James F. Murray - Switched Energy Resonance Power Supply System
James F. Murray - Switched Energy Resonance Power Supply System USP 10,122,290
James F. Murray - Switched Energy Resonance Power Supply System - Youtube Videos
Hi Simon,
What do you think of James F. Murray
invention?
http://gratisenergi.se/murray.htm
Patent from 2018, but still not on the
market.
Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
The most likely
reason for it not being on the market is that it doesn't produce more energy than you
put into it, thus it isn't actually useful.
Try to find any point in this cycle
where a symmetry is broken. There isn't one, and so all the standard conservation laws
will apply. Yep, there will be problems in measuring waveforms of this amount of
spikiness, and there will be a phase-shift between voltage and current, and thus the
metering might tell you there's more power out than in, but if you measure the power
using a resistive heating of something like water, you avoid those problems and can
see it's actually lossy rather than gainful.
It's a matter of experiment that
in every standard process that energy is conserved. This conservation is so ubiquitous
that it's an axiom, but the real question to ask is why it is conserved. Thus look at
Noether's Theorem, which tells us (based on logic) that a symmetry in the processes
will lead to a conservation law. The corollary is that if we want to break that
conservation law then we need to find a way to first break the relevant symmetry. For
electromagnetic systems, Lenz's law effectively states that it takes as much energy to
change a magnetic field as you can generate in a coil from that change in magnetic
field. The energy you put in is stored in the magnetic field, in effect, and only this
amount of energy can be taken out again when you collapse that field. Given that a
magnetic field seems to reach to infinity, and your device is smaller than that, it
follows that you won't even get all the energy out that you put in.
Thus the
problem here really boils down to how you change the magnetic field using less energy
than that changing magnetic field can deliver. It should be pretty obvious that this
will not be possible using an electromagnet, since that's going to be symmetrical with
some losses, and since the Murray invention does exactly that it's not going to
deliver more energy out than in.
That's not saying that it's impossible to get
OU with an electromagnetic system, just that if it's only switching coils, as here,
it's not going to do the job. You'll need to either get the speed of operation fast
enough relative to the local speed of light and the size of the apparatus to exploit
the light-speed delay leading to local violations of conservation of momentum (the
speed of the magnetic wave in ferrite is significantly slower than c), or to use a way
of changing the magnetic field that does not depend on a coil or a mechanical movement
of the permanent magnet. One problem here is that the inductance of a many-turn coil
will slow the rate at which the current in it can change, thus if we're doing this
we'd probably need single turn coils or at least very few turns - correct design is
important.
For example, you can use the transition between superconductor and
normal conductor around the critical temperature Tc to block or transmit magnetic
fields (Meissner effect). That breaks the symmetry of Lenz's law and thus allows you
to also violate CoE. There may be other ways of doing this, too.
Thus if you
look again at Jim Murray's patent, you should be able to see that it does none of
this. He's probably seen on his meters that it seems to be producing more energy out
than in, but this is a problem of measurement when you're dealing with spiky
waveforms. Also maybe a problem with the phase shift between voltage and current in an
AC system - Jim does seem to have had a long-standing problem with understanding that,
and has for a long time claimed OU when he's seeing VARs rather than VAs.
Oh
well.... Happy New Year!
Best regards, Simon
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook