http://energyscienceconference.com/2014/07/09/jim-murray-paul-babcock-serps-cop-50-0-5000-presentation/
Aaron's topic here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/16966-cop-20-0-2000-demonstration-3.html#post261056
Jim Murray uses Paul Babcock's Proprietary switching circuit to Go OU in a live demonstration of his "Reactive Watts"Tech.
Stefan is also posting on this here
.http://www.overunity.com/14607/cop-20-00-2000-times-reactive-power-energy-source-generator/msg409120/#new
Chet
Hi Chet,
This is base on back EMF, I would not count my pennies yet.
They are using a PWM at 4-5 nanosecond frequency or 1-2 GHz.
I bet the meter can't read the correct input power due to high frequency EMF.
Just a word of CAUTION!
Tom
I really wanted to go to this conference and come home knowing exactly what parts I needed and how to put it together. Lets hope Aaron will work with us experimenters to replicate these demonstrations. I would be more than happy to apply this SERPS system to a motor/generator configuration and see if true self-looping is possible.
Chet, can you find Paul Babcock or FlyBack Energy patents for his 4-5ns switches? These are what we need to get rolling.
Hi Matt,
I have done lot of work on Back EMF, and this is just few experiments I did last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xLwBaub4lc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xLwBaub4lc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USe_yn0zitw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USe_yn0zitw)
This is running the motor from pure BEMF to turn a generator, also known as flyback effect.
This is my basic design.
Tom
BackEMF
I have a forum full of different designs for Inductive Kick Back circuit's. Even fooled myself a couple of time's-!with my own circuit's!.
Below is the one that go me(and about 15 other members)kicked out of TEEP,because apparently it would explode,and send shrapnel everywhere.\
:D
P.S -Hoppy,this is the one used in my window motor that you asked for some time ago.
Quote Chet: Aaron's topic here
Lol-there will be a book out in no time flat. Probably be around $18 to $25--->>>the secret's of OU transformer's.
Quote from: TinMan on 2014.07.10, 12:01:01
P.S -Hoppy,this is the one used in my window motor that you asked for some time ago.
Thanks TinMan.
One Watt in and 50 Watts out should be dead simple to loop and provide a stand alone energy generator after a kick start.
I remain deeply suspicious of anyone continuing to use batteries or remain plugged into the line that makes such claims.
This is common sense.
Its Err-on Murakami....enough said. C.C
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.07.10, 21:00:09
Its Err-on Murakami....enough said. C.C
Hi Poynt....we miss you here!
I doubt any of the devices exhibited at that conference were really OU.
Any device exhibiting known properties, such as inertia, or detection of a known signature, would be confiscated or rendered inoperable; assuming someone was there to investigate. All advertised, high-profile conferences would warrant an investigator.
Quote from: ION on 2014.07.10, 19:16:54
One Watt in and 50 Watts out should be dead simple to loop and provide a stand alone energy generator after a kick start.
I remain deeply suspicious of anyone continuing to use batteries or remain plugged into the line that makes such claims.
This is common sense.
A simple motor/generator pack connected to each side of this SERPS device would tell the story straight away. Even if the pack was C.O.P. ~ 30%, there would still be plenty left over to validate their claim. And with this pack, there wouldn't be any excuse about feedback electrical energy causing the SERPS not to run. Yeap, this and a simple transfer switch for starting and all doubts would be over.
Seems to me if one is prepared to go to a conference and do a live demonstration, that person should be willing to go all the way. A looper that maintains RPM and/or current flow over the course of a day and is not geo-specific, needn't have any gauges attached to get my attention.
Well I agree with Poynt99, The demonstration was done at a conference hosted by the Aaron Murikami cabal so I would give it no credence due to the fact that they have cried wolf way too many times.
If the boy who cried wolf was sacked from his job and replaced by the villagers after the first two false alarms then they would likely still have their sheep. The villagers only have themselves to blame.
..
Agreed
These guys are always hiding behind the "battery charge and swap" shell game or the "reactive power" shell game.
None however will demonstrate a truly stand alone system that can deliver.
The Steve Mark, T. Henry Moray, Coler and Hendershott devices (to name a few) are the only ones that impress me with stand alone operation, and I'm not totally (100%) convinced those were real.
Smudge has generously offered his interesting papers to us and has outlined some possible new directions for experiment.
The DeGeus patents posted by Peter with translation assistance by Itsu also remain noteworthy for new directions.
I've been put on moderation at OU.com and I refuse to make more posts there in that thread, so I'll post here.
I would appreciate any input from the very knowledgeable folks here.
Considering the scheme (attached) presented by Stefan as a possible switching scheme for the device this thread is about.
Wouldn't the charging of the capacitors through the lamp mean that the lamp sees a reducing voltage across it as the capacitor charges ?
And if so wouldn't that mean that the output power measurements would be skewed larger than the actual power consumed by the lamps ?
Because the power charging the capacitors which is returned is considered as output ?
And wouldn't all the losses in the switches and the capacitors also be getting measured as output ?
Something doesn't add up with all this in my mind.
Regards
P.S. My interest in this is purely for the possibility of trying to rule out problems with measurements taken on such a system.
Oh and how would the manipulation of the power affect the metering both household and killawatt in line meters.
Hi Farmhand,
Like most of OU claims, the secret is in the details.
Most people over react due to the fact of where is this power coming from. Instead they look at the power coming out.
Capacitors are energy charge banks, the problem is the energy to recharge them can be much more then what you can get out. This is due to discharge time verse charge state.
Joules are rated in a capacitor with the basic formula 1/2*c*(v^2), but it takes more energy to store this charge then you can get out, due to in-efficiency, like all things you have a waste moving from point A to B.
I would bet that most of these OU claims has a magic trick to them all!
If a rabbit came out of the hat, then who put the rabbit in it :-\?
Tom
Quote Farmhand: I've been put on moderation at OU.com and I refuse to make more posts there in that thread, so I'll post here.
Ah C.C, reminds me of the days at EF and UFO polotics thread lol. Seems there are a few forums that are taking the shape of the government's,and censoring what you say,so as it's to there liking's. One of the reason's i like OUR,as Peter is pretty fair in letting everyone put there points and views across.
Quote: Wouldn't the charging of the capacitors through the lamp mean that the lamp sees a reducing voltage across it as the capacitor charges ?
Yes indeed. As the potential difference decreases,so dose the power being delivered to the lamp's.
Simple test-take a 12 volt battery,10 000uf cap,and 12 volt car lamp. Hook all in series,and as the cap voltage rises,the lamp brightness decreases,right up until the cap reaches the battery voltage,and then no current flows. Now there was a certain amount of power used to do this,but then what is in the cap is then returned back to the battery-this is the power they are not taking away from the P/out reading's.
I had a similar device,that was showing the same result's as the mentioned. It was actualy here on OUR. But after going through some carful measurements with Poynt,we worked out exactly what was going on. I'll see if i can dig up the video's.
And some times power meters can be fooled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcPKz7uEq-8
Yeah Tommy Magicians don't annoy me as we know they are doing tricks, with props and assistants (crowd shills).
The people in denial about magicians do annoy me, it is so bad these days the magicians can use simple mechanical
props (like the bend over backwards defying gravity trick), he uses a leg brace which attaches to the ground and
can only bend so far, probably with spring or pneumatic return assist. Very simple, it's engineering and deception,
not magic. Makes me crook (sick to the stomach) to see the crowds pay money to be fooled and even worse when
they use crowds on a street and shills to make TV shows, which makes it even easier to trick the TV audience.
Some magicians are very good, and entertaining (like the guy with the birds on Britain's got talent),
he was funny and very very tricky. ;D But I can say one thing for sure, he doesn't create birds out of thin air. ;)
This reactive power myth needs to be put to rest. As most of us can see by logic and common sense that all
reactive power with grid systems originates from the grid input, and if it isn't returned it's converted to real power
in the load or as losses and payed for if it's not paid for then it's consumed without paying for it, which has
obvious problems. Theft and prosecution.
TinMan, the Moderation of me is a bit odd there was no warning I would be moderated, and if I make replies they
end up being made obsolete or hidden back in the thread by the time they get approved, eg. I replied to Grummage
about my experience with a phase fighting motor, mine almost shook the whole hut it was so violent.
It seems some of my posts might be left unapproved as well, is that censorship ? Not my call. Not to worry I can still walk,
my legs aren't broken so it could be worse.
As for the SERP's or whatever they're calling it, it seems like it'll be another one of those situations where it will be debunked
but the numbers of faithful believers will keep it rolling on indefinitely anyway and create enough revenue for them for it to
be worthwhile. But will anyone get a system they can plug into the wall and feed OU energy back to the grid via grid tie and
be paid for it. Somehow I don't think so.
Cheers
These guys always seem to need funding to get to the "next level". What ever happened to starting small and building a product that will cause the world will beat a path to your door.
They should reach into their own wallets, mortgage their homes, and build their business from the ground up, that is, if they truly believe in their device.
e.g. build a heater that only consumes 1/50 the of the power of resistive heaters yet delivers the same BTU. The world will beat a path to their door and they can send the design to be built anywhere in the world to keep pace with orders.
These days you don't need the investment of a factory, there are enough electronic productiion facilities begging for work.
I really believe these guys will want to eat lobster, drink fine wine (all on investor money) and they will deliver nothing as the production model is always one little problem away.
I have seen it all too often, including the lament of folks that get stung by such operations.
If something real comes along, you will know it without needing additional references to TESLA thrown in the soup.
Hello TinMan,
I would say that charging a capacitor does take more energy.
"The problem of the "energy stored on a capacitor" is a classic one because it has some counterintuitive elements. To be sure, the battery puts out energy QVb in the process of charging the capacitor to equilibrium at battery voltage Vb. But half of that energy is dissipated in heat in the resistance of the charging pathway, and only QVb/2 is finally stored on the capacitor at equilibrium. The counter-intuitive part starts when you say "That's too much loss to tolerate. I'm just going to lower the resistance of the charging pathway so I will get more energy on the capacitor." This doesn't work, because the energy loss rate in the resistance"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng2.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng2.html)
Tom..
When a good quality inductor is used in the path to charge a capacitor, the losses can be minimized.
A near lossless current source is therefore applied to the capacitor to minimize charge loss. A discharging inductor is just the ticket.
This is the basis of modern flyback designs, which can approach or exceed 95%.
Ion Beat me but I'll post without changing.
Ahh yes but that's just a battery and a capacitor. Is it the same result when an indcutor is added to the mix ? I can't recall exact details but I think Poynt99 showed that if we charge the capacitor through a low resistance inductance the result varies depending on factors.
ie, if we take a 12 volt battery a switch then a coil and a capacitor then we charge the capacitor to the correct volts via the coil then open the switch the coil will discharge it's energy into the coil and it's output will charge the cap to 12 volts. I think the results Poynt99 got was that if the correct coil and capacitance is used the capacitor can be charged at better than 50% efficiency. Would be difficult to explain above 80% efficiency from boost converters if that were not true I think.
Regardless there is still losses, and the main point is that the lamps will see a decreasing voltage due to an increasing voltage (counter emf) on/from the capacitor and that will decrease the power dissipated by the bulbs. In a way a Joule Thief circuit powering LED's with less than 100% duty but at the LED's rated voltage will make the LED's bright and we cannot see the LED's flicker unless the frequency is very low, however the amount of light emitted is less than the amount of light emitted when the LED's are powered 100% of the time, brightness is not the same as the amount of light, just like power is not energy. With a Joule thief if I try it in the dark with pulsed LED's the light is not as good as when LED's are driven by Smooth DC.
So even though the Lamps are bright because of the nature of the applied power the amount of light they emit may not be the same as when the lamp is powered by sinusoidal AC. So there seems there may be a major problem with the way they are determining the output power and the input power.
The bright lamps look convincing enough to allay most peoples concerns, But energy in compared to energy out is the way to determine OU or over C.O.P.=1.0.
..
Hi,
Lost means just that, in-efficient
No mater how you want to think capacitors are the answers for free energy, they are not 100% efficiency.
Most real experiments show 50% output of energy, then what was added to capacitors.
If you look at the time to charge the cap verse the time you pull energy yo will see a great loss of power.
Tom.
Quote from: Tommey Reed on 2014.07.13, 16:05:56
Hi,
Lost means just that, in-efficient
No mater how you want to think capacitors are the answers for free energy, they are not 100% efficiency.
Most real experiments show 50% output of energy, then what was added to capacitors.
If you look at the time to charge the cap verse the time you pull energy yo will see a great loss of power.
Tom.
Umm, who do you assume thinks that and why ? Maybe a misunderstanding.
Boost converters charge a capacitor via a switched coil and they can be over 90% efficient with synchronous rectification. How would you explain that ?
96% efficient synchronous boost converter.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/slvs451f/slvs451f.pdf..
I built one I measured at about 90% efficient under the conditions I tested it.
Nothing's free unless it goes over 100% efficient.
..
Hi Farmhand,
Where should I start?
First of all listen what you just said, 90% efficiency in what?
Electricity at 100% is just that, but when you start moving electrons from A to B in any electrical form you have a lost.
Taking power from a capacitor is another lost even if you claim 90% that is questionable with real power drain that need to do work. Lighting a LED or simple test is just foolish to make claims that high.
If that was the case, my solar power is OVER UNITY, by the way it works only when the sun is out O0.
When dealing with power like 1hp(746w) I bet you will find your 90% fall shorter then your claims.
My opinion is clear, it's not what these clowns claim it to be.
No free energy, but maybe people will give free $$ at the end!
Tom O0
My boost converter was 90% efficient at lighting a couple of 6 watt filament bulbs, but it wasn't designed for 100's of Watts.
If a small boost converter can be 90% efficient then a large one can as well. The manufacturers of the chip I linked claim 96% efficiency, I believe them, 96% is 96% is 96%.
Anyway this is off topic and a simple side note is to say that no one disputes that if we charge a capacitor from a battery we lose 50% of the energy.
Back to the topic of the SERP's please. If you want to dispute the efficiency possible with boost converters you might want to start another thread about that, then
we can present our evidences there.
And what made you think I was claiming any free energy ? Please explain. You obviously have not read many of my posts. And did not read the posts I made here properly.
If a boost converter tests 90% efficient it is hardly foolish. The power level is irrelevant. Do not insult me. It isn't necessary. I can be insulting as well, wanna see ?
......
So when the caps in the scheme Stefan posted are charging the lamps will see a reducing voltage. I think that
would adversely affect the amount of light the lamps would emit. If what Stefan proposes is the actual switching scheme
then I think the results they show as scope shots might be wrong.
The efficiency of charging capacitors need not be relevant to the point I'm trying to make.
....
Farmhand
I don't have time to play games, My opinions stands.
Move on...
I have better things to do, then fighting a lost cause of other people opinions.
I will say it one more time, this is not free energy just another magic trick that no one has discovery yet.
O0
Quote from: Tommey Reed on 2014.07.13, 20:27:06
Farmhand
I will say it one more time, this is not free energy just another magic trick that no one has discovery yet.
O0
Yes Tom,that is what FarmHand is saying.
I'll take one for the team with this.
When Aaron puts his video up for sale, I'll buy it (as much as I hate to) then ride him a little to explain what I'm really looking at. Call it the "leave no stone unturned" approach to OUR. Even if this turns out to clearly be a magic trick, maybe, just maybe there is something that sparks the imagination, fills a hole, makes us look at the same stuff we have looked at for years a different way. As my Pa used to say, "You pay your money and take your chances." I have said, "Nope, don't work" to much bigger fish without anyone getting hostile; I can surely do it again.
Tommy, I think you have a reading comprehension problem, I've been saying clearly that the SERP's is a scam, it has to be, common sense tells us that.
I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was saying anything in favor of the device. Has to be a comprehension problem. I refuse to allow people to put words into my mouth I did not say.
Somehow we got off on the wrong foot. Could it have something to do with this thread from OU.com http://www.overunity.com/14679/making-a-back-emf-motor-generator-and-load-testing/#.U8MirpSSyk4
I predicted that the generator coils would show the spikes and that's what happened. I thought I was helping, but I guess you know everything and I know nothing.
I'm not playing games you are, you misunderstand me then insult me and tell me to move on. Whaaat. Get a grip. Lets make a agreement, I won't reply to your posts and
you don't reply to my posts, problem solved. Basically if you make out I am saying something I am not I have no choice but to set things straight.
Now that we've sorted out the problem and I know others can see what I said is what i said, there's no need to continue. Don't make out I am saying things I didn't say and don't insult me and we be fine, no problems.
I was simply trying to clear up a misunderstanding, and you say I'm playing games. Not so it's the opposite.
..
Farmhanded,
I was not talking about that other stuff, we all know there is a scam at work, the capacitor claims you have open up about getting 90% efficient was my questions.
Farmhand, "My boost converter was 90% efficient at lighting a couple of 6 watt filament bulbs, but it wasn't designed for 100's of Watts."
You must have the comprehension problem, you're right no need to answer!
Move on...
;)
Tom
Burried here some where,is a thread that an ex member showed how to charge a cap with near 100% efficiency. His name was Exnihiloest-very smart man. Maybe some one can dig up that thread,and the schematic for efficiently charging a cap.
There are a lot of good threads here! Why new posters don't read the forums that they post in is beyond me?
Here's the freebie video, of the panel discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JJpGhgqu6A
And a bit more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6fpN6avIc
Notice that Jim did mention connecting this to an MG (motor/generator), which fits exactly with my other post on the subject. Just so happens I have such a setup ready and waiting.
And yes, I did shell out my 37 dollars to these guys. I'll let you know if there is anything in there we can discuss.
Okay, watched the video and for my 37 bucks, here's two key points I found:
The SERPS uses a process to pull electrical energy from the generation source, through the load and into a storage device (cap or inductor). It then turns this collected power around, pushes it through the load again and sends it back to the source. In the case of a generator, for a brief moment, it turns the generator into a motor, cutting the true energy consumption down by at least half. And with load getting to utilize the same chunk of energy twice, total power usage goes below 25% minimum.
The second key point is Paul's high-speed switching behaves as a mechanical switch. It uses a MOSFET in parallel (or series -- not 100% sure) with an SCR so that it can be turned on and off at speeds approaching 5ns, using a digital control that pre calculates the delay overlap. This allows large inductors to be switched before the voltage climbs too high to deal with.
Lots of other interesting pictures and comments, but the above are the items someone might be able to make real use of.
Hi Matt,
I'm sorry but when I see some of the clowns like Eric Dollard and others make claims it just proves it's a total scam, that's my opinion!
Did you get a refund?
Tom
Quote from: Tommey Reed on 2014.07.18, 01:06:49
Did you get a refund?
No, not yet. What I saw in the video is similar enough to Doug Konzen's work that I figure I'll at least give it a try before I do any bashing. So the jury is still out...