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

[listener191]

Stripped out all the stuff not used. Note that doubling up on the output tank did not increase the input KVA.

Suspect if you added more tanks this will hold true until you get to 1.3KW real power.

Nice if you dont want to be metered for the power you use!

Barry

[Jdo300]

listener191,

Actually, that's an issue of power factor correction. You can greatly reduce the amount of reactive power by making sure that your tank circuit reactances completely cancel when the circuit is not being switched. I did find, however, that when you activate the switches, that the reactive power shows up again. I used a parallel capacitor on the input of the transformer to reduce it again, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to want to let me switch the Real power waveform like I can the reactive. Still working on this as it could be a parameter issue.

Oh and one other note about your simulation. I noticed that the source input current on the far left graph has a significant DC offset. This indicates that your simulation is still in the transient stage and hasn't leveled out yet. In my simulations, I included a series 0.01 Ohm resistor, which I can adjust to 1-10 Ohms to bleed off the DC offset from the source. Once is balances out, then change it back to 0.01 Ohms. Otherwise, you will get inaccurate output waveforms until enough time has elapsed for things to reach their steady-state values.

@Stefan,

Concerning your inquiry about bi-directional switches. My company has specifically developed a high-speed solid-state relay specifically for Free energy researchers and experimenters who are working on projects like this one. We also have a bunch of other bench tools that we are developing and are currently in the process of setting up a distribution website to offer these products to the FE community.

If anyone is interested, attached is the datasheet for our SSR boards. I'll share the website link soon with everyone once our site is ready to launch in a week or so. Also, the datasheet contains an application notes section with lots of example circuits and switch protection methods which may be useful for those who want to work with high-speed switching circuits.

- Jason O

[listener191]

Hi Jason,

Have removed the DC offset and reduced input PF as much as I could with cap across input and then adjust component values to minimise  +/- Watts and maximise load power.

I dont seem to be able to get decent load power without the reactive input.

Barry

[G4RR3ττ]

I see; rather than using a transformer or series/parallel capcitor to invert the direction of the currents during power reversal you can also use the properties of a series LCR tank to do the same. Very interesting.

Anti-resonance between the inductor and capacitor causes the potentials across them to cancel (anti-series) and when you switch to the other capacitor the potentials becomes additive and, if I'm not mistaken, should be 180 degrees in opposition to line potential, thus forcing current backwards. (Note: I haven't worked out all the details regarding phases of each voltage source, but the explanation should be correct for the most part.

If people do this know that there is an absolute upper limit for the load resistance to allow for LC oscillations to develop [1]:

The frequency of oscillation of an oscillatory LCR circuit decreases with increasing R and becomes zero at the Critical Resistance boundary, the point at which the circuit ceases to oscillate.

The boundary for under-damped oscillations (free or forced) becomes:

R < 2*sqrt(L/C)

The fundamental oscillatory frequency of an LCR is given by:

f_LCR = 1/2pi * sqrt((1 / LC) - (R^2 / 4L^2))

Thus resonant frequency of circuit shifts with changes in load resistance with limits:

0 Hz ≤ f_osc < 1/(2pi*sqrt(LC))

Where increases in R from 0 to R_crit reduces frequency from f_LC to zero.

With the above in mind, using MOSFETs in SSR configuration, instead of IGBTs, is the better choice since MOSFETs can pass currents in BOTH directions when turned on, thus saving on conduction loses through the freewheeling diodes. And as it would seem only two SSRs are needed for all the switching needs of the circuit--much simpler than the parallel/series capacitor circuit I proposed earlier! I'm still curious if PWM could benefit the circuit in reducing harmonics.

References:
[1] CP Steinmetz Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillations 3rd Ed. 5th Imp., 1920, pgs. 62-63, 94 & 96.

[listener191]

Going back over the Babcock presentation Time 1.05.30,  he does state that the SERPS intentionally produces a reactive load to the generating source.

Here are a few comments I picked up on the web about reactive power and generators...

Reactive power would put no extra load on a generator shaft if everything were perfect.
However, real generators have real losses, with some of those proportional to the square of the current.
The reactive load causes more current in the wires than there would be with a purely resistive load of the same real power.
The extra current causes additional real power to be lost.
The power companies would not tolerate mass reactive loads.


For half each cycle, each reactive load is pushing power back into the phase/phases that is/are accepting energy.

You can't recover chemical energy, and some of that energy fed back into the generator is lost, but some of the energy is fed back into rotating kinetic energy of the generator.
Which makes the generator turn faster-slower-faster-slower etc.

A small generator does not have much rotating kinetic energy, so most of this energy is lost, and it just stresses the system.

Perhaps SERPS is better suited to wind generators?

Barry