Switched Energy Resonance/Magnetic Energy Recovery

This thread is based on an interview of Jim Murray and Paul Babcock, who have both researched and been inspired by work of Nikola Tesla which is not understood and accepted by the mainstream.

These two individuals have spoken at what is now called the Energy Science and Technology Conference, where they saw the possibilities for collaboration, which they are now doing.

What Jim Murray calls "switched energy resonance," Paul Babcock calls "magnetic energy recovery." Jim Murray states that the mainstream would say that there is no such thing as energy resonance, but that there is such a thing, and that it is what he perceives that Tesla was talking about in his later work. Murray says that energy resonance is totally different from frequency resonance.

Murray says that Tesla's work is pre-electron theory and that he expressed things more in fluid dynamics. This makes Tesla's writings hard to decipher.

Murray and Babcock talked about borrowing some force from a motor and using it to cancel drag force, replacing it with motive force. Instead of having clashing magnetic fields, you can interlace energy back to the prime mover source.

It was mentioned that Newton's Third Law does not always apply to electromagnetics.

Doing things in quadrants rather than cycles and half cycles was also mentioned.

Paul Babcock explained that he learned from extensive experimentation that you have to be fast in switching transitions to beat magnetism and totally master it - the transitions have to be less that 5 nanoseconds.

Here is the interview:

Of course they have not hooked the output back to the input to run it.... they know that they are scammers so they refuse to do such a simple test that would show their claims were valid!

a reply to: hellobruce


Scammers? I enjoy the tomato throwers. They don't offer an equally cogent theory or argument why what they are shouting about is all wrong. They just hurl and run.

Hellobruce, I would like to see you provide documentation, a real argument negating their claim before I either agree or disagree with you.

In the meantime, poor form.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
It was mentioned that Newton's Third Law does not always apply to electromagnetics.

If you don't mind me saying, I would naturally be rather curious to know the source of this statement.

a reply to: swanne

Paul Babcock was the one who said it, based on his experience.

Here is a link to the section in the interview when he says it: Link

The point is made that it is a matter of using existing laws in a way that normally people don't think of.

Wait so they're saying if we all had one of those devices we would have and extra bit of energy... Buy £20 and get £20 free?

One guy says.. But you can't put a meter on it... He says no you can

Ok... Well I can see this technology being snapped up for energy company's to make more of a profit tbh unless it sold as a device to the public directly

originally posted by: Mary Rose
These two individuals have spoken at what is now called the Energy Science and Technology Conference, where they saw the possibilities for collaboration, which they are now doing.

They spoke and presented jointly at the 2014 conference.

The title: "The Secret of Tesla's Power Magnification."

I haven't seen the presentation.

Here are some notes I gleaned based on the ad for video:

• They've demonstrated a working model that multiplies the input power by 4790%.
  
• S.E.R.P.S. is a Switched Energy Resonant Power Supply.
  
• It operates on the same power magnification principles that Nikola Tesla used to amplify the power in his generators.
  
• Energy is supplied by a power transformer to run the lights and then is stored in a capacitor.
  
• The capacitor is then discharged back through the lights again to the power supply in a way that neutralizes the load seen by the power supply.
  
• The consequences of this energy oscillation is that the load (bulbs) can be powered twice while the net energy supplied by the power supply is reduced to a very small value.
  
• This is all done without violating any laws of physics or electrical engineering principles and uses all standard electronic components.
  
• A Tektronix scope was used to measure the input compared to the output.
  
• 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.
  

That's enough for now.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Here are some notes I gleaned based on the ad for video . . .

Continuing:

• The input represents the difference between the energy provided and the energy returned. The output represents the work accomplished as this energy oscillates in and out of the system.
  

I'm confused. The input represents the difference between the energy provided and the energy returned?

I thought it means the energy provided.

The sound is terrible in that video, but I did hear that there is going to be a jimmurrayscience dot com, so that will be a good source of information about cutting edge technology. Paul Babcock will have a similar website.

Good.

Here's the link: www.youtube.com...