Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube REGISTER NOW*** 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


Monero XMR


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:34 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
Arrow COP 20.0 (2000%) Demonstration

Using reactive power an energy source. Actually able to utilize "reactive watts". This is using a Tesla method that only a few ever figured out. It is based on a 4 quadrant model of course.

2000% (COP 20.0) Reactive Power as Energy Demonstration | 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:21 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,713
Lightbulb

I really like this video and this device.

Wattage becomes reactive.

A schematic would be awesome.

Amazing.

Regards,

VIDBID
__________________
 

Last edited by vidbid; 05-06-2014 at 06:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-06-2014, 09:37 AM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,635
Its very interesting, when I played around with resonance on electric motors I got poor mechanical performance, trying to get an electrical recovery killed off the resonance, but I did get a huge amount of heat.

Typically around 50 to 65% of a universal motors input is converted to heat. When operating it on a resonant circuit the mechanical output of my 1Kw motor dropped from 35% to about 17% but it literally heated up more than twice as fast. I concluded that the gains in resonance, and the extra losses, were being manifested in heat. Now you know why my ears pricked up when I saw this video. The only ways that I could detect resonance was a screaming sound from the coils, and a gain in voltage on the scope.

If I can find the results, I will post them just for people that may be interested.

Basically the circuit was a standard 220v 1Kw universal motor (Cut off saw) with a capacitor in parallel, I used bipolar switching at 620Hz (as fast as I could get with my primitive equipment) approximately 10% duty cycle, with a DC 22Ov 4A supply, smoothed by a 16000uf capacitor. I cant remember the capacitor rating across the motor but it was quite small. The motor oscillated at around 6.2 KHz if my memory serves me correctly.

The resonance jumped the voltage way up, and I nearly burned out the motor. I then dropped the input voltage to 120v but even so, on occasion the motor hit nearly 300v oscillations. My limiting factor was the big capacitor as it was too slow to dump current efficiently at 600Hz. If I had used smaller capacitors in a bank, it may have worked better, and could have resulted in more torque, but I suspected that it may just increase heat and gave up on it.

My variac could only supply 4A, so I was limited by that too, but the current pulses would have been much higher. The trick was to hit the motor with the current, just as the oscillation past its zero point on the rise. It was a failed attempt at running the motor on resonance, but it did produce an alarming amount of heat.

Of course in the video thy are feeding power back to the supply and that is far better that I was able to do
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-06-2014, 04:42 PM
SilverToGold's Avatar
SilverToGold SilverToGold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 429
Hi Aaron,

Just to be clear, are you saying that the actual circuit will be given to us at the conference from this amazing demonstration? Or just the principles alone from which we are to work out the circuit for ourselves?

Thanks for your part in bringing this all together. Seems like it's going to be quite a conference!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-06-2014, 05:29 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,897
Wave form

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Using reactive power an energy source. Actually able to utilize "reactive watts". This is using a Tesla method that only a few ever figured out. It is based on a 4 quadrant model of course.

2000% (COP 20.0) Reactive Power as Energy Demonstration | 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Hi Aaron

I am wondering about the scope shot. I see two waves. One is voltage and one is current or is one watts and one reactive watts?

What are we looking at on his scope?

Pretty awesome wave shape whatever it's origin.

Thanks for the great video. The cat is out of the bag and there are to many experimenters doing OU, so it is only a matter of time.

I am willing to bet that this is the way Eric has increased or magnified his collected energy when he camps out in the woods.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:09 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
Dynaflux Generator

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverToGold View Post
Hi Aaron,

Just to be clear, are you saying that the actual circuit will be given to us at the conference from this amazing demonstration? Or just the principles alone from which we are to work out the circuit for ourselves?

Thanks for your part in bringing this all together. Seems like it's going to be quite a conference!
For sure, the principles will be discussed. I do not know if the exact schematic will be shared. But for anyone trying to turn reactive power into real usable energy, the lecture should make it click for "everyone" that has been doing it wrong.

Without having an electrical engineering background myself, it is almost like common sense now how to make an AC generator power a load without it seeing a load.

I'd recommend everyone at least look at Jim Murray's patents. This is part of his motor generator setups: 4,780,632

Anyway, here is the lecture description that Paul gave me for their presentation: Paul Babcock & Jim Murray Presentation Description | 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-06-2014, 06:16 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
waveform

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
What are we looking at on his scope?
I'd have to get clarification on that.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-06-2014, 08:45 PM
SilverToGold's Avatar
SilverToGold SilverToGold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 429
Thanks Aaron,

While I probably won't be able to attend the conference, I will certainly be looking forward to buying the video for this particular presentation.

It says that it's based on Eric's 4 quadrant theory.... is it necessary for one to be familiar with this for us to understand the 4 quadrant theory so that we can make a practical machine?

Reactive power has always fascinated me and I enjoy Jim and Paul's past videos. So looking forward for something that can tie it all together so I can do something practical on a bench from all of this. I just want to see something working on my own bench in regards to reactive power!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
For sure, the principles will be discussed. I do not know if the exact schematic will be shared. But for anyone trying to turn reactive power into real usable energy, the lecture should make it click for "everyone" that has been doing it wrong.

Without having an electrical engineering background myself, it is almost like common sense now how to make an AC generator power a load without it seeing a load.

I'd recommend everyone at least look at Jim Murray's patents. This is part of his motor generator setups: 4,780,632

Anyway, here is the lecture description that Paul gave me for their presentation: Paul Babcock & Jim Murray Presentation Description | 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-06-2014, 11:12 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,897
Reactive Power

Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post
I really like this video and this device.

Wattage becomes reactive.

A schematic would be awesome.

Amazing.

Regards,

VIDBID
Power is wattage. Volts X Amps = Watts so reactive power is reactive wattage. The term real power and reactive power are terms that electrical engineers use.

For instance to run a wind turbine motors are used in reverse to send current back to the grid when the wind blows these motors are tuned by engineers with capacitors.

This reactive power has been known to be collected to save huge sums of money for the last 100 years in large industrial plants.

This is old news.

In the video we see men talking about energy harvesting and CALLING it by terms that engineers and the public can relate to. The men also mention using their energy harvesting apparatus connected to a wind turbine.

This is a well thought out approach to implement a new technology along side of the wind and solar as a way to camouflage.

There must be some form of energy to get the process going so these are great choices because wind turbines are being built already. Why not make them 100X more efficient?

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-07-2014, 12:32 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
Using Reactive Power

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverToGold View Post
Thanks Aaron,

While I probably won't be able to attend the conference, I will certainly be looking forward to buying the video for this particular presentation.

It says that it's based on Eric's 4 quadrant theory.... is it necessary for one to be familiar with this for us to understand the 4 quadrant theory so that we can make a practical machine?

Reactive power has always fascinated me and I enjoy Jim and Paul's past videos. So looking forward for something that can tie it all together so I can do something practical on a bench from all of this. I just want to see something working on my own bench in regards to reactive power!
Jim worked with Eric in the past and Jim being a math and engineering genius, he understands Eric's Four Quadrant Theory inside and out. I believe this is part of the inspiration for some of his work but I'm not sure to what degree.

Jim's solid state and AC motor/generator technology is certainly based on a four quadrant system but at this time, possibly, it is not necessary to understand the Four Quadrant Theory taught by Eric. What I know is that the principles are fairly straight forward and are more simple that most people would believe. It is all in the switching. The best I can say is that it aligns the voltage and current of the reactive power so that it is usable watts. I may not be using those terms correctly, but in principle, I know what I mean.

Jim Murray has been trying to teach this for years but nobody was really that interested - really. You can see his patents that a lot of time, energy and large investment capital has gotten him to where he is now. What you see in the video is actually for quite a while back. That is not a new demonstration by any means.

Of course Eric has years of experience with these exact same circuit concepts so none of it is new to him.

Paul and Jim are working together because Paul's Lenz free motor he discusses in Magnetic Energy Secrets is virtually identical to the principles that Jim has been working on - they both came upon them independently of each other. Paul's motor is patented too and so is his switching methods. Those are worth studying to get more of the frame of reference through which they're engineering these things.

I would love nothing more than to be able to publish a specific schematic for people to be able to experiment with, but it's also not my call. I won't know the content of their presentation until they actually deliver it. In any case, I believe their presentation will share more info about using reactive power, from people that know how to do it, than anything that has ever been publicly presented anywhere since Tesla.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-07-2014, 02:59 AM
JohnnBlade's Avatar
JohnnBlade JohnnBlade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post

Without having an electrical engineering background myself, it is almost like common sense now how to make an AC generator power a load without it seeing a load.
Hi Aaron,

So what i have is that reactive power to? My device does not notice it loads.
ACMMJB TPU ECD QEG Load Test And Short Circuit - YouTube

I never heard of reactive power, i dont even know what it means untill you shared that movie. And i still dont understand it

Thnx!

Greets JB
__________________
http://youtube.com/johnnblade
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 05-07-2014, 05:09 AM
Farmhand Farmhand is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,389
Here Johnny, Here is a reference paper and other links to help you understand.

Reactive power paper
http://www.uksldc.org/Download/reactive_power.pdf

True, Reactive, and Apparent power : Power Factor

Quote:
Confusions:

The undisputable law of conservation of energy states, “energy can neither be created
nor be destroyed”; yet we talk about Conservation of Energy!! The confusions erupt
when we yells out the theory of conservation ignoring other theories of
thermodynamics - like one, which states that entropy (low quality energy) is ever
increasing. Mathematical sum of total energy has no meaning to an energy user, and
hence he must be concerned about the efficiency of conversion and conservation of
energy
. Similarly, though we can mathematically prove that loss in reactive power is
no real loss
and no reactive energy is lost, we have several other reasons to be
concerned about reactive power improvement. This can be better explained by
physical analogies.
Basically when we have different loads on an AC supply the phase angle
between voltage and current changes, when the phase angle is 0 degrees the power
Factor is 1.0 and all energy transferred to the load is consumed by the load none
is returned to the supply, all power transferred is "real" power or "true" power,
it got used.


However if the load is other than purely resistive like a motor the phase angle between
voltage and current will change and some of the energy transferred to the
motor will be released and return to the supply, that is reactive power it is
energy not dissipated by the load and is transferred back to the supply, simply
put. And at a Phase difference of 90 degrees between voltage and current
the power factor is 0.0 and no energy can be transferred.

If the phase difference of V and Current is eg. 60 degrees then 60 x cosine = 0.5 power factor,
so 50 % of the applied or apparent power is not dissipated in the load and
transferred back to the supply.

Now we can easily make provision to convert that reactive power back into real power and dissipate it in a load already.

I could probably find Tesla's own words from a book where he states that the
closer the real power value (consumed power) is to the apparent power
(power initially applied) then the better the system is working, meaning he
tried to minimize reactive power to improve efficiency.

By definition reactive power becomes real power the instant it is consumed or used.

I thought Eric Dollard said there was no free energy fuse box.

Cheers
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-07-2014, 05:56 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
power factor

@Mike - thank you!

@JB, hard for me to see really what your experiment is, but I'll explain power factor in terms that made sense to me. Farmhand is right on the definition, but I'll add something to it.

@Farmhand, I understand your explanation about power factor but I'll throw in the horse/rail analogy. I believe Eric saying there is no free energy fusebox was a matter of semantics because he doesn't believe in "free energy". He does however talk about energy synthesis and de-synthesis. Occasionally, he will casually mention the "free energy fusebox" but that is not in any technical discussion, just a reference to what it is referenced as. Yes, it exists, and is self-runs and keeps the batteries charged up by whatever name you want to call it - completely real "free energy" "overunity" self running device.

For power factor - there is a common analogy.... if there is a traincar on some tracks and the horse pulling it is not on the tracks but off at a 45 degree angle for example, and the horse moves forward, the traincar will still move down the tracks, but there is still this incongruity between the horse and its angle in relation to the traincar. The move forward, work is being done, but not very efficiently. The power factor would be like 0.5 or so.

However, if the horse moves over and onto the tracks so that it is in perfect alignment with the train and both are moving forward, the train can move with less energy being wasted and if they're perfectly aligned, that is like a power factor of 1.0.

It isn't a perfect analogy because I would argue that the reactive power in the horse/traincar example is bogus because work IS being done. The horse has to work harder to pull the car the same. But the point is that it isn't being consumed by the train, which is the intended load. So I guess this extra work is "returned to the source" which is the horse so it is still a pretty good analogy.

If you have bad power factor loads, it does strain the power company more. One of my friends here was a linesman and he used to put "snoops" on the line when the power company thought some company had too bad of a power factor. They will penalize the company for that bad power factor causing problems at the generator end and if it isn't corrected, they will even shut off the power completely.

Again, this is my total layman explanation but you have experienced these discrepencies between the voltage and current yourself but probably didn't know that is what it was.

When an old refrigerator (compressor motor is inductive load) kicks on, the lights might dim for a moment then it goes normal. That surge is a discrepancy between the voltage and current running the inductive load then it normalizes to a point. If there is a capacitor that is tuned for the load on the line between that compressor motor and the wall, that capacitor will be like a buffer that normalizes that power factor so there isn't a surge on the line and the power factor is corrected.

Many inductive loads are already power factor corrected like the CFL bulbs from Europe (probably not in the states), newer refrigerators I believe, etc... so bad power factor isn't as bad as it used to be.

Another friend worked at an electrical billing center in my town that does billing for major department stores all over the country, etc... and it lists their average power factor. Some are as low as .6, .7 (some worse) - that means they are paying for electricity that are not even using and by simply power factor correcting their loads, they will save a fortune. I'm talking about companies spending 5-6 figures a month on electricity.

@All, if this explanation is incorrect, please jump in.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-07-2014, 07:32 AM
sturgeon sturgeon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 39
Superb!

Excellent Video!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-07-2014, 08:19 AM
Cornboy 555's Avatar
Cornboy 555 Cornboy 555 is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 802
Hello Arron, I really admire your enthusiasm to explain alternative technologies to all.

Thanks Cornboy.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-07-2014, 02:20 PM
JohnnBlade's Avatar
JohnnBlade JohnnBlade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 150
Thnx for the info/help Farmhand! I appreciate it

I will study this more.

Greets JB




Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmhand View Post
Here Johnny, Here is a reference paper and other links to help you understand.

Reactive power paper
http://www.uksldc.org/Download/reactive_power.pdf

True, Reactive, and Apparent power : Power Factor



Basically when we have different loads on an AC supply the phase angle
between voltage and current changes, when the phase angle is 0 degrees the power
Factor is 1.0 and all energy transferred to the load is consumed by the load none
is returned to the supply, all power transferred is "real" power or "true" power,
it got used.


However if the load is other than purely resistive like a motor the phase angle between
voltage and current will change and some of the energy transferred to the
motor will be released and return to the supply, that is reactive power it is
energy not dissipated by the load and is transferred back to the supply, simply
put. And at a Phase difference of 90 degrees between voltage and current
the power factor is 0.0 and no energy can be transferred.

If the phase difference of V and Current is eg. 60 degrees then 60 x cosine = 0.5 power factor,
so 50 % of the applied or apparent power is not dissipated in the load and
transferred back to the supply.

Now we can easily make provision to convert that reactive power back into real power and dissipate it in a load already.

I could probably find Tesla's own words from a book where he states that the
closer the real power value (consumed power) is to the apparent power
(power initially applied) then the better the system is working, meaning he
tried to minimize reactive power to improve efficiency.

By definition reactive power becomes real power the instant it is consumed or used.

I thought Eric Dollard said there was no free energy fuse box.

Cheers
__________________
http://youtube.com/johnnblade
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-07-2014, 02:40 PM
JohnnBlade's Avatar
JohnnBlade JohnnBlade is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 150
Hi Aaron,

Thnx for your explanation to, good to visualize it

My experiment is the Tesla Patent 381.970 aka System of Electrical distribution or the Alternating Current Magneto Machine.

If my phases are not tuned properly then it starts to add more amps on input, but when properly tuned, the amps on input does not get affected by the load.

Has this something to do with when Tesla used 2 or 4 phases, but he saw he could use 1 phase by just only adding a resistor to make it 2 phases, thus making the device a bit more efficient ( or am i totally wrong here? )

I will study all this more, cause i really want to understand this in depth.


Greets JB



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
@Mike - thank you!

@JB, hard for me to see really what your experiment is, but I'll explain power factor in terms that made sense to me. Farmhand is right on the definition, but I'll add something to it.

@Farmhand, I understand your explanation about power factor but I'll throw in the horse/rail analogy. I believe Eric saying there is no free energy fusebox was a matter of semantics because he doesn't believe in "free energy". He does however talk about energy synthesis and de-synthesis. Occasionally, he will casually mention the "free energy fusebox" but that is not in any technical discussion, just a reference to what it is referenced as. Yes, it exists, and is self-runs and keeps the batteries charged up by whatever name you want to call it - completely real "free energy" "overunity" self running device.

For power factor - there is a common analogy.... if there is a traincar on some tracks and the horse pulling it is not on the tracks but off at a 45 degree angle for example, and the horse moves forward, the traincar will still move down the tracks, but there is still this incongruity between the horse and its angle in relation to the traincar. The move forward, work is being done, but not very efficiently. The power factor would be like 0.5 or so.

However, if the horse moves over and onto the tracks so that it is in perfect alignment with the train and both are moving forward, the train can move with less energy being wasted and if they're perfectly aligned, that is like a power factor of 1.0.

It isn't a perfect analogy because I would argue that the reactive power in the horse/traincar example is bogus because work IS being done. The horse has to work harder to pull the car the same. But the point is that it isn't being consumed by the train, which is the intended load. So I guess this extra work is "returned to the source" which is the horse so it is still a pretty good analogy.

If you have bad power factor loads, it does strain the power company more. One of my friends here was a linesman and he used to put "snoops" on the line when the power company thought some company had too bad of a power factor. They will penalize the company for that bad power factor causing problems at the generator end and if it isn't corrected, they will even shut off the power completely.

Again, this is my total layman explanation but you have experienced these discrepencies between the voltage and current yourself but probably didn't know that is what it was.

When an old refrigerator (compressor motor is inductive load) kicks on, the lights might dim for a moment then it goes normal. That surge is a discrepancy between the voltage and current running the inductive load then it normalizes to a point. If there is a capacitor that is tuned for the load on the line between that compressor motor and the wall, that capacitor will be like a buffer that normalizes that power factor so there isn't a surge on the line and the power factor is corrected.

Many inductive loads are already power factor corrected like the CFL bulbs from Europe (probably not in the states), newer refrigerators I believe, etc... so bad power factor isn't as bad as it used to be.

Another friend worked at an electrical billing center in my town that does billing for major department stores all over the country, etc... and it lists their average power factor. Some are as low as .6, .7 (some worse) - that means they are paying for electricity that are not even using and by simply power factor correcting their loads, they will save a fortune. I'm talking about companies spending 5-6 figures a month on electricity.

@All, if this explanation is incorrect, please jump in.

__________________
http://youtube.com/johnnblade
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-07-2014, 04:01 PM
wrtner wrtner is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
@Mike - thank you!

@JB, hard for me to see really what your experiment is, but I'll explain power factor in terms that made sense to me. Farmhand is right on the definition, but I'll add something to it.

@Farmhand, I understand your explanation about power factor but I'll throw in the horse/rail analogy. I believe Eric saying there is no free energy fusebox was a matter of semantics because he doesn't believe in "free energy". He does however talk about energy synthesis and de-synthesis. Occasionally, he will casually mention the "free energy fusebox" but that is not in any technical discussion, just a reference to what it is referenced as. Yes, it exists, and is self-runs and keeps the batteries charged up by whatever name you want to call it - completely real "free energy" "overunity" self running device.

For power factor - there is a common analogy.... if there is a traincar on some tracks and the horse pulling it is not on the tracks but off at a 45 degree angle for example, and the horse moves forward, the traincar will still move down the tracks, but there is still this incongruity between the horse and its angle in relation to the traincar. The move forward, work is being done, but not very efficiently. The power factor would be like 0.5 or so.

However, if the horse moves over and onto the tracks so that it is in perfect alignment with the train and both are moving forward, the train can move with less energy being wasted and if they're perfectly aligned, that is like a power factor of 1.0.

It isn't a perfect analogy because I would argue that the reactive power in the horse/traincar example is bogus because work IS being done. The horse has to work harder to pull the car the same. But the point is that it isn't being consumed by the train, which is the intended load. So I guess this extra work is "returned to the source" which is the horse so it is still a pretty good analogy.

If you have bad power factor loads, it does strain the power company more. One of my friends here was a linesman and he used to put "snoops" on the line when the power company thought some company had too bad of a power factor. They will penalize the company for that bad power factor causing problems at the generator end and if it isn't corrected, they will even shut off the power completely.

Again, this is my total layman explanation but you have experienced these discrepencies between the voltage and current yourself but probably didn't know that is what it was.

When an old refrigerator (compressor motor is inductive load) kicks on, the lights might dim for a moment then it goes normal. That surge is a discrepancy between the voltage and current running the inductive load then it normalizes to a point. If there is a capacitor that is tuned for the load on the line between that compressor motor and the wall, that capacitor will be like a buffer that normalizes that power factor so there isn't a surge on the line and the power factor is corrected.

Many inductive loads are already power factor corrected like the CFL bulbs from Europe (probably not in the states), newer refrigerators I believe, etc... so bad power factor isn't as bad as it used to be.

Another friend worked at an electrical billing center in my town that does billing for major department stores all over the country, etc... and it lists their average power factor. Some are as low as .6, .7 (some worse) - that means they are paying for electricity that are not even using and by simply power factor correcting their loads, they will save a fortune. I'm talking about companies spending 5-6 figures a month on electricity.

@All, if this explanation is incorrect, please jump in.

.
.

This is very elegant, but something worries me: Is "work done" a scalar quantity or a vector quantity? (It is a dot product of two vectors - or have I got this wrong?).
.
.
__________________
 

Last edited by wrtner; 05-07-2014 at 04:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-07-2014, 05:35 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 676
The devise consists of a controller module, a switching module and a capacitor bank. Jim Murray states:

"Maxwell thought that all the electrical energy was carried in the magnetic and electrical fields. 30 years later Einstein and De Haas found that there was addition energy that was carried by the current itself and not by the fields. (They decided not to correct this.)

In a normal situation the reactive power is defined as a form of restorative power in which the average value is zero. The problem with that is the current and voltages are usually out of phase by 90 degrees so that you cannot use it. What this devise allows you to do is create watts that go back and forth doing the same thing and the watts become reactive."

What I think is that they are capturing the extra energy that is carried by the current by controlling when to switch, storing this in the capacitors. They developed a phase and wattage algorithm that returns a value that allows the switching to mimic an ideal transformer reactance, also more than power factor correction because the extra energy is made available and the wave form on the oscilloscope shows the product. The other channel uses a current probe shows the current lag or lead for the inductive resistive load.

Understanding why the extra energy breaks away from the E and M fields and takes another pathway would be helpful information to design transformers and use
materials in such a way that the majority of machines would never go out of phase. This really means replacing the old technology. I see a few that use Tesla
and new methods and have made progress.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 05-07-2014 at 06:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2014, 03:57 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 676
The 22 inch coax from the signal generator connected capacitor made from a thin sheet metal 3” x 3” another sheet metal has an air space ¼ to 3/4 “ the second sheet metal connects to a 245 uH aircore inductor 100 Turns #30 on 1.25” dia. Uses 33’ wire. This is a series tank for 3.2 Mhz HF VTTC and does not need pi filter. Optimize only!. For 1.85Mhz use a 690uH inductor. Later the Impedance match is between the amplifier and the primary. Please understand that you design with specific values and declaring values going into the project sets a goal but the result may be off which is ok. If you don’t have a network analyzer it does not prevent you from success just time consuming. As said before you work back and forth.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2014, 07:39 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,897
Thanks for expressing this

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
The devise consists of a controller module, a switching module and a capacitor bank. Jim Murray states:

"Maxwell thought that all the electrical energy was carried in the magnetic and electrical fields. 30 years later Einstein and De Haas found that there was addition energy that was carried by the current itself and not by the fields. (They decided not to correct this.)

In a normal situation the reactive power is defined as a form of restorative power in which the average value is zero. The problem with that is the current and voltages are usually out of phase by 90 degrees so that you cannot use it. What this devise allows you to do is create watts that go back and forth doing the same thing and the watts become reactive."

What I think is that they are capturing the extra energy that is carried by the current by controlling when to switch, storing this in the capacitors. They developed a phase and wattage algorithm that returns a value that allows the switching to mimic an ideal transformer reactance, also more than power factor correction because the extra energy is made available and the wave form on the oscilloscope shows the product. The other channel uses a current probe shows the current lag or lead for the inductive resistive load.

Understanding why the extra energy breaks away from the E and M fields and takes another pathway would be helpful information to design transformers and use
materials in such a way that the majority of machines would never go out of phase. This really means replacing the old technology. I see a few that use Tesla
and new methods and have made progress.
Hi Mikrovolt
Good explanation, simple which is always best. This also brings me to why cap dumping at varying rates applies to your subject matter. I think sometimes as I adjust my pulse timing to set up a standing wave that the reflected power meets up with the next pulse and somehow does strange things.

We all know how capacitors effect phasing and that many inventors have pointed out the need to switch at the right time. Of course the cap dump is a basic tool with promise and is not as advanced as what the discussion is about concerning this invention.

And like you said we don't always know why but rather through experimental trials a given phenomena is stumbled upon. At first only a small change is detected and then it is developed over the years of application.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 05-18-2014, 04:46 AM
forelle forelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 42
Hi all,
I am not sure if i have understood this device but does the phasedifference not only mean that the counter for the electricity doesn`t "see" the real power that is used?I mean when you close the loop with a batterydriven device the battery simply runs down?
Thanks for clarification.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-21-2014, 07:05 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
The 22 inch coax from the signal generator connected capacitor made from a thin sheet metal 3” x 3” another sheet metal has an air space ¼ to 3/4 “ the second sheet metal connects to a 245 uH aircore inductor 100 Turns #30 on 1.25” dia. Uses 33’ wire. This is a series tank for 3.2 Mhz HF VTTC and does not need pi filter. Optimize only!. For 1.85Mhz use a 690uH inductor. Later the Impedance match is between the amplifier and the primary. Please understand that you design with specific values and declaring values going into the project sets a goal but the result may be off which is ok. If you don’t have a network analyzer it does not prevent you from success just time consuming. As said before you work back and forth.
I posted this in the wrong thread. Also in the video the person speaking is probably not Jim Murray(inventor of the dynaflux alternator), I apologize.

The current probe for an oscilloscope displayed on channel A while channel B is voltage can be made easily show lead or lag. see figure 4 or 5.
The HF Current Probe: Theory and Application
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 05-21-2014 at 07:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-23-2014, 10:35 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
Jim Murray Dynaflux Alternator

That is Jim Murray who invented the Dynaflux Alternator and we're going to make the whole demo available, etc... probably next weekend.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-25-2014, 10:27 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
successful replication

Yesterday, I saw the first successful replication of this device. It wasn't as high as COP 20.0 but is very important because it proves it is not some fluke - it is completely engineerable.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-26-2014, 01:03 AM
SilverToGold's Avatar
SilverToGold SilverToGold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 429
Any more details Aaron? Was this someone independent of Jim and Paul? I want to engineer this thing also.

I understand basic reactive power from college.... but even after watching all of Jim's videos I could find, not quite getting how this "reactive watts" works? Power is in the current and not the fields? Luc Choquette on YouTube seemed to be going in the right direction but later claimed it was a measurement error.

The 20 COP video that Jim made kind of reminds me of Lindemann's high COP circuit... minus the coil transformers.



Can't wait to see what these guys unveil!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Yesterday, I saw the first successful replication of this device. It wasn't as high as COP 20.0 but is very important because it proves it is not some fluke - it is completely engineerable.
__________________
 

Last edited by SilverToGold; 05-26-2014 at 01:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-26-2014, 01:40 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
reactive power

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverToGold View Post
Any more details Aaron? Was this someone independent of Jim and Paul? I want to engineer this thing also.

I understand basic reactive power from college.... but even after watching all of Jim's videos I could find, not quite getting how this "reactive watts" works? Power is in the current and not the fields? Luc Choquette on YouTube seemed to be going in the right direction but later claimed it was a measurement error.

The 20 COP video that Jim made kind of reminds me of Lindemann's high COP circuit... minus the coil transformers.

Can't wait to see what these guys unveil!
Jim's methods are unrelated to the Ainslie type circuits, which use the inductive spike from an inductive resistor to send back to input source. The resistors on Jim's is there to show real work - the resistors were burning hot and I even took a picture with my thermal imaging camera - no mistake about it... real work is being done that is undeniably more than what is drawn from the wall.

I did actually bring up the Ainslie type circuit with Peter yesterday because something about Jim's SERP technology inspired me but I'd have to do some experiments to see if even one of the concepts can be applied to it (Ainslie) to improve the desired gain. I'll do this in all my spare time lol.

One thing is for sure - everyone looking to get real work out of "reactive power" has to change their entire paradigm of how they're thinking about it. When Jim Murray says Reactive Watts - it literally is that...have to think in terms of POWER, literally.

The only thing I can offer at this time is to encourage everyone to simply pay close attention to their presentation from the conference. Jim really has been trying to put this out to people for years and for the most part, he has been ignored. My goal is to help put him on the map in a big way.

Can you post a simple schematic of the furthest thing Luc did along with the measurement methods that he says were in error?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-26-2014, 04:41 PM
SilverToGold's Avatar
SilverToGold SilverToGold is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 429
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.

Reactive Watts... I don't know exactly what he means with this - though in concept I kind of get it (I think so anyways). The Reactive Watts themselves don't have power but maybe it's the shifting of the Reactive Watts between elements that produces power???

Purely Reactive Power is simply where the current and voltage are 90 degrees out of phase and can't do any real work. It consist of a R, C and L in the circuit to precisely throw off the phase. All with passive elements.

So reactive watts must consist of ????? I just don't know. I guess the real "trick" is in somehow switching the circuit after getting the basic configuration correct.

So Jim's "Reactive Watts" requires controlled switching. We can't get it just by cleaver arrangements of a R, L and C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Jim's methods are unrelated to the Ainslie type circuits, which use the inductive spike from an inductive resistor to send back to input source. The resistors on Jim's is there to show real work - the resistors were burning hot and I even took a picture with my thermal imaging camera - no mistake about it... real work is being done that is undeniably more than what is drawn from the wall.

I did actually bring up the Ainslie type circuit with Peter yesterday because something about Jim's SERP technology inspired me but I'd have to do some experiments to see if even one of the concepts can be applied to it (Ainslie) to improve the desired gain. I'll do this in all my spare time lol.

One thing is for sure - everyone looking to get real work out of "reactive power" has to change their entire paradigm of how they're thinking about it. When Jim Murray says Reactive Watts - it literally is that...have to think in terms of POWER, literally.

The only thing I can offer at this time is to encourage everyone to simply pay close attention to their presentation from the conference. Jim really has been trying to put this out to people for years and for the most part, he has been ignored. My goal is to help put him on the map in a big way.

Can you post a simple schematic of the furthest thing Luc did along with the measurement methods that he says were in error?
__________________
 

Last edited by SilverToGold; 05-27-2014 at 01:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-26-2014, 07:27 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,574
reactive power

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverToGold View Post
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.

Reactive Watts... I don't know exactly what he means with this - though in concept I kind of get it (I think so anyways). The Reactive Watts themselves don't have power but maybe it's the shifting of the Reactive Watts between elements that produces power???

Purely Reactive Power is simply where the current and voltage are 90 degrees out of phase and can't do any real work. It consist of a R, C and L in the circuit to precisely throw off the phase. All with passive elements.

So reactive watts must consist of ????? I just don't know. I guess the real "trick" is in somehow switching the circuit after getting the basic configuration correct.

So Jim's "Reactive Watts" requires controlled switching. We can't get it just by cleaver arrangements of a R, L and C.
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.

I'd like to see the scope shots...the waveform will tell what is going on.

For example, with the Ainslie circuit, the best i got was a bit over COP 2.0, which is expected, but obviously not close to a COP 17.0 claim. The measurements matched what the waveform looked like. The area could actually be a bit bigger under the line (0) than over the line meaning it wasn't just a spike going back, I could get a pulse of current so waveform under the line was as big as the waveform over the line. Sometimes a bit bigger. But the big downfall on the Ainslie circuit is that the battery should NOT be charged and discharged because it screws it up. Yes, the power went back to the battery, but the back and forth caused the battery to lose capacity.

We can take the regeneration and put it to a cap and feed it to the front without the battery seeing it.

The results jumped substantially when I bypassed the internal freewheeling diode in the mosfet (they're usually junk) with a real high speed high quality diode. Same circuit essentially but still- battery isn't made to send and receive in an alternating fashion. I know know how to get around that but don't have time to try it yet.

In any case, put a kill-a-watt meter on the wall and see the watt hours being drawn simple and accurate. For the resistor, measuring across the heating resistor will give just about as accurate of a reading as using a current sensing resistor.

For the reactive watts Jim is talking about - will just have to get the clarification from him in the presentation.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-27-2014, 02:19 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 676
The Dynaflux alternator patent.
Patent US4780632 - Alternator having improved efficiency - Google Patents

November 2008 comment by Peter Lindemann:
http://www.energeticforum.com/34668-post1026.html
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 05-27-2014 at 02:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers