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: 81930
  • *Latest: kunjb

  • *Total Posts: 490885
  • *Total Topics: 14446
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 215
  • *Total: 217

Facebook

Author Topic: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device  (Read 179686 times)

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #465 on: June 15, 2016, 02:26:30 PM »
Brad:

 with the trotting out of the dictionary definition for "reactive."  You didn't have to respond to me at all. 

MileHigh

Quote
All that you had to do was redo that ridiculous farce of a current measurement and get it right and present good data to your peers.

And there is proof enough,as it was in no way a current measurement-->another false statement from you.It was only to show the current spikes that were said to be needed in order for the effect to take place. Had you taken the time to read up a bit on this setup,and the requirements put forth in order for it to work as stated,then you would not be hopping around like a blind frog,looking for something to do.

Quote
You are an amateur comic

And you are a nothing.
You do nothing but hop from thread to thread,causing grief where ever you go.
I can out do you on a bench any day,as you dont do bench.
I can build a more efficient JT than you
I can build a more efficient pulse motor than you.
And i can build a more efficient rotoverter than you.
These are all facts,and there is no way you can prove otherwise.

What you need to do MH,is leave me alone--plain and simple.
There is no need for you to come to another thread i am on,and turn it to trash like the many threads you have done so on.

But my offer still stands MH-->do you wish to take me up on one of my challenges,and show everyone here that you can beat me at your own claimed brilliance?--show everyone here that you do know as much as you claim to know?.
LOL-no,i did not think so,because when it comes time to back up your claims,you run like the scared little chicken you are.

So do not engage with me until you are going to put your skills where your mouth is.


Brad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #465 on: June 15, 2016, 02:26:30 PM »

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #466 on: June 15, 2016, 02:28:20 PM »
MileHigh,

I wasn't going to respond to your posts but you are babbling off a bunch of nonsense that needs to be corrected for the sake of those trying to learn.

You have posted that an inverter is non-reactive.  That is complete foolishness.  Anyone that has built or worked with inverters knows they are definitely reactive.  But then you claim the circuit with the inverter is reactive.  HUH?  That doesn't make any sense.

You also posted the sample rate of the DSO is not giving us the complete picture because the sample rate is faster than the signal.  Do you even understand how a DSO works?  Under sampling is just the opposite of what you claimed.  The sample rate frequency HAS to be several times the signal frequency or you couldn't possibly get an accurate picture of the signal shape and amplitude.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea there might be more to this world than what you learned from books?  I have worked in electronics since I was 14 years old.  I have an associate degree in industrial electronics and an Advanced Radio Operators license (HAM).  I worked in industry as an electronic tech for over 30 years.  I will certainly agree the conventional training I have had made it much easier to do my job.  But I also know the conventional theory does not explain all I have seen both on my bench and on the job.

Brad may not use all the technical terms in exactly the way you want him to but at least he is making a serious effort to do something.  All I have seen from you is your use of technical arguments to try and discredit Brad.  And most of those arguments are clearly just to distract and not further the research.  Please, just go back to your books and leave the research to those that are actually trying to learn something.

Respectfully,
Carroll


Offline 3Kelvin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #467 on: June 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM »
Hello together,
sorry for my bad English.
schwore, try to become better.

Plz, do not build up another Zombie Thread between good and evil.

I did not realy believe in big guns, i like work bench results.
Not trolling about the work that others make(done).

So what?
Try to put the different forces together and have fun.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j

As a pupil, i need a teacher who is be able to make my day.
Not the one, who beat me with the homework and later with the exam.
Enjoy the vids

Love and Peace
3K




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #468 on: June 15, 2016, 02:36:58 PM »
A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.

Not only that,but also the below

Quote
Sure, that's the ticket.  I have done tons of analysis over the years and anybody that knows their stuff could easily qualify me.  In fact, my skills are already known and you are just bluffing.  Your real issue is Brad's failed attempt to measure the current input of the inverter.  Forget about some meaningless deflection by challenging me.  If you want to do something sensible, encourage Brad to redo his measurement and get it right because right now nobody knows how the input of the inverter works.

You see here that Miles makes the mistake in thinking the current measurements were being taken from the DSO,when in fact ,if he had of watched the videos,he would have clearly seen that the provided current measurements were being taken from the DMM,and the DSO was simply showing the current trace across that DMMs CVR.

Dont pay to much attention to him hoptoad,as he often makes mistakes like this.


Brad


Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #469 on: June 15, 2016, 02:37:34 PM »
snip...
In fact, my skills are already known and you are just bluffing.
snip...
I've got no skin in the race so I've got nothing to 'bluff' about. I've made no claims. You are the one making bench skill claims. You have proven you are skilled with words, especially ad hominem, and have a good and thorough understanding of electronics. But bench activity requires actions. You made a claim about your bench skills - prove it with actions. If you WILL not prove it with actions then your bench skills claim is and will continue to be baseless rhetoric.

Try taking a leaf out of Tinsel's style, backing up your knowledge and claims of bench skill with presentable activity. Or else refrain from making claims that you refuse to back up.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #469 on: June 15, 2016, 02:37:34 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #470 on: June 15, 2016, 02:42:42 PM »
MileHigh,

I wasn't going to respond to your posts but you are babbling off a bunch of nonsense that needs to be corrected for the sake of those trying to learn.

You have posted that an inverter is non-reactive.  That is complete foolishness.  Anyone that has built or worked with inverters knows they are definitely reactive.  But then you claim the circuit with the inverter is reactive.  HUH?  That doesn't make any sense.

You also posted the sample rate of the DSO is not giving us the complete picture because the sample rate is faster than the signal.  Do you even understand how a DSO works?  Under sampling is just the opposite of what you claimed.  The sample rate frequency HAS to be several times the signal frequency or you couldn't possibly get an accurate picture of the signal shape and amplitude.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea there might be more to this world than what you learned from books?  I have worked in electronics since I was 14 years old.  I have an associate degree in industrial electronics and an Advanced Radio Operators license (HAM).  I worked in industry as an electronic tech for over 30 years.  I will certainly agree the conventional training I have had made it much easier to do my job.  But I also know the conventional theory does not explain all I have seen both on my bench and on the job.

Brad may not use all the technical terms in exactly the way you want him to but at least he is making a serious effort to do something.  All I have seen from you is your use of technical arguments to try and discredit Brad.  And most of those arguments are clearly just to distract and not further the research.  Please, just go back to your books and leave the research to those that are actually trying to learn something.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Thank you Carroll.
Most of us are on the same page,and i will not let MHs interruptions impact on my research into this DUT.
If he continues on with his disruptions,we will simply have him removed from the thread.



Brad

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #471 on: June 15, 2016, 02:42:42 PM »
Brad:  Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.  Spinning and saying it was just "to show spikes" is a joke.  You are just playing the "I can't be wrong because my brain would fry" game.

Citfta:  The inverter does not look like a reactive load to the battery.  Brad saw spikes and got confused, simple as that.  No, I said the sample rate is slower than the signal, that's why you are looking at garbage aliased data.  Don't play the "do you even understand" game.  Forget the "books" argument also.

Brad presented junk data with a false interpretation of that junk data.  To get your thread going with two solid feet on the ground all of you need a proper characterization of how the inverter draws power from the battery and right now you do not have that.  So you can remain in some kind of bizarre spin zone of denial or you can get it right.  That's my point.  I am not interested in this thread but seeing it start off with junk data compelled me to say something.  Take it or leave it, it's up to you.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #471 on: June 15, 2016, 02:42:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #472 on: June 15, 2016, 02:57:06 PM »




Quote
Brad:  Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.

Brad did propper current measurements--thats my point--see screen shot from video below.

Quote
Brad saw spikes and got confused, simple as that.

No Brad did not.
Brad was showing David that the required current spikes were present.

Quote
Brad presented junk data with a false interpretation of that junk data.

No-MH is once again filling a thread with rubbish,due to nothing more that his misunderstandings of what was going on,and why.

Quote
No, I said the sample rate is slower than the signal, that's why you are looking at garbage aliased data.

The sample rate is quite fine for showing the switching of the mosfets between each cycle.

Quote
The inverter does not look like a reactive load to the battery.

But the current trace clearly is showing a reaction when the mosfets switch on.
We are not going to get into MHs limited terms,meanings and conditions here on this thread.

 
Quote
To get your thread going with two solid feet on the ground all of you need a proper characterization of how the inverter draws power from the battery and right now you do not have that.

Those that knew what i was showing,are those that have there feet firmly planted on the ground,as they are the ones that took the time to read as to what was needed to be seen-->and this was not you.

Quote
  So you can remain in some kind of bizarre spin zone of denial or you can get it right.  That's my point.  I am not interested in this thread but seeing it start off with junk data compelled me to say something.  Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

We will leave it thanks MH,as the rest of us knows whats going on here,and you do not.

Bye ;)


Brad

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2990
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #473 on: June 15, 2016, 02:57:34 PM »
MileHigh,

At your word you would not follow on to another thread.

Please keep your word.

If you feel the need to speak up then start your own thread and vent all you want,, but keep it out of the other threads as per your own words.

I am sure there will be those that will follow and engage in your own thread.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #474 on: June 16, 2016, 05:25:01 AM »
Brad did propper current measurements--thats my point--see screen shot from video below.

And it's almost impossible to have a rational mature argument with you because you make immature fake arguments like pointing to a multimeter current measurement when everybody knows including you yourself that I am talking about a current waveform measurement with your DSO.  Making a proper measurement with your DSO and determining what the pulse widths and pulse frequencies are like for both low and high power output from the inverter may be very helpful in solving the mystery of why the first battery discharges before the second battery.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #474 on: June 16, 2016, 05:25:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #475 on: June 16, 2016, 06:14:28 AM »
And it's almost impossible to have a rational mature argument with you because you make immature fake arguments like pointing to a multimeter current measurement when everybody knows including you yourself that I am talking about a current waveform measurement with your DSO.  Making a proper measurement with your DSO and determining what the pulse widths and pulse frequencies are like for both low and high power output from the inverter may be very helpful in solving the mystery of why the first battery discharges before the second battery.

I have already explained as to why battery A discharges  more than battery B in the two series batteries.
If you take the time to look at the circuit,you will also see why.

That scope shot i posted had nothing what so ever to do with current measurements,and the DMM was an initial current measurement only.
This was the very first look at this circuit,but already you are asking for critical measurements.
You always jump the gun MH,and you dont give anyone time to continue  on with experiments  before your on there back,telling them how wrong they have everything,and how they should be doing things.

So what you need to do,is engauge in some bench work of your own toward the subject matter,or leave it to those that are doing the experiments  at there own pace--not yours.


Brad

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5981
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #476 on: June 16, 2016, 12:08:19 PM »
Yes Miles Your acting like a doting Den Mother , give the fellows some air...

Go make us some cookies ...



Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #477 on: June 16, 2016, 12:38:20 PM »
I have already explained as to why battery A discharges  more than battery B in the two series batteries.
If you take the time to look at the circuit,you will also see why.

Okay so you are going to redo the current draw measurements by the inverter sometime in the future and get it right.

I just want to try to understand how you explain that battery A always discharges before battery B.  I attached your diagram and I added the battery designations.  I think that I may have an explanation but I want to try to understand your explanation first.

Here is what Carroll said:

<<< The fact is the battery that is in series (battery A) and connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster than the other series battery (battery B).  As far as I know none of us have been able to come up with an explanation for why that happens. >>>

Here is your explanation:

<<< I can answer that question for you Carroll.
Batter A(the series battery connected to the load),is only in a series configuration.
Battery C(the charging battery) is in a parallel configuration.
But battery B,(the series battery in the middle of the other two batteries)is in both a series and parallel configuration. It is in series with battery A,but in parallel with battery C.
Depending on the load type(E.G inverter,DC motor) will depend on how well that parallel path is between battery B and C,but in almost all cases,there will be some sort of partial parallel connection between battery B and C. How well this parallel path is,will depend on how much battery B and C equalize,and so battery B will receive some partial charging from battery C,but battery A will always be in series,and will be the one that gives up most of it's charge.
Battery A is the one you would want to swap out for battery C,and battery C would take the position of battery A. Battery B might only have to be changed with battery C every 3 of 4 cycles. >>>

Okay, when you say, "Battery C(the charging battery) is in a parallel configuration," it's because battery A's positive is "pointing upwards" in the diagram and battery C's positive is also "pointing upwards" which sort of looks like "positive meeting positive" and so you use the term "parallel configuration."  If I am making a mistake let me know.

So for battery B, it is obviously in series with battery A, but battery B and battery C have positives "pointing upwards" which is sort of like "positive meeting positive" and that is also called a "parallel configuration."  So battery B is in series with battery A  and also in "parallel" with battery C.

Here is your explanation for battery A discharging faster than battery B:

<<< Depending on the load type(E.G inverter,DC motor) will depend on how well that parallel path is between battery B and C,but in almost all cases,there will be some sort of partial parallel connection between battery B and C. How well this parallel path is,will depend on how much battery B and C equalize,and so battery B will receive some partial charging from battery C,but battery A will always be in series,and will be the one that gives up most of it's charge. >>>

You make reference to "some sort of partial parallel connection between battery B and C."  Here is where you have lost me.  Battery B's output goes into battery A and then through the inverter before it gets to battery C.  So how can you call that a "parallel" connection?

You say that "battery B will receive some partial charging from battery C" but when you look at the circuit the current always flows clockwise through the loop, and therefore it is impossible for battery B to receive some partial charging from battery C.

So from what I can see, I can't understand how you are claiming that battery A will discharge faster than battery B because I do not see any partial charging of battery B from battery C at all.

Am I missing something?

MileHigh

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #478 on: June 16, 2016, 03:26:53 PM »
.









Am I missing something?

MileHigh
[/quote]

Quote
Okay so you are going to redo the current draw measurements by the inverter sometime in the future and get it right

Take another look at the scope shot i provided MH,and look at the RMS and Mean value.
The CVR in the DMM is 200 milliohms,and the DMM reads a current of 3 amps-->how close is them apples :D

Quote
I just want to try to understand how you explain that battery A always discharges before battery B.  I attached your diagram and I added the battery designations.  I think that I may have an explanation but I want to try to understand your explanation first.
So from what I can see, I can't understand how you are claiming that battery A will discharge faster than battery B because I do not see any partial charging of battery B from battery C at all.

Perhaps if you use cap's instead of batteries ,it will become clear.
Take into account the series internal resistance total of battery A and B,and then the parallel resistance total of batteries B and C. You will see that battery A will always have a higher circuit resistance than that of batteries B and C dose in the circuit.

Below is a picture i just took of a test i not long ago carried out--just for your question.
It was my belief that the same should apply for capacitors as it dose for the batteries. The 3 caps(which i am sure you have seen me use many times over the years) are identical caps--10,000uf,63 volt high current caps. Caps A and B were charged to 12 volt's,and cap C i charged to 9 volts. I then completed the circuit using a 12 volt LED.
I tried the same test 3 times,and each time i rotated the position of the caps,and the results were always the same. As you can see,cap A always discharges the most,while cap B ends with a higher voltage. Cap C of course charges up much higher than it's starting voltage.
So the same applies for caps as it dose for the batteries.

Only battery Bs negative is hooked to battery Cs negative,and the parallel connection of the two positive terminals is via the circuit it self--and that includes battery A. The internal series resistance of batteries A and B is added together,while the internal parallel resistance of batteries B and C are halved--just the same as series connecting or parallel connecting normal resistors.
So battery B has a lower resistance value toward battery C,while battery A has a higher value resistance toward battery C.

I am finding it hard to word in a way you may understand,even though i know exactly what i mean.
More power is delivered from battery C to battery B,because of the higher resistance between battery C and A,and so some of that power is dissipated by this resistance.
Say we have our 3 batteries.
1 battery is at 13.5 volt's,and the other two are at 11 volts. We will charge the two batteries with 11 volts,with the battery that has 13 volts-only we will insert two resistors in the jumper leads.
the battery with 13 volts we will call battery C,and the two with 11 volts ,we will call A and B.
The 3 negatives are all linked together by jumper leads. From battery Cs positive to battery Bs positive,we will put a jumper lead that has 1 ohm resistance. From battery Cs positive to battery As positive,we will use a jumper lead that has 2 ohms resistance. When we do this,we see that battery B will charge faster than battery A.
I hope this all makes sense.


Brad


Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7585
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #479 on: June 16, 2016, 06:06:27 PM »
Brad:

I can't explain your capacitor example but it is interesting and could merit some more study.  Is that really a 12-volt LED in the picture?  I thought that little panel LED lights that are white might be about 5 volts, not 12 volts.

As far as your theory goes with the series and parallel stuff, you are really just making up stuff on your own and inventing a belief system that has no real merit.  And I hand out a big FAIL to all of the other people reading and contributing to the thread that say nothing.  You are supposed to challenge each other, and not always be compliant mush with respect to each other.  Sure, be open to new ideas and new ways of looking at things, but be just as open to debating them and rejecting them if you think they don't make sense.  I am just saying this in general terms, don't read anything extra into it.

The simple view of the setup is a current loop with battery A and B as the source, and the inverter and battery C as the load.  KCL and KVL will always apply.  Current flows clockwise all the time and going around the loop:  From the bottom you go up in potential from battery B and up in potential from battery A and then you drop down in potential through the inverter and then you drop down in potential from battery C and then you are back at home base.

In your 'invention' you say that battery C is closer to battery B and so there is less resistance between them or it's a "parallel" resistance.  Battery A is further away so it has less affect on battery C or something like that.  These things all sound interesting but the bottom line is that this is a single current loop with voltages that go up and down as you travel through the loop.  You are trying to reinvent the wheel to come up with an explanation but it will not work.  You can clearly see that battery A and battery B export power and the inverter and battery C absorb the power exported by battery A and battery B.  The only thing that all three batteries "see" is the voltage across them, and the same current flowing through them.

However, within that "reality constraint" there still has to be an explanation for why battery A discharges faster than battery B.

I am not going to debate your viewpoint anymore.  If you want to stick with it that is fine with me.  However, what I am going to do is make a new post where I offer up a possible theory for why battery A discharges faster than battery B.  I am not here for the long haul but I did put some thought into this mystery for fun and I will share my thoughts about it.  If some of you find what I have to say interesting then feel free to explore it further.  I don't plan on defending my idea or pursuing anything further with this.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #479 on: June 16, 2016, 06:06:27 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: