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

[TinselKoala]

The text says,

Here is an example of the input compared to the output as measured by a Tektronix scope... What this graph shows is that the SERPS device is drawing 1.1 WATTS net from the power supply but the light bulbs are actually burning 52.7 WATTS. 52.7 watts divided by 1.1 watts = a COP or coefficient of performance of 47.90, which is 4790% more energy than is required to run the machine.

http://teslaspowermagnification.com/images/serpsscope.jpg


But the image shows only the misuse of scopes. That oscilloscope can provide a full, comprehensive, straight-on image of its full screen including all settings, which are necessary to interpret the traces shown. Instead these bozos display a photo of a screenshot of a powerpoint slide or something, that doesn't show what's needed to make a proper interpretation. I know from that that these folks are from the "numbers in boxes" school of scoposcopy: they do not know what traces actually can indicate, they can only read the numbers in boxes. Or perhaps they Do know and just don't want YOU to know. And they are deliberately obfuscating the real information in order to push their fantasy "discovery". I show you more actual information in an analog shot from my Tek 2213a than you are getting from these claimants with their fancy expensive Etch-a-Sketch scope.


I say it yet again: If you have a device that has electrical input and electrical output, and it makes a _genuine_ overunity COP of 1.3 to 1 or greater, I can make it self-loop, no matter the form of the electrical inputs and outputs.  Any competent electrical engineer could do the same. If a device with COP of 1.3 or greater cannot be made to self loop... then the measurements and interpretation that lead to the high COP claim... are wrong.

And the standard error is clearly evident all throughout the claims: Power is multiplied! Great, so what. I have Tesla coils that, when measured like they are doing, provide COPs in the thousands, too. But POWER IS NOT ENERGY... and these folks know that. That's why they have to sell books and CDs in order to make enough money... to pay their electric bills!

[G4RR3ττ]

If anyone is interested, I've taken the liberty to upload a couple of "confidential" documents I was sent (a few years back) from the guy who was funding Jim (this was before a stock holders meeting decided to stop funding the development of Jim's dynaflux motor and they went their separate ways). Also, I had the opportunity (about the same time as I acquired those documents) to talk to Jim over the phone, and he seemed pretty damn sharp on engineering fundamentals and surprisingly sincere about his work. Though I suppose that's not saying much, since Ponzi schemers and other "money pit" entrepreneurs are much the same... Also I'm overly weary about any one "partnering" up with Aaron Murakami, who's at best a negligent obfuscator/misrepresentor of others ideas, and at worst, an intentional snake oil salesmen looking for the latest FE fad to promote using his "guerrilla marketing" and "value added services" tactics. No joke on the last bit there, he literally calls his promoting methodology "guerrilla marketing," which speaks volumes about his character.

While I'm at it, here are some pics of his dynaflux motor and what appears to be a parametric inductor. (attached as a .zip, four photos total)

[Farmhand]

Garrett, Don't you mean to say that it looks all reactive to the meter ? The supply will see the power consumed and the energy
delivered regardless of what the meters and scopes say.

To all.

The supply cannot deliver energy to the load and also not deliver it. If the energy is dissipated by the load, and power must be
consumed to do that. Then the supply will have supplied the energy and real power will have been consumed in the process.
The meters and scopes will only tell us what they can or are designed to do. Meters can be tricked and scopes misused.

Basically the supply delivers energy to the load and real power is consumed which does not get returned to the supply.
The only thing left to do is understand how they get the wave forms and power readings.

One thing is for sure, the energy dissipated by the bulbs is lost to the system and the power consumed to cause that is
real power which is consumed.

Just because claims are made that appear to show evidences that the power is not metered does not mean that the supply did
not supply the energy or that the power was not consumed. We can see energy was delivered to the load (the lights light up)
that energy does not get returned to the supply.

Now if the experiment was done with a 300 Watt inverter we would soon see that battery supplies real power to run the system.

..

[G4RR3ττ]

An interesting parallel to the SERPS device, at least partially in topology, is MERS (magnetic energy recover switch) used for power factor correction (PFC).

United States Patent 8045309 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8045309.html

Attached is a .pdf power point presentation.

[serendipitor]

Does someone have a link to the Steinmetz Reflection Criteria? I see his books are on archive.org. Which one goes over that particular topic?