COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

[Listener192]

All,

Attached are measurements made on a single cap switching scheme, (also attached).

The Watts display is 20W per division. Ignore the units displayed in the Math function as AxB function takes its units from channel A or B, so to get the measurement table to display Watts I hade to change the Amps units on Channel 1 to Watts. This is a bug in the DS1104Z Rigol scope.

I increased the switch open times so you can see the zero line in the Watts display. I then included another shot with this line marked in red.

Source V & I phase is close to 0 deg.

If you look at the max and min in the Math measurement table it shows about 30W forward and 30W in reverse, with an average close to zero.

Load measurement in the Math measurement table is showing a 16W avergage.

Load V & I is in phase.

Barry

[Listener192]

All,

Higher resolution shots are available at

COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,

Along with the full set of circuit diagrams.

Barry

[Mario]

Hi Barry,

that's exactly what I got when I first started using my circuit. Coming from resonance experiments I started off with the right cap size. What you see is almost exactly what you get in a tuned tank circuit, if your pulses would be just a bit wider you wouldn't even see the switching anymore. You are basically emulating what happens between a tuned cap and coil. The thing in a tank circuit is when you insert a load in series the phase gets shifted away from the perfect 90 angle where the source isn't actually supplying anything. But here you are forcing the 90 degrees through switching.
Excellent!

Until I will finally get my zero crossing and control circuit I'll keep working on the switching on the output of my generator, have to work with halls, not as easy as your automatic setup…

Mario

[Listener192]

Hi Mario,

The off periods were left a little wide so people could see the zero line in the Watts display.

Yes, I think you are correct about forced resonance.

Barry

[Listener192]

All,

Not wishing to mislead anyone, I discovered that I had my voltage probe across the switches, instead on the source input. Just forgot to put it back after looking at transients across switches!

Having corrected the monitoring I changed the 6uF cap to 4uF to get the greatest V & I phase shift. The best I could achieve was approx 60 deg.

Looking at ratios not absolute measurements, for the source I have about 52.8W forward and 37.6W reverse (peak). The average power is 7.03W

For the load the average power is 6.21W

So I have not got close to replicating the Babcock Murray results yet.

Barry

[mikrovolt]

A look at the flux path of the dyna-flux.
Part 1 - Understanding Murray's Generator - YouTube

[BroMikey]

Great Answer

All,

Not wishing to mislead anyone, I discovered that I had my voltage probe across the switches, instead on the source input. Just forgot to put it back after looking at transients across switches!

Having corrected the monitoring I changed the 6uF cap to 4uF to get the greatest V & I phase shift. The best I could achieve was approx 60 deg.

Looking at ratios not absolute measurements, for the source I have about 52.8W forward and 37.6W reverse (peak). The average power is 7.03W

For the load the average power is 6.21W

So I have not got close to replicating the Babcock Murray results yet.

Barry

Thank you Barry for your honest assessment of your setup so far. My question to you and others who are replicating the flyback switch + dynaflux is can anyone please for my sake go a little deeper into how the dynaflux alt. works?

It is important to understanding how a standard transformer can simulate a switched reluctance. I don't know if I am saying this correctly.

Let me say this again, can anyone who is pursuing the SERPS explain DYNAFLUX operations? And how a switched reluctance relates to circuits that manipulate a standard transformer the same way?

Let me rephrase in order to explain what I feel is important.

How can we understand switch reluctance as it applies to the SERPS circuit?

I know you all may not be able to answer these simple questions for various reasons such as not being a teacher or the time involved having to work all day or many others.

Let me say that all of us as experimenters spend a lot of time on these circuits learning so time is not the issue here.


Teaching abilities or being able to explain an invention and the way it operates is paramount. At least to one's self. These definitions must be in the mind of the experimenter in order to complete any replication.


The other reason an explanation is not forth coming by replicators is that they are afraid that their definition would be embarrassingly wrong while those correctly THAT definition does not have as good a one.

The point is that in order to get funding to fuel these experiment the replicators need to show that they are capable first to go in the direction of the work. The work is not just to imitate a wave form but to merge two technologies.

If that is not true then we need to redefine the direction of the work and if it is true then a definition of switched reluctance and flyback switching is in order.

And how the two are similar. How each one helps the other to become the SERPS.

No one need answer til you have reevaluated these parameters and can answer comprehensively. This will not come over night. However to get us all on the same page as the inventors first and the replicators second some form of direction based on ANY kind of definition is in order.

"Well its in the patents" is not an answer. While this is true the replicators need to be able to repeat the ideas fluently, always focused on the goals of the design.


This should help the replicators the most knowing what is required.

Some will respond with "Why doesn't he leave us alone" or "It's none of his business" but really I haven't changed the subject and I am not asking more than what is required that replicators should know where they are headed.


Maybe we could hear from the experts who might get us all in the same vane.

Someday we will hear from Jim and Paul. Till then we will struggle even with simple definitions as to how these two technologies compliment one another.


Can you imagine a room full of Engineers all hired to reverse engineer a crash UFO, all afraid to offer their opinions for fear that it would be wrong?

Well it is about the same thing here, we just don't know and won't know unless as a collective we open up to one another so each one can add what they know.

In about 100 explanations of what each one thinks will get us that much closer. This is why the big money hires so many men who are knowledgeable about the subject THEY want pursued, they force these engineers to work together for a buck.

Down the road new technology will appear but the credit goes to 50 men? No the credit will go to a big name like GEORGE WESTINGHOUSE for example because he paid the bill for the 50 Engineers.

It is time to open up or go nowhere. That is what Paul and Jim had to do.

These are my thoughts of the way good progress is made and I do not expect most people to see it my way. Just an opinion.

Besides without having a definitions I sound like a stammering midget

Mike

[Listener192]

Hi BroMikey,

There are several switching schemes being tried to replicate SERPS. The basic principle is to use the timing of a capacitor charge/discharge through a load to force a condition where source V & I are close to 90 deg hence reactive power as far as the source is concerned but in phase power as far as the load is concerned.
So far the difference between the power applied and the power returned is less than the power in the load but it is close, this is the single cap variant.

It is thought that the two capacitor variant, one cap for the positive half cycle and one for the negative half cycle may offer the best result.

When driven by an alternator the returned power, assists alternator rotation for part of the rotational cycle.

This is similar to the dynaflux alternator where the flux is steered in a path which is not straight across the four pole pieces but is swept across them due to the oblique rotor shape. This means that the flux moves in two planes i.e. across and along the rotor. So apart from varying the flux across the pole pieces, i.e. performing a generator function the flux along the rotor, assists rotation for part of the rotational cycle.

Barry

[BroMikey]

It's a Start

Not Bad Barry

If I had the money Westinghouse had I would send it to help you because you are fearlessly quick to rise to any challenge. I am listening for any further explanations by other members as well.

Obviously there is much more to this invention and most of these phenomena can not yet be thoroughly put to any math equations that fit all the standard models.

We all need to remember Paul saying that the SERPS does not violate any of the current laws but in this field of invention there are many standard viewpoints that are mixed with an ever increasing number of new experimental thoughts.

40 years ago they called it the Quantum Leap.

Thanks for the simple answer.

BroMikey

[tachyoncatcher]

Resonance

Gentlemen,
I could be all wet, but I haven't read of any attempts while causing a ringing in the coils. Except by Paul that is. Jim has eluded to this, but Paul has said so directly. Paul has also said he uses LARGE inductors with many windings of small wire. Keeping the duty cycle extremely short. Just long enough to charge the coil, but evade the push back of Lenz. It seems to me this would be a balancing act of voltage, frequency and duty cycle. All calculable. You would need to know the resonant frequency of the coil and use that or one of its harmonics. Paul achieves this through his ferocious switching and Jim through bouncing flux created by his unique rotor.

I considered replicating the switching model of Paul's, but found the information too sparse and slow in the contributions of experience. I have since moved on to more active pursuits.

Good Luck Guys,

Randy

[mikrovolt]

Speculation of flux switching in the dyna-flux

I made this illustration from the youtube videos from user syncopetra on dyna-flux alternator in hopes it might further the understanding.

It is by speculation and needs a proof of concept.

flux path murray copy.jpg

The role of the red - green magnets shown are in repulsion mode and facilitate the direction that the flux will take toward the path of least resistance.
when the concept is understood the model can change to replace the repulsion magnets with electric magnets that gate the flux at the precise timing.
flux path murray2.jpg




A permanent magnet alternator is difficult to turn under load.
The low Lenz principles demonstrated by Jim Murray Alternator does not require much torque.

[Listener192]

Parallel Charge Series Discharge with shunt cap

All,

After trying many schemes, the parallel charge series discharge scheme with an added shunt cap across the source transformer secondary, appears to provide the correct conditions.

The switching does not have a gap between charge and discharge so the waveforms are not exactly the same as the Babcock Murray ppt presentation. My setup is in a different configuration at the moment, so I will have to make changes again to try this out.

Barry


$ 1 5.0E-6 17.532943091211475 50 5.0 50
r 576 208 672 208 0 200.0
w 800 288 800 240 0
r 800 288 800 320 0 0.01
c 800 320 800 384 0 8.0E-6 -20.254189688161517
r 800 448 800 480 0 0.01
c 800 480 800 560 0 8.0E-6 -20.254189688161503
178 736 288 736 368 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
178 912 400 912 480 0 1 1.0E-9 1.000000082740371E-5 0.05 1000000.0 1.0E-9 1000000.0
w 800 384 912 384 0
w 848 448 800 448 0
w 848 448 848 496 0
w 912 384 912 400 0
w 864 400 864 352 0
w 880 400 880 352 0
w 880 352 944 352 0
w 864 352 864 304 0
w 944 352 944 304 0
v 864 304 944 304 0 2 100.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.5
w 688 288 688 256 0
w 688 256 864 256 0
w 864 256 864 304 0
w 704 288 704 272 0
w 704 272 944 272 0
w 944 272 944 304 0
w 800 448 720 448 0
w 720 448 720 368 0
w 896 480 896 560 0
w 896 560 800 560 0
T 448 432 544 352 0 4.0 1.0 -4.1811425302460865 4.630913361807858 0.999
w 544 432 544 560 0
r 448 432 384 432 0 0.01
w 384 352 448 352 0
v 384 352 384 432 0 1 50.0 230.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 736 288 736 208 0
w 592 560 544 560 0
w 736 208 688 208 0
w 592 560 800 560 0
w 544 240 544 352 0
w 736 208 800 208 0
w 800 208 800 240 0
c 544 352 544 432 0 5.7499999999999995E-5 40.649719064582946
w 848 496 928 496 0
w 928 496 928 480 0
w 576 208 544 208 0
w 544 208 544 240 0
w 672 208 688 208 0
o 0 64 0 291 164.0373635303281 0.8201868176516406 0 -1
o 0 64 1 291 109.8546543268058 3.0517578125E-205 1 -1
o 32 64 0 291 458.22246269559935 9.16444925391199 2 -1
o 32 64 1 291 1047.4849945267654 4.8828125000000005E-155 3 -1

[Aaron]

upcoming live call

I'm finally with Jim & Paul in person and will be for a little while. When we released their presentation, there was an issue with the mail system so some people may not have been able to get added to the member's list.

I imported the emails of everyone who purchased their presentation into the member's list system - so if you want to be on a live call with them, you must open and click the confirmation link in an email that came to you recently with the subject line: Confirm your subscription

That is the list that the phone number, pin code, time, date, etc... will be sent to. Most likely, we will do it on a phone conference call, but I can put a speakerphone in front of us and I can record it on video.

I'll see if their schedule works for a call next week. Most likely, it will be in the evening maybe 5-6pm pacific time or so.

If you already have questions, please start posting them here and I can pass them on. That way we can just get on the call and start covering specifics really quick then we can open for live questions to cover even more.

[Mario]

Hi Aaron, Jim and Paul,

thank you for the opportunity to dig deeper into this. Since the release of the video I've been working on this quote a lot, first with an audio amp as a source, then with a motor driven generator that has the magnet norths only facing the coils, which still gives an almost perfect sine wave. This may or may not be ideal.

I just got a small 1 KW, 3 phase, neodymium magnet (wind) generator to make further tests on, but the 3 coils are star connected and I can't access the neutral. Should the SERPS effect still work if applied between 2 phases as a source (which gives me a sine wave which is the result of the vector sum of two sine waves)? Or do I have to have access to one coils terminals to do the switching on?

I have more questions regarding the switching timing which I will post, but this is the most urgent one for me to advance, since I'm putting this new setup together. If you tell me 2 phases won't work it will have saved me some time as I will try to locate a single phase generator. I suppose it has to be a generator with magnets though, correct?

thank you,

Mario

[Listener192]

Latest Result

All,

Attached is a scope shot showing transformer primary V, I & W.
I had issues with the zero cross circuit seeing the next half cycle switching transient and miss-triggering, however it is possible to run the circuit with a single half cycle, which you can see.

You can see from the power waveform that the return power through the load is almost equal to the forward power through the load. This particular waveform had a reversal of charge and discharge signals. The balance of charge and discharge current pulse amplitude was achieved by discharging into a different tap on the transformer secondary using a single capacitor.

I have found that a single capacitor for each half cycle is required and having solved the zero cross problems I starting testing both half cycles. This worked for a while and I was generating both half cycles but in pushing the power up I fried my MOSFET's so now I have to wait for parts to arrive to build some new switches. The cap value is not critical and 150uF was used.

You can see the transformer primary magnetising current (0.5W average) overlaid on the switching waveforms, confirmation that these measurements are on the primary of the transformer.

In this case the source power differential (1.77W Average)
and the power through the load (0.6W Average), were close in number and a really good test would be to increase power through the load, so the ratio is 10 to 1 or more with respect to the source differential power. This is the test aim after constructing some new switches that should handle higher peak voltage/current.

This does serve to illustrate that if the circuit can push power back into the primary source, it should be able to do the same with a generator. No other conclusions can be drawn as the load power was so low.

Barry