Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82007
  • *Latest: EB62

  • *Total Posts: 493061
  • *Total Topics: 14499
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 146
  • *Total: 150

Facebook

Author Topic: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device  (Read 188026 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #420 on: June 09, 2016, 10:08:12 AM »
TinMan,
Thanks for taking a look at this. You are probably one of the only skeptics who has actually taken the time to actually build this and test it, and I appreciate that. As I said on the other thread, every single component we are using is designed to do something specific to create a working system. I know you are only testing the basic setup now, so I am looking forward to seeing your results when all the pieces are put together. And I DO realize that your current test does not support my claim that "hardly any energy gets used as it moves through the inverter" but I still believe you are in for more surprises when you get the system to run as a stable system by adding the boost module to the mix, and see what happens when you rotate and rest batteries.


I have found that as I rotate the batteries through the system over the long haul, my results get better and better as the batteries expand their capacity, begin to charge faster, and hold charge longer. But if you continue to be interested in this long enough to do the long term testing I have done, I believe you will see everything I have seen. I hope so.

Well the first video has finished uploading--see link below.

I have completed the second test under much more stable conditions,and the results are the same.
I will post that video as soon as it has finished uploading.
Even with the more accurate testing,i still have a higher efficiency with the 3 battery system than i do with just the single battery running the inverter.
I am at a loss as to why ATM,but i will keep testing to see if i can find the answer.
I have a 12% efficiency gain with the 3 battery system,than that of the single battery system,and this should not be the case. The efficiency should drop when extra components and batteries are used,due to the increase of resistance to the system,and there for ,more waste heat--,but the efficiency rises for some reason when all these extra components are introduced.

So i must admit !!ATM!!,that something odd is happening here,and as yet,i do not have an answer for that---time will tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSIjmmCw6xg


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #420 on: June 09, 2016, 10:08:12 AM »

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #421 on: June 09, 2016, 10:35:48 AM »
Brad, I've only looked at the video for a short while but it looks to me that you are taking the average of two efficiencies for the first calc. (Inverter efficiency + the charging efficiency of the battery)/2. This gives you the 80%.  The separate charger efficiency is the 60% one.   The charging efficiency could be in the 90s, thus the average is higher than that of the charger alone.

You cant work these easily because the voltages across both devices change with time, as the battery charges. and you also need to measure how much of the energy into the battery actually got stored by the battery.  Its much more than a multimeter job.


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #422 on: June 09, 2016, 12:03:59 PM »
Brad, I've only looked at the video for a short while but it looks to me that you are taking the average of two efficiencies for the first calc. (Inverter efficiency + the charging efficiency of the battery)/2. This gives you the 80%.  The separate charger efficiency is the 60% one.   The charging efficiency could be in the 90s, thus the average is higher than that of the charger alone.

You cant work these easily because the voltages across both devices change with time, as the battery charges. and you also need to measure how much of the energy into the battery actually got stored by the battery.  Its much more than a multimeter job.

Yes i know what your saying about the voltages changing quickly,but in the next video/test,i have stabilized the voltages,and have far more accurate power measurements.

As far as averaging out the efficiency's go's,well as we have a single supply,then the efficiency is subtractive,not averaged.
If we ran just the charging system without the inverter,then we may have an efficiency of say 90%. We then add in our inverter,and we loose say a further 20%-these two arnt averaged out to give you an efficiency for the system as a whole,they are added together to get the total efficiency of the system,and that would equal a total of 70%--a loss of 10% + a loss of 20%

We have a set efficiency for the inverter,and whether that inverter runs on 12 volts at say 3 amps,or 24 volts at 1.5 amps,the P/in remains the same,and the P/out remains the same,as the efficiency of the inverter is set at 69.68%. Even if there was no loss in the second part of the system,so the battery charging was 100% efficient,the efficiency of the inverter will still remain the same,and the total efficiency will still be 69.68% when the inverter is added in to the system.

Here are the calculations from the last test i did(video to come).These are from my latest tests,with stable voltages.

12 volt battery and inverter alone
P/in=12.02v @ 2.89 amps 34.73 watt's
P/out to 240v bulb= 24.2 watts
Efficiency = 69.68%
So we can see here that the inverter is dissipating close to 30.32% of the input power,minus small losses through the meter shunt and wiring.

3 battery system
P/in= 73.127 watts
P/out battery and 12v globe= 35.53 watts
P/out to 240v bulb=24.6 watts
Total P/out= 60.133 watts.
Efficiency= 82.23%
So the charge battery and 12v globe are consuming 48.58% of the input power.
The 240v bulb is consuming 33.64% of the input power.
So we have accounted for 82.23% of the power,and that is the same as the 82.23% calculated efficiency.In the 3 battery test,we can assume that battery losses are higher,as there is now 3 batteries instead of just 1,and the same amp meter is in the same position as before.
In both tests,the voltage was regulated to 12 volts across the inverter--so that remains a constant.

In the 3 battery system,we are dissipating 17.77% of the input power through the batteries,meter and inverter.
In the single battery system,we are dissipating 30.32% of the input power through just 1 battery,the meter,and inverter.

How can we check our numbers against them self?,well we just subtract the 3 battery system efficiency from the single battery efficiency,and that is-->82.23%-69.68%=12.55% difference.
Now,if we subtract the power the inverter,batteries,and meter are dissipating in the 3 battery system,from the power dissipated by the inverter,battery,and meter in the single battery system,then we should end up with the same as the efficiency difference.
30.32%-17.77%= a difference of 12.55%-->the very same as our efficiency difference.

It will become more clear in the next video,as to what all those numbers are about.


Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #423 on: June 09, 2016, 12:11:20 PM »


 and you also need to measure how much of the energy into the battery actually got stored by the battery.  Its much more than a multimeter job.

To clear this up,we are not measuring stored energy,we are measuring energy delivered to the system,and energy consumed/dissipated by each component,and the efficiency that the system as a whole can do that.


Brad


Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #424 on: June 09, 2016, 12:54:07 PM »
In the 3 battery system Work out the power used by the inverter by measuring the potential across its input terminals  and the amps! I don't see this voltage in your 3 battery test.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #424 on: June 09, 2016, 12:54:07 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #425 on: June 09, 2016, 01:47:14 PM »
In the 3 battery system Work out the power used by the inverter by measuring the potential across its input terminals  and the amps! I don't see this voltage in your 3 battery test.

I posted that in my second last post,where the volt meter is placed across the inverter,and a voltage of 12 volts is maintained. As i said,those are the measurements from the next video,which i will post here as soon as it is downloaded--still 60% to go,as internet is slow tonight for some reason.
Power used by inverter in 3 battery test is 12 volts @ 2.986 amps=35.83 watts.
The power output to the 240v bulb was 24.6 watts
In the single battery test,the power used by the inverter was 34.73 watts.
The power output to the 240v bulb was 24.2 watts.
So the inverter efficiency is nearly exactly the same,and this increase in efficiency is something to do with the battery system/inverter combination.
With the 3 battery system,the charge battery and load will see those high voltage spikes,but in the single battery system,the battery will not see those high voltage spikes.
I believe that is why the charge battery is charging so fast,as it is receiving high voltage spikes,but also a deep full current flow as well.

But a long way to go on this system yet,so lets see where we end up.


Brad

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #426 on: June 09, 2016, 02:35:51 PM »
Looks like a problem with the calcs to me. Have a look at the picture , which has some easy numbers. There is 1000W flowing and the top device is 60% efficient, the bottom 100%. The top uses 10Vx10A = 100W but being only 60% efficient we get 60W out. This symbolizes your inverter.

The battery being charged and the 12v bulb are 100% efficient, well of course they are not but you have no efficiency value for these so lets assume 100%.  so 90Vx10A =900W used and also somehow turned into a different energy 100% efficiently.

All of a sudden the calcs show 96% efficiency.   The average is not 96% either, looks like it has to be a weighted average instead, since the input power is not equally shared, but in your case it will be when the battery is fully charged, 12V across battery and inverter.
The volts across the battery being charged times the current give you the power going into it, but how much is actually charging the battery, and how much is heating it, how much is electrolyzing the acid into hydrogen and oxygen? The efficiency seems to be taken as 100% in your calcs, hence the overall efficiency of the whole system goes up, like in the picture.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #426 on: June 09, 2016, 02:35:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #427 on: June 09, 2016, 03:49:41 PM »
Looks like a problem with the calcs to me. Have a look at the picture , which has some easy numbers. There is 1000W flowing and the top device is 60% efficient, the bottom 100%. The top uses 10Vx10A = 100W but being only 60% efficient we get 60W out. This symbolizes your inverter.

