mario]

Farmhand,

it seems to me you have not watched Jim and Bob's lecture? Else you wouldn't ask these questions. You are basically slowing this thread down for no reason. Nothing is being created, just borrowed and returned.

regards,
Mario

[Mario]

Hi Aaron,

if possible I would like Jim to comment the following thoughts:

There has been a debate whether the caps are being charged in parallel and discharged in series. I don't think this is the case as experiments on my circuit show that you loose about half the energy if you do it that way.

The SERPS circuit needs a generator as a source. To understand why an audio amp or an inverter can not be the right AC source for this you need to think exactly what exactly happens in every moment of the sine wave, how it is generated by the generator and why the generator can "use" the energy that is sent back and use it as a motor force at the right moment to have a drag free motor force. As I see it the generator will not self run, but it will be a drag free generator, not requiring more work from the prime mover, even if work is being done.

As I see it using a generator that has all the magnets with the same polarity facing the coils, we don't need to switch 4 times per cycle. We could have our cap filled through the load during the pos. half cycle (magnet approaching coil), and return the energy from the cap through the load in the negative half cycle (magnet leaving the coil).
So my guess is that the 4 quadrant switching has been developed to work with standard generators where you also have NSNS magnet arrangements.

Finally, I have been thinking hard how I could simulate a generator type source in solid state so that a battery could be used for instance. I have done some tests with different configurations, using caps, coils, flyback, etc.. but have not been successful. My conclusion is that our source HAS to be dynamic, meaning starting at zero voltage going up. Else we loose energy.

thanks,
Mario

[mikrovolt]

I believe that the potential for sales on future books by these authors could exceed estimates as more reviews continue and momentum continues.

The Energetic forum is also an underestimated invention having higher expected net worth if public sale of stock was available like Tesla Motors.

The concept that energy can be used more than once was bound to emerge
in a refined form because John Bedini's original work had gone thru so many thousands of man hours of research and replication by reputable people.

I can recommend John's products without worry because so many people have put them thru rigorous testing. Out of all that work and sifting is another generation of carefully selected products that have the potential to become one of the most popular series in electrical alt science mainly because those who built Bedini pulse chargers just kept plugging along.

Probably one of the most exciting part of this are the variations that frequent the Energetic forum will make valuable contribution to the emerging technology as experimentation and results are realized.

It was mentioned that this thread should no doubt expand and how that happens will be interesting. There is a difference in how the rate of development happened in the past and how rapidly development can happen using internet collaboration. We need to drive the sales up so we can move forward with this.

[Listener192]

SERPS Replication

In my replication delaying the discharge pulse to later in the falling quadrant of the sine i.e. 135 deg, is the only way I have been able to get reverse current to flow within the same half cycle and a resultant current/voltage phase shift.

Cap parallel charge, series discharge would be the only way I can see of getting current to flow in reverse through the load, at or just after the peak of the sine on the falling quadrant, as per Marios scope shots.

Attempts to charge in the 1st and 3rd quadrants and discharge in the 2nd and 4th quadrants, have only resulted in an in phase sine current waveform.

On the subject of monitoring. The scope shots of the current through the load, show the discharge pulses which demonstrate current flowing in the opposition direction to the charge current pulses. The simple energy monitor measures 95VA however, it does not discriminate between the charge and discharge current direction and so 28W is the total it measures.

By introducing another set of switches it would be possible to gate the discharge current through the load to an alternative inductance/transformer to allow confirmation of the power being returned. In my example, I was measuring 11W power in the load, so hypothetically, if the 28W shown was actually comprised of say 16W forward and 12W reverse, that would be 11W in the load for only 4W input. This measurement would substantiate what is happening.

Unless a power meter is calculating per half cycle, the sign, area under the charge/discharge pulses and adding them, it will never show the real situation. An integration function on a scope that can do this on a point by point basis would be the best tool for this measurement.

Barry

[Mario]

Hi Barry, I've sent you a pm.

regards,
Mario

[Listener192]

Parallel Charge Series Discharge

Finally replicated the waveform that was displayed in the presentation.

See attached photo. The cap value has to be adjusted with the load so for 200 ohms, 6uf was required. I originally use 60uf cap which results in in-phase waveforms.

I still have not been able to find a way to make the discharge pulse amplitude equal the charge pulse amplitude, and I agree with Mario that there must be another configuration to solve this problem.

Barry

[Mario]

Hi Barry,

with the one cap or two cap configuration (not parallel-series) I can get the current pulses coming and going to be about the same amplitude. They don't look exactly like in their last demo but the scope shots in the japan demo looked different too. In their latest they also seem to have a smaller duty cycle.
As you know many things influence the pulse shapes in this circuit.
I just mean, maybe we're focusing too much on getting the exact same pulse shape, but I really think that what matters is that what's coming in is going back.

It seems like the only way to get proof is to hook it to a generator..

regards,
Mario

[Farmhand]

Time and proper "energy measurements" will tell if there is any free energy in
this setup or not. Not I or anyone else get to just decide what "is".

It's fair to be upset Aaron, but the fact is that I am just asking questions that
many others deem reasonable.

Output is energy dissipated in a useful load and input is energy supplied,
it's well known that many meters show incorrect results with "not recommended"
input characteristics. And power is not energy.

Can an energy meter correctly compute "real power" ect. when the current is double
the frequency of the voltage.

Not a question just something to ponder.

..

[Dog-One]

Are you absolutely positive?

Output is energy dissipated in a useful load and input is energy supplied,...

Is it? Are you sure?

I'm asking because at one time I was pretty darn sure and now I'm not so much anymore.

Take a CRT tube for example. Those "Cathode Rays" excite the phosphorus surface, but they keep going after that. Is there any reason they couldn't be recollected and re-used? Did the exciting of the phosphorus really burn them up? Could I put another phosphorus screen in front of them and have it become excited too?

Quite frankly, I don't think our understanding of electricity is quite so cut-n-dried. There is more going on then we think there is. The SERPS device may not prove it, but the first person to publicly demonstrate a looper will. You want to help in that effort or not? Will it crush your little world to learn something quite contrary to your beliefs? Myself, I've had so many dreams and beliefs dashed already, one more isn't going to hurt in the slightest bit.

[Farmhand]

BroMikey, I was trying to help you in the cap dump thread, I sure won't do that again.

If we have to show extra energy circuits to post here then everyone better stop posting.

And I've never claimed any "extra energy" circuits, if I did I would have shown
proper measurements and responded to questions regarding how the
determination was made. I don't need or want your "forgiveness" for trying to
help you.

If A claim of extra energy is made either directly or indirectly in this case
then the onus is on the claimant to prove the claim or not.

Now if no one can question anything regarding claims then anyone can claim anything.

Dog One, It all depends on what you want as "output", output is what we
intend to get out of a circuit, it can be noise heat or electricity.

But output is just that it is put out so it is no longer in the circuit.

When we power a resistive load the voltage causes the current to flow
through the resistance which causes heat, in a light globe we also get light
output, the light is the intended output and the globe consumes power to
output the light energy as well as outputting the waste heat energy.

So there is total output and intended output the intended output is what
we measure against the input to get efficiency.

Real Power is the rate of energy delivery or energy dissipation. Reactive power is not.

If we say we have a globe output of 50 Watts then that means we have 50 Joules
per second dissipated by the load, some is heat some is light.

Now only current that is in phase with the voltage contributes to power the
load, as is evident in any AC power system the power factor is a function of
the phase angle between voltage and current, and the phase angle between
voltage and current determines "real power" Watts, from "Apparent power" VA,
and the real power subtracted from the apparent power leaves the "reactive
power or VAR", which is returned to the supply and then also does not contribute to the bill.

Which is why making reactive power circuits that "might" fool the meters and people
is appealing to some. If the power is manipulated in such a way so as the meter
sees current taken from one half cycle and delivered to the next half cycle
as well as the current frequency being double the voltage then we must
consider that the meter may not be able to measure that power correctly.

...

Peoples opinion of me personally is irrelevant. What matters is "what really is" not
what is presented to us as "what is".

Real Power or Watts = rate of energy delivery or dissipation.

Reactive power or VAR = Power not consumed by the load because it did not cause any dissipation of energy and so was not consumed.

Apparent power or VA = Those two added together.
..

Of course people can call things whatever they want, so it is important to ask questions so that what the person means can be clarified.
..

Just to clarify, when we power a light globe our intention is to heat up the
filament and make it output light that way, so all the power consumed by the
light globe and all the energy it dissipates is "intended output". The heating
of the circuit elements and so forth is "waste output" but it is real power in
Watts as it is dissipating energy. ie. the heat in the wires is output but it is
waste output heat energy.

..

[Web000x]

Well Well that is not what I call help. Again evading and very unwilling to show real kindness. Very much an insincere attitude.

Using meters and measuring loads is not the issue.

You come off as if you are helping "ALL BASED ON LOOK AT HOW RIGHT I AM"

That's it Farmboy, nothing more. I saw that from day one. Yes I will forgive you for your back stabbing snidely way of handling and manipulating.

If you don't care that is fine I am not responsible for your phony actions, so I will forgive you for my sake. What you do with what offensives you made is your business.

All of these people are highly intellectual individuals who understand all of the simple basics you project in their faces as if they were beneath you.

Give it a rest and enjoy the benefits of the extra energy training you so desperately need.

Also another lie, you stated before in other threads that you did get extra energy from circuits and now you will retrace these statements?

The trust has long since vanished, but hey that is your weakness and we all have them. Just relax and let someone teach you, this way you will have to lower yourself. Just try it for a second and you will find that it is well worth it.

Just say to yourself that you will put on like you are really not sure and tell everyone that you can't do anything with an extra energy circuit and someone will give you theirs.

You spoke to me in the cap dump thread only to elevate yourself. None of the information you suggested was anything new or out of the ordinary, just old EM news. I was kind to you then as I am now, telling you the straight truth.

So now that we are straight on measurements and have spoken out like real men, let's get on with it and stop posting rubbish to side trace the leaders here.

Nanosecond switching is one key. How else do you think the military can float a ship the size of a stadium? Not by the standards laws of confinement. Other energy mediums exist beyond standard Parroted EM EE nonsense.

No hard feelings bow, just the straight dope.

Mikey

Take it easy. Farmhand has a legitimate concern about how this circuit is being measured. I do believe that Jim Murray is very capable of taking power measurements, but there has been nobody, that I am aware, but himself and Paul to do so with this last experimental setup. It would be nice to see a multitude of measuring devices and qualified individuals verifying the power factor readings. It would greatly lend to the credibility of the claims. Checks and balances, my friend.

Dave

[Farmhand]

We will see, in the fulness of time we will see if this system is actually providing
over 50 Joules per second output with only just over 1 Joule per second input, We will see.

Abuse me all you want it will not change reality. Time and good measurements
will tell.

This forum is a bubble, outside it many people including many free energy
experimenters share my concerns, saying too much and asking too many
relevant questions here is not received well as we can see. So not many
people bother.

Where is the peer reviews and third party evaluations ?

In the time being, what are you doing to help show a replication ?

Power is not energy.

As I said on the other forum, if this is real it will be world changing tech, and
put the power companies out of profit, so if it works I will use it as well,
but not if it doesn't work. Keeping secret the details of such a needed device
is almost criminal.

If we take "in phase" power away from the load and make it become "out of
phase" that power will not contribute to the load power and will not be
consumed and will be returned to the supply.

I don't see how showing you conventional electronics is going to "elevate" me
I think you are projecting your own ego as if it was mine. It's your ego not
mine.

..