The battery being charged and the 12v bulb are 100% efficient, well of course they are not but you have no efficiency value for these so lets assume 100%.  so 90Vx10A =900W used and also somehow turned into a different energy 100% efficiently.

All of a sudden the calcs show 96% efficiency.   The average is not 96% either, looks like it has to be a weighted average instead, since the input power is not equally shared, but in your case it will be when the battery is fully charged, 12V across battery and inverter.
The volts across the battery being charged times the current give you the power going into it, but how much is actually charging the battery, and how much is heating it, how much is electrolyzing the acid into hydrogen and oxygen? The efficiency seems to be taken as 100% in your calcs, hence the overall efficiency of the whole system goes up, like in the picture.

I guess you will have to wait for the video to be posted to understand what im saying here.

With the new improved circuit,the voltages across the inverter and charge battery are fixed,due to the simple resistive regulation circuit i have included.
The voltage across the inverter remains at 12 volt's,and the voltage across the charge battery remains at 11.9 volt's,due to the resistive load placed across that charge battery(3rd battery),which can be adjusted by the reostat.

Quote
The volts across the battery being charged times the current give you the power going into it, but how much is actually charging the battery, and how much is heating it, how much is electrolyzing the acid into hydrogen and oxygen?

That is all correct,and we would think that by adding another 2 batteries to the system,that we would decrease the efficiency of that system,but the overall efficiency go's up,not down.
As i stated above,the 3rd battery(the charging battery)now has a resistive load across it,and most of the current is flowing through the load to complete the circuit--not the battery,as the charge batteries voltage remains a constant,indicating that very little of the power is going into charging the battery,and that also means that losses associated with charging a lead acid battery are omitted.

In my next test,i am going to try and remove the 3rd battery altogether,and just run the resistive load in it's place,and then once again,check the overall efficiency of the system.

Lots more to do yet,and no conclusive answer has been reached,but only preliminary results presented so far.


Brad

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #428 on: June 09, 2016, 04:20:30 PM »
Here is the third video and test done on the 3 battery system.
This time we have made the voltage more stable,to allow for more accurate measurements to be taken.

Lots more to do yet,before any conclusions are made,and the results so far are just what has so far been found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4URpy_aQA8


Brad

Offline minoly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #429 on: June 09, 2016, 07:19:27 PM »
Here is the third video and test done on the 3 battery system.
This time we have made the voltage more stable,to allow for more accurate measurements to be taken.

Lots more to do yet,before any conclusions are made,and the results so far are just what has so far been found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4URpy_aQA8


Brad


If this is too basic a question or if I'm missing something elementary feel free to ignore...


In the 3 bat efficiency data, why are you using 24 volts for P/IN to the inverter? shouldn't the P/IN watts to the inverter be calculated using the voltage the inverter is actually receiving 12?


I've not tried to calculate Power in/out on the fly like this before, I usually just keep rotating the batteries to prove to myself that it works. It sure would be nice to be able to use on-the-fly measurements with this...




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
nevermind, i c you are calculating the 24 volts as total going to the inverter as well as the 3rd battery....

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #429 on: June 09, 2016, 07:19:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4880
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #430 on: June 10, 2016, 01:33:54 AM »

If this is too basic a question or if I'm missing something elementary feel free to ignore...


In the 3 bat efficiency data, why are you using 24 volts for P/IN to the inverter? shouldn't the P/IN watts to the inverter be calculated using the voltage the inverter is actually receiving 12?


I've not tried to calculate Power in/out on the fly like this before, I usually just keep rotating the batteries to prove to myself that it works. It sure would be nice to be able to use on-the-fly measurements with this...




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
nevermind, i c you are calculating the 24 volts as total going to the inverter as well as the 3rd battery....

Yes
The power the inverter is using,is calculated using the voltage across the inverter in both tests.

Quote David
When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free.

Unfortunately this is not the case,and the inverter consumes the same amount of power in each case-->you can see that from the video,and numbers i posted.

As Pomodoro said,the efficiency increase is due to the higher efficiency of the charging side of the circuit being included in the measurements--this is where i went wrong in the assumption that there was an increase in efficiency of the circuit as a whole,but it is only due to the efficiency difference between the inverter and charging side of the system. Even then,the total system efficiency is only 82.23%,and the missing 17.77% is being dissipated as heat by way of ohmic and chemical losses.

So,so far,all the power is accounted for,and i have not seen anything out of the ordinary yet--but we will keep looking.
I will bring the battery load tester home from work for the weekend,and we will have a closer look at the batteries before and after a good test run.


Brad

Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #431 on: June 10, 2016, 03:16:24 AM »
TinMan,

You're doing a superb job of evaluating the system.

This is the kind of detail oriented evaluation the system
has been in need of to determine whether any anomalous
energy makes an appearance.

And, also very importantly, whether the Lead-Acid Batteries
themselves are responsible for what appears in some cases
as the much sought after anomaly which is reported to be
"free energy."

Once again, excellent work!

We must recognize of course that there are occasions where
copious amounts of "free energy" do manifest under certain
conditions and with certain experimenters.  Daniel Pomerleau
is a prime example.

Unfortunately, when it manifests for most experimenters, it is
sporadic, fleeting and nearly impossible to account for.  That
is the nature of this "beast" and its "true source."

Let us hope that you are able to observe such an event as you
proceed with your tests and evaluation.


Offline minoly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #432 on: June 10, 2016, 06:31:00 AM »

One thing I like about this setup Dave is the way you are keeping the charging battery 3 voltage "down" by having 12 batteries in that position in parallel. This also makes it so you are not charging and discharging at the same time. I had only used a 4 bat system like the tesla switch in the past. In addition using the DC to DC was/is very smart thinking - Thanks!

If I understand you, you are asking if the energy that "left" the two batteries in series is equal to the energy that went through the inverter PLUS the energy that ended up in the lower battery because the inverter and the lower battery are wired in series. Am I correct that this is your question? If so, the answer is "No". When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free. Here is a video I made to trying show what I am talking about. By the way, the measurements I took on this video were after the batteries had rested for two hours after running them so that voltages could "settle out" . The charged batteries always go DOWN after having rested for a while and the primaries always climb back up a little after resting for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD7a4bPS4o8


Let me be VERY, VERY clear. This circuit is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor run on this circuit is NOT the final solution. Adding the boost circuit is NOT the final solution. You need ALL these things and more.You need the switching to rotate the batteries through the five different positions when battery 3 is charged up. You need five GOOD STRONG fully charged batteries that are not old and worn out. Each one will move through these five positions in this order. 1. Position One (as Battery one of the two in series)2. Position two (as battery 2 of the two in series)3. Resting Because it has been DISCHARGED in BOTH the previous positions)4. Position three (in parallel with one and two, charging)5. RestingYou need a generator run by the motor that can put out power so you can ADD a little power back into the system when it is needed. Nothing lasts forever, and cold and heat are the ENEMIES of batteries. The efficiency on this system will go up and down with the heat and cold. Without a generator to contribute a little extra when you need it, this will eventually come to a screeching halt. Without a generator run by the motor, you have NOTHING here that is going to get you what you want. It is the efficiency of all these things working together that get you the grand slam. But any decent generator is going to give you COP>3 or MORE if all these things are in place. It just IS. I have built it. It works. Getting all of this to work is NOT rocket science. We have provided MORE than enough information. But getting it to work is only the beginning. Then you need to figure out how to apply these principles to the construction of more advanced devices. That's where we are now, and we aren't posting that information. Maybe in a few months. People still won't accept THIS so why on earth would we share MORE.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5635
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #433 on: June 10, 2016, 08:19:53 AM »
Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

This also seems like a familiar argument of cap to cap.  Say for example 'if' we were able to do an electron count through the battery loop, even with a load in the loop, how ever much it takes to charge the reverse battery, that same electron flow is also moving through those other 3 batteries.

I say through, but mean electrons in and electrons out by way of the pos and neg plates

So if we had 10 batteries in series, and 1 in reverse, how ever much electrons go through the reverse battery is how many that will go through the other 10. Not saying that would be a good idea to try, but I just used it as an example of extreme loss, it would seem. ???   It would seem that 10 batteries lost as many electrons from the neg plates as the single reverse battery gained, and like wise with the gain of electrons in the poss plates vs the loss on the reverse battery pos plate.

So say we had 10 fully charged batteries, and 1 reverse battery that just for example was used for a bit and it lost Neg plate electrons and gained Pos plate electrons. Well for those 10 batteries to recharge that reverse battery, there would need to be at least the same amount of electrons going through the complete loop in order for that to happen. I know batteries are not the same as caps, but the reasoning should still be close.

So playing with sim a bit, Im finding that adding the load in the loop, resistive or inductive, I am thinking the reverse battery would get charged the same whether there were a load or if the batteries were direct, and the load would only affect the time the reverse battery gets to full charge. Naturally, again, I would not recommend the 10 to 1 direct, but if the batteries could take that kind of charge and discharge, I think that the loss from the 10 and gain in the 1 would be the same as having the load in line.  Adding a load inline should only slow down the transfer from the 10 to the 1, which would increase the time to charge the 1. I cannot see that any more would be taken from the 10 or any less getting to the 1 by having a load in inline. Current through the loop is the measure of electron flow basically. And that same amount that flows into the 1 in order to get it fully charged, is the same amount of current flowing through each of the 10. When the 1 is fully charged, then that is how much current over time it took to do so.


Think. 10 batts in series, but only the plates of the batteries at the ends of the string are changing electrons with the reverse battery. All of the batteries should experience this gain and loss of similar proportions over the course of the charge time. Strange to think about. ;)

Or, 10 to 1 direct would be a huge loss condition, and adding the loads inline convert those losses into work instead. ???

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags


Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 544
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #434 on: June 10, 2016, 12:38:23 PM »
Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

This also seems like a familiar argument of cap to cap.  Say for example 'if' we were able to do an electron count through the battery loop, even with a load in the loop, how ever much it takes to charge the reverse battery, that same electron flow is also moving through those other 3 batteries.

I say through, but mean electrons in and electrons out by way of the pos and neg plates

So if we had 10 batteries in series, and 1 in reverse, how ever much electrons go through the reverse battery is how many that will go through the other 10. Not saying that would be a good idea to try, but I just used it as an example of extreme loss, it would seem. ???   It would seem that 10 batteries lost as many electrons from the neg plates as the single reverse battery gained, and like wise with the gain of electrons in the poss plates vs the loss on the reverse battery pos plate.

So say we had 10 fully charged batteries, and 1 reverse battery that just for example was used for a bit and it lost Neg plate electrons and gained Pos plate electrons. Well for those 10 batteries to recharge that reverse battery, there would need to be at least the same amount of electrons going through the complete loop in order for that to happen. I know batteries are not the same as caps, but the reasoning should still be close.

So playing with sim a bit, Im finding that adding the load in the loop, resistive or inductive, I am thinking the reverse battery would get charged the same whether there were a load or if the batteries were direct, and the load would only affect the time the reverse battery gets to full charge. Naturally, again, I would not recommend the 10 to 1 direct, but if the batteries could take that kind of charge and discharge, I think that the loss from the 10 and gain in the 1 would be the same as having the load in line.  Adding a load inline should only slow down the transfer from the 10 to the 1, which would increase the time to charge the 1. I cannot see that any more would be taken from the 10 or any less getting to the 1 by having a load in inline. Current through the loop is the measure of electron flow basically. And that same amount that flows into the 1 in order to get it fully charged, is the same amount of current flowing through each of the 10. When the 1 is fully charged, then that is how much current over time it took to do so.


Think. 10 batts in series, but only the plates of the batteries at the ends of the string are changing electrons with the reverse battery. All of the batteries should experience this gain and loss of similar proportions over the course of the charge time. Strange to think about. ;)

Or, 10 to 1 direct would be a huge loss condition, and adding the loads inline convert those losses into work instead. ???

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags

Hi Mags,

What you are saying sounds perfectly logical.  Except having worked with this system for at least a couple of years now I can tell you a fact that messes with what you are saying.  The fact is the battery that is in series and connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster than the other series battery.  As far as I know none of us have been able to come up with an explanation for why that happens.  And the type of load seems to make a big difference in how efficient the system as a whole is.  So far the best results have been with an inverter as the load and using a boost converter to maintain a steady voltage for the inverter and charging battery.

Just a little more information for you to think about.  Thanks for your interest.

Carroll

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #434 on: June 10, 2016, 12:38:23 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: