stefan & miki .. if you are right [& I have no reason to doubt you at this stage] couldn't this simple graphite conversion process be used for just about all low voltage electrical motor applications but instead of changing batteries or swapping them while another is charging off the grid, just replace a snap on graphite brush kit every once in a while ? You might wear out brushes a lot more quickly than usual but afterall graphite is cheap & plentiful IINM so wouldn't that make great economic sense as opposed to buying & replacing batteries which are relatively expensive ?! - why hasn't someone actually done this or have they ? - excuse my ignorance !
P.S: Did I now prevent him to get a patent by openly explaining it how it works ?
Sorry David...
Now that I have listened to the full interview,
it is clear that it is working this way.
David admitted in the interview, that he did not yet understand it himself, how it works,
so at least he now knows. ;) ;D
..........the original circuit was developed by Ronald Brandt. The 1983 date of the
Brandt circuit pre-dates John's work on this system. Ron's circuits used mechanical
contacters as switches, but apparently worked quite well, as long as the contacters
lasted. John [Bedini] was the first to adapt this circuit to solid-state switching,
using the SG 1524 dual flip-flop functions and bipolar transistors as the switches.
So, exactly why this is called the Tesla Switch is beyond me.
John has told me that his "cigar box" unit ran a small electric motor for more than 6
months without discharging the batteries AT ALL. He also told me that the original working model
was smashed by a "guest" in his shop who was infuriated by its
operation, while John was out of the room. At this point, he decided
not to rebuild it. I know John personally, and have no reason to doubt this report.
Obviously, the voltage drops in the transistors and diodes present a CONSTANT loss
during operation, not to mention the energy dissipated at the load.
Therefore, the system defies all standard explanations and energy use equations.
The batteries apparently stay charged and run loads simultaneously for a reason that is not conventional.
.......................................
The system does not involve resisters, diodes, rectifiers, transistors. It's.
basically just batteries, a motor, wires, and switches
If my calculations are correct, there are about 1260 watts of power in the batteries I am using (4 18 Ah batteries and one 33 AH battery) and I only accounted for 990 watts used up by the light bulb, so not very impressive so far. The rest of the power could easily have been used up by the motor, which ran for nine hours during the testing. So maybe the thing doesn't work and I used up all the watts available.
Stefan, where would we have the sparkgap with a conventional dc motor? are we able to have it without taking the motor apart, do we need to connect and disconnect the power rapidly like the newman machine? like have the circuit that goes via a plywood disk connected to the motor that rotates and has segments to disconnect the power rapidly to the motor, it wood only have to be in one direction because the commutator inside the motor would take care of the rest.
And on that note i will just say i did something simler once just as a quick experiment to see if the motor would get rotation , and it did but was slower then what it was with a normal connection and the same power supply obviously because of the constant disconnection, but god there were some sparks let me tell you but the experiments stoped there, it was only a very small 6v motor to which i had a plastic bottle top on the end of the sharft and a peice of wire that looped around it which had the 8 segments connected to it which they themsleves were a just a piece of wire, one brush connected from one terminal of the battery to the loop of wire and another brush (which was held by my hand) then connected the segments to one of the motors terminal while the other terminal of the motor just had a normal connection to the other terminal of the battery.
David, i believe I have duplicated your experiment. Every description you have given I have also observed. I believe the there is an illusion going on here. By measuring only the voltage in the charging (charged) battery you are seeing what is believed to be a full charge, however the battery is not actually at full capacity. If you charge a battery your way then charge another identical battery using a conventional method then hook them up to separate and identical loads I'm sure you will find the conventionally charged battery will outlast the other. With the system running indefinitely your middle battery will go "dead" first and your "charging battery will be charged and your first battery will be at approximately 80%. I really really hope I am wrong!!
I just hooked up my whole system using the old, less powerful motor I used on the first day, and now it's working right again. I hooked up the motor I was using this weekend and it doesn't work right. SO apparently something went on inside the motor that screwed me up. Possibly wearing out the brushes with all that sparking. I don't know. But once again I am able to charge a battery and the voltage in my main batteries either stays the same or increases, and the motor runs the whole time. I will be charging up four batteries now and then discharging them through the Kill-A-Watt to see how many hours of power they put out. And doing it again and again. Kilowat hours of electricity is the "standard" my electrical engineer friend wanted to see.
I just hooked up my whole system using the old, less powerful motor I used on the first day, and now it's working right again. I hooked up the motor I was using this weekend and it doesn't work right. SO apparently something went on inside the motor that screwed me up. Possibly wearing out the brushes with all that sparking. I don't know. But once again I am able to charge a battery and the voltage in my main batteries either stays the same or increases, and the motor runs the whole time. I will be charging up four batteries now and then discharging them through the Kill-A-Watt to see how many hours of power they put out. And doing it again and again. Kilowat hours of electricity is the "standard" my electrical engineer friend wanted to see.
.
A standard bulb can charge the 3rd battery! No graphite brushes there...
judo_jack63:
Hi to all that replied to my post,
While I must first state that I really am not here to provide schematics or go into long dissertations regarding the achievability of OU devices, (because I expect that all posters should have a bit of knowledge in this area and have made something work) I will provide a few clues to help.
@judo_jack63,
I have built and tested three variants of the Tesla switch and NONE of
MY tested circuits was overunity. The newest variant that I tested was with
four 9,6 Volt 700 mA NiCad battery packs. I use HEXFET transistors controlled
from a PIC16F84A micro controller to switch between the batteries. I could NOT
detect any charge in the batteries.
Lately I also hooked up a 12VDC motor to two series lead acid batteries and tried to charge up two similar paralleled batteries. After several cycles of swapping batteries between input and output, the batteries run down. Did not work for me.
I have build the Muller motor/generator. I have tested two different switches on that motor and is about to build and test the third variant later this year. So far, no free energy.
I have built and tested the MEG (Tom Bearden). Did not work for me.
I have built and tested Bedini motors. Yes, they do charge batteries but I was not able to find any free energy.
I'm still waiting for "free energy" and is still powering my house from the mains. :D
Groundloop.
@judo_jack63,
I have built and tested three variants of the Tesla switch and NONE of
MY tested circuits was overunity. The newest variant that I tested was with
four 9,6 Volt 700 mA NiCad battery packs. I use HEXFET transistors controlled
from a PIC16F84A micro controller to switch between the batteries. I could NOT
detect any charge in the batteries.
Lately I also hooked up a 12VDC motor to two series lead acid batteries and tried to charge up two similar paralleled batteries. After several cycles of swapping batteries between input and output, the batteries run down. Did not work for me.
I have build the Muller motor/generator. I have tested two different switches on that motor and is about to build and test the third variant later this year. So far, no free energy.
I have built and tested the MEG (Tom Bearden). Did not work for me.
I have built and tested Bedini motors. Yes, they do charge batteries but I was not able to find any free energy.
I'm still waiting for "free energy" and is still powering my house from the mains. :D
Groundloop.
Hi Groundloop,
very simple,
if you don?t have a running sparkgap with the right tuned spark
bringing free electrons from the burning graphite brush into the circuit,
these circuits will never be overunity.
This is why Newman motors and Lutec devices with just electronic
commutators never worked.
Also the Lutec device needs the spark at the brushes,
as one of the 2 inventors told me in an email,
otherwise we will see no overunity output energy.
Could well be the effect of the graphite fusion principle discussed
over here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.0.html
or via electron clustering at the sparking graphite.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S. I am not sure how the modern Bedini circuits really work,
but the older ones had also a mechanical switch which sparked,
when the collected capacitor charge was dumped into the battery
during closing of this mechanical switch.
Zerotensor,
Please read Lavalee's (VSG) theory on Jlnlabs. It explains what happens in these reactions. The electrons aren't created out of nothing. As a matter of fact carbon is not the only material that can yield such results. Carbon is the spark gap material of choice only because it's cheap and abundant.
Thanks,
Miki.
"hydrogen-on-demand system using plasma hydrolysis with carbon rods",
I just hooked up my whole system using the old, less powerful motor I used on the first day, and now it's working right again. I hooked up the motor I was using this weekend and it doesn't work right. SO apparently something went on inside the motor that screwed me up. Possibly wearing out the brushes with all that sparking. I don't know. But once again I am able to charge a battery and the voltage in my main batteries either stays the same or increases, and the motor runs the whole time. I will be charging up four batteries now and then discharging them through the Kill-A-Watt to see how many hours of power they put out. And doing it again and again. Kilowat hours of electricity is the "standard" my electrical engineer friend wanted to see.
The guard dog sits and waits PATIENTLY without BADGERING the inventor.What the Guard Dog not realize is that he is protecting a house with no valuables in it.
What's the latest news?
I guess his electrical engineering friend found a flaw and now he does not come back here....Maybe he has succeeded and doesn't want to give the secret away until his patent is granted.
I will be charging up four batteries now and then discharging them through the Kill-A-Watt to see how many hours of power they put out. And doing it again and again. Kilowat hours of electricity is the "standard" my electrical engineer friend wanted to see.
All,
If David device fails, this one will work almost beyond a doubt:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.new.html#new
My first replication ended up in meltdown due to the high output current and heat. I monitor my input current was at about .5A. The output was probably in the hundreds. We finally have a winner. It is called VSG. Please replicate.
Thanks,
Miki.
All,
If David device fails, this one will work almost beyond a doubt:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1310.new.html#new
My first replication ended up in meltdown due to the high output current and heat. I monitor my input current was at about .5A. The output was probably in the hundreds. We finally have a winner. It is called VSG. Please replicate.
Thanks,
Miki.
say look, folks - it's Lee-Tseung's guard dog ;)
hey, what ya doin' so far from home, boy?!?
Baddd move, Guard Dog is here from the beginning, only 4 posts here, so he did not come from Lee-Tseung's topic, read before talk for nothing
This is the correct circuit diagramm.
The incandescent lamp is optional and will also consume
power from the radio frequency bursts...
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
Just found this thread. The bigest problem all are having is totally discharging the batteries to a "Dead" condition before charging. That simply kills the batteries and they become useless for an electrochemical storage device and if the carbon brush theory is working, the receiving battery is simply incapable of holding the charge presented.
NEVER discharge batteries below 50% if you want to have any hope of a long life system......Books have been written on this, Bedini teaches this, all boat owners know this, Read up on the care and feeding of batteries.....Whether this works or not, I don't have a clue right now. But what the heck, something to think about, work on!
Ben
Hi k4zep
in many topics in this forum we have seen old batteries recover from pulsating recharge, it is possible that the motor use in David Bowling produce a sort of healing
David Bowling use new batteries, and i beleive him when he says they become full again
I remember another inventor using 12 odl scrap batteries and make them fine again
i beleive as said before that David Bowling use tesla switch and easy carbon fusion, 2 way of OU in the same device
Would like to see an update on this. Anyone heard anything?
Brad
::) I have been following this discussion hoping that some one would prove this and produce a known working example. I have also been following Richard Willis?s operations which is now Magnacoaster Motor Company www.magnacoaster.com/magna/ . If I understand his product is power over unity in operation and being sold????? For those curious to check it out I would like to know your thoughts. I am thinking of buying the Vorkex 12,000 to run my house. If David?s will do the same I would wait as it sounds like a less expense.
stefan & miki .. if you are right ... as opposed to buying & replacing batteries ...
@Goat,This way , I understand that the Motot is runnung only with 6 volts, if the the natteries are 12 volts AND the output point will be shorted (closed) - if they must deliver power in Outut Ohmic Load, it will lossed more voltages going in the motor (?) Con anybody explain the "overiity" than i can not see here
I think he connected the circuit like this.
Groundloop.
It repeated this cycle over and over and over for several DAYS. I just let it run.
and finding a dead battery isn't always easy.
Try hooking up the battery to a lawyer or a politician...that should drain the life out of it. :)ROFL :D :D :D .. KneeDeep
Regards...
Stupid intellectual property system. Why aren't there any inventers out there who don't care whether or not they get fortune and glory? If I'd invented it, I would have just spread the plans and schematics across the nation and the internet for free, and produced youtube videos on how to build and operate the thing.I believe the reason is everyone in the world is not a hobbyist . It makes since to me to plan release of finished products to everyone at the same time so actual people who need it and have no idea how to build them can have one . .Indeed a free energy Electric machine wil not be free but will provide free electricity after purchased .
Nevermind, found it: http://www.fluxite.com/WorkingRadiantEnergy.pdf
We have three people in different parts of the country with working devices. All you have is your opinion. Either build it and see what it can do, or go away. I have no time for you. I am doing hours of test runs every day without ever charging the primaries. But just to annoy folks like you even more, I am going to the store tomorrow and buy two of the smallest amp hour 12 volt batteries I can find. My load doesn't change. It is a 12 volt motor that pulls 11 amps running another motor as generator. When I put a load on the generator it draws even MORE amps, but we won't go into that. The amp draw was taken with both an analogue gauge shown and a digital meter. It has been checked more than once and is ALWAYS at least 11 amps. Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5O5Cn7Nug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5O5Cn7Nug)[/font][/size]
Now, if I am not lying about that, how long would you expect I could run that load even if the voltage in all five of the batteries we are using in the system were full. We have three 18.5 amp hour batteries, one of which we drain down to 12 volts or less before putting it into the system. And we have two 4.5 amp hour DEAD batteries we are using as our transducer batteries which show less than 2 volts. So even if all of these were full, how many amp hours of run time could I expect to get out of my motor?
3x 18.5 = 55.5
2x 4.5 = 9
-----------------
65.5 amp hours
divided by 11 amps. is a little over five hours of run time. Yet I ran it for 10 hours one day and 8 the next without recharging, plus a few hours the day before that and for two more today before I screwed up and let my loads get out of balance, which ran my primaries down to 12.2 volts. And that doesn't count the inverter which is running off the system on which I have running 18.5 watts worth of lights the entire time. And you can explain that all away through "desulfation" of the old batteries? Good luck with that.
Why build when over the years every single one of these devices I know that was tested failed to do as claimed. If you are so certain its not The battery effect then run it on capacitors. I owuld love to hear yoru argument on that.Mark-you cant always replace batteries with caps.Batteries have a very low internal resistance,where as caps have a parallel resistance and a series resistance. What happens if we have a battery and a cap in series,and then try to drive a load from say the negative of the cap and the positive of the battery?. Some circuits require that low internal resistance to opperate,and replacing the batteries with caps may change the systems operation. But i do agree that in most cases that the batteries should be able to be replaced with cap's.
Unfortunately history is against you on this and some well known examples like Magnacoaster has highlighted the folly. The last two I went to Test in South Africa both failed. Please name just one device (go to Free Energy News they have dozens listed) that panend out
measuring battery voltage is not a good indicator or the storage capacity or health , especially when your actually changing them.
@ profitis Care to design a set of tests and instrumentation for this to demonstrate it is anything other than the battery effect?
Kind Regards
Mark :)
Guys, I actually was done here, but someone on our thread pointed out an error to me, and I need to pass this info along. I showed a video of my razor scooter motor running another razor scooter motor pulling 11 amps. I assumed since my generator I am running with a DIFFERENT razor scooter motor was heavier, that it would pull more amps. Someone pointed out to me that their motor unloaded was pulling less than ONE amp and no matter how much pressure they put on the shaft they could not get it to read 11 amps. I went back and tested the motor running my big generator and it is only pulling slightly over 2 amps. The razor scooter motor running another motor is a disaster. I get different readings with analogue vs digital from 11 amps to 6 amps. When i try to run the motor at the other end of the shaft, it won't even run, and I was using it as a generator. So there are definite issues with these two motors. Luckily I have two more on order. There may also be issues with my meters. I will spend some time this weekend calibrating them.
Obviously this throws all my calculations out the window, so I am shutting my mouth until I get everything calibrated off a known voltage and amp supply. Then I will be back here. I still think I am correct, but at this point I lack the accurate data to support my conclusions.
Dave
Still doing that other test though, and I can still run my GOOD motor with the generator, which is what I have been running all along...only assuming 10 amp load when it is only just over two.
@ David
1. You inspire a lot of confidence knowing your instrumentation is coming from Harbor Freight.
2. Many years ago I reconditioned hundreds of batteries for people with small solar systems. We would get the traded in batteries from auto shops and i used a very expensive pulse charger system to rejuvenate them (some were like new when we finished). We also re conditioned the existing deep cell batteries they had. So i believe you when you say you have fixed so many batteries.
3. You had to go through many batteries for the third battery before you find the right one...Why? What property differentiates that battery from others, you may then have a key to understanding whats going on.
All the best I will not bother here anymore, I am happy you have passion about what you are doing and enjoy the journey.
Kind Regards
PS as far as any excess energy other than from whats coming from the battery...BS, and you do not have the data , methodologies to support that you do.
I have been thinking about this. Since I have a two channel scope, why don't I simply connect one channel to each of the primary batteries. It will show the voltage on the battery at the bottom of the screen. The dead batteries remain dead, and the buffer battery remains flat at whatever voltage it was when you started the system. So if the motor is running for many hours or days, where does the power come from if those primaries do not change in voltage, or go up? I can scope the voltage in the dead batteries and the buffer battery with my OTHER scope, and though I don't have enough scopes to have one on every battery, I can scope beginning and ending voltages in a run cycle. Would this be sufficient? It would seem to me that a scope would be far more accurate than a cheap battery tester would be.
Dave
@ Hoppy
one failing and I do not have the answer to regards measurement. None of the instruments available can measure improvements to battery capacity through de-sulfation and other changes that may occur, and the impacts it has on the lifespan of the battery. Hate to be the party pooper.
Old batteries can have their life and performance improved, new batteries often have their lifespan reduced.(common observation by other experimenters)
Mark
@hoppy..that makes no dif to total power consumed versus relinquished.total power has zero to do with physical state of bats and evrything to do with H2SO4 depletion in electrolyte.Pb+SO4--=PbSO4+2electrons+energy.
David, I have been following your work quietly for some time and have conducted my own experiments with the 3BGS. As you well know, a sulfated battery may have retained a considerable level of charge before it sulfated to a condition where its internal resistance reached a point that makes it unuseable for normal applications. When this same battery is de-sulfated to some extent by 'spike' conditioning, the 'locked-in' energy is released and can begin to run a load. It may take a considerable time for the energy to released to a level that can start to run a load and I've had to wait as long as 45 mins before some batteries show any sign of life on the 3BGS system and allow my scooter motor to start turning. Nonetheless, even these apparently 'stone dead' batteries can also have considerable 'locked-in' energy that can be coaxed out by prolonged conditioning. I have found that its not possible to extract all of the 'locked-up' energy from a sulfated battery just by loading it for a long time, so when you think an old battery has been fully discharged because its unloaded terminal voltage is just a volt or so, it can still hold a considerable level of energy waiting to be released by desulfation!
The effect caused by the release of this energy is to cause increase potentialisation which can cause the 'good' batteries to appear to hang or even increase in voltage level as their internal impedances attempt to stabilise to the condition imposed on their terminals from the 'dead' battery. This gives the impression that the 'good' batteries are being charged or just not draining as quickly as expected for the load across the 'dead' battery. Placing even more load across the 'dead' battery seems to have little effect on the 'good' batteries and can even cause their terminal voltage to increase! However, a point is reached when the 'good' batteries have impedance stabilised sufficiently and start supplying more current to maintain the load that cannot be maintained by the 'bad battery. From that point on its down hill all the way! The effects we see are all to do with battery vagaries and nothing to do with free energy IMO.
I'm glad you guys are addressing this, I've tried to suggest the effects were from "battery effects" as well. There are many different ones.
Sucahyo showed a battery which demonstrated an effect I have seen in a battery myself, where the battery seems dead/heavily sulfated and is sulfated but not drained of charge, the result is that when a globe or load is placed on the battery nothing happens and the voltage drops to practically zero, then after some time the battery begins to give up energy and the globe lights up the voltage rises under the load and the current keeps improving the effect until the globe is fully lit and full current flows, with a reasonable voltage at the terminals observed. If the load is not enough nothing happens. I'll try to find that video, but I think I linked it in the EF thread.
Also even a battery that appears to be dead say (3v) still has a lot of charge anyway.
Cheers
OK Guys, here is the test I am going to run. If this is not adequate, speak now or forever hold your peace because I am not going to spend all my time jumping through hoops for people who won't even take the time to build this and see for themselves.
!. Measure the specific gravity of every cell in every battery in the setup
2. Measure the voltages on all the batteries with my scope
3. Measure the output of the inverter through a kilowatt meter to a known load (from 17-30 watts depending on what I need to balance my motor running my generator)
4. Measure the output of the generator through a full wave bridge and a voltage regulator to some 12 volt lights in terms of amps and voltage produced over time
5. Measure the specific gravity of all cells in all batteries at the end of the run and the voltages of all batteries as well.
It is my contention that 3 and 4 above are all gravy as long as the specific gravity in the primaries has remained level or increased and the specific gravity in all other batteries has remained level or increased. Does that about do it? Please let me know before I start this. Probably won't start until tomorrow morning as I have a couple things till to do before I am ready to run. And I will only be doing a 10 hour run as my wife objects to the noise of the motor running right under us.
Next week, however, I plan on moving this setup out to my pool room, which is a converted garage separate from the house, and letting it run for a few days just to see what happens. UPDATE: Will probably be a little later than that, since I didn't get everything done I needed to do today. Could not find my tap and die set, which necessitated a run to the auto parts store I had not anticipated and I lost hours I needed. But if all goes well in the morning I ail still fire it up SOMETIME tomorrow. If not, then Friday. I will be pout of town for a four day weekend, so I am really shooting for tomorrow sometime.
Dave
Good points raised Farmhand. Yes, many so called 'dead' batteries that end up scrapped have become badly sulfated (stratified) due to not being fully charged after each cycle of use but can still hold a considerable charge. These will eventually spring to life (some a lot quicker than others) when the internal resistance has fallen enough to supply sufficient current to the series connected motor and start it turning. As David has found out, when this happens, they start to take a charge, which results in the the two 'good' batteries draining down over time. With a heavy enough load across the 'bad' battery, the 'good' batteries can sometimes be seen to rise in potential for a period of time. This is whilst their internal resistance is adjusting to the load. It is during this period (which can be lengthy) when load balancing can prolong this effect and really heavy loads like inverters can be hooked-up, without the terminal voltage of the 'good batteries' appearing to drop! However, SG readings before and after these heavy loaded runs will reveal that the 'good' batteries have lost charge proportional to the load applied. I hope that David will see this effect for what it really is - a battery vagary - when he starts to take proper measurements under a realistic test procedure.
Hoppy,
There is definitely a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this thing puts out way more energy than is contained in the primary batteries.
Dave
I purchased a power analyzer. Should be here in a couple days, but this pushes things off until next Wednesday. That gives me some more time anyway. I'm not sure if it will work since the motor is wired between the positives of two batteries, but I can still use it to measure the DC output of the generator in amps and volts. I can measure the output of the inverter through the kilowatt meter. To measure what the motor uses I can measure the amps, volts and time it has been running. Since it will run at a constant speed, that should be accurate enough for this test. Because I think you will be surprised by how long this setup will run.
Dave
Hoppy,
I am going to run the Modified 3BGS circuit. There is no need to stop it and rest the batteries. It is a stable circuit. The buffer battery stays at about 12.2 volts while drawing energy out of it to run the inverter. The two dead batteries hold their voltage, although sometimes transducer 2 climbs in voltage (which we DON'T want.) And the primaries hold level. The longest run anyone has done with this circuit is 10 hours. I believe I can run it for a really long time, so measuring the SG of all the batteries once at the beginning and once at the end is all that is needed. No stopping, no recharging of anything. If transducer 2 gains too much charge, I will simply stop, discharge it, and start again from where I left off. I am going to run it until it won't run anymore or several days go buy of recorded continuous loads that far exceed what is possible from two batteries, and then we will measure the SG of all the batteries again and see where we are. I know you don't have any faith, but I do. I have been working with this for five years and I know what I have seen. Too many others have seen the same thing.
Dave
If you're interested enough in this thread, go check out what we are doing at:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-99.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-99.html)
We have come up with a test I HOPE will satisfy everyone, and will be conducting it as soon as the parts get here. Meanwhile, we are DANG close to having solved all our issues and have a stable setup anyone can build.
Dave
I was wondering, with all due respect. To those who claim something special is going on and there is a more energy out than energy in situation or effect taking place.Fair question, Farmhand. That is, if we are only dealing with the "energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to charge the batteries." Anyone who knows this system and its dynamics would agree that this is a logical assumption.
!) Exactly how can it be that more energy can come out of a device than energy that goes into a device, including all the energy contained in the batteries right from the point of construction and including the energy contained within the matter of the device itself, and the initial energy required to first charge the batteries ?
2) In other words how can anyone expect to get more energy out of a device over an extended period than work that was done to create the materials and construct all the parts of the device in the first place and all the energy contained within the materials the device is actually made from ?I believe this is a rephrase of your first point, perhaps as a thoughtful point of clarification, lest your initial question be misunderstood. And again, a fair question that deserves a logical explanation. I, along with some of the builders of this device would argue that the notion of getting more energy "out" needs to be nuanced. "Out" according to the way you express it, seems to imply that the energy produced must have been "inside" the battery, either through its construction or charging. I believe that some of the builders are now saying that the so-called "excess" energy is actually coming INTO the 3BGS "THROUGH" the battery. In other words, the battery is acting as a kind of aerial or receiver for ambient electrostatic energy. I am therefore suggesting a shift of electrical paradigm or horizon is necessary to comprehend what is happening in this system, according to those who maintain that it is drawing in excess energy.
The way I see it it is completely impossible for any system to output more energy then is input into said system at all previous stages of construction of the materials and device.
ie. The energy used to initially charge all the batteries and the energy locked up in all of the actual matter the entire device is constructed from.Any physicist worth their salt would acknowledge there is enough energy locked in a glass of water to make one hell of an explosion. It would surely follow the same is true for the materials locked in a battery's material components. However, I don't think that's what you're referring to, and I don't think this is what the 3BGS builders are referring to as the source of excess energy OUT, either.
Logic and common sense says that for it to come out it must first go in, unless something is created from nothing.It seems your logic has broken down here Farmhand. Your premise in the above statement is sensible within the contemporary paradigm (which would exclude electrostatic forces coming into play in this system) to which most EEs would subscribe. Makes good sense from this perspective. However, you then seem to invite the reader to assume that the only exception to this premise (expressed with the term "unless") is that "something is created from nothing." This second step in your logic seems to abandon any environmental, physical or measurable explanation and enters into the metaphysical or theological notion of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) as the only other viable (and ridiculous, I assume) answer. I believe that you have failed to consider other sources of energy coming into the battery - namely the ambient electrostatic environment. Without considering this possiblity, the "something out of nothing" conjecture, which seems to discredit the whole 3BGS system, is out of place, and potentially misleading. It would appear to me that your are leaving out some important possibilities in your progression of thought.
In other words actual OU is impossible by definition. Energy cannot be created from nothing, it is not possible to create any actual thing or work from nothing. To me that is pure logic.Absolutely correct! No one on the 3BGS thread has ever suggested that energy is being "created" from nothing. Why, to do so would be to ascribe to one's device, or even worse, to oneself as its developer, some sort of godlike powers of "creation" ex nihilo. So therefore, if we are all mortals obeying the law of conservation of energy, and cannot create "something from nothing," and the 3BGS is putting out what appears to be excess energy, perhaps it shouldn't be called "overunity" as per your statement, which echoes similar sentiments expressed by many, many others. Perhaps to use the term overunity in fact does a disservice to the nature of this device, and the energy that it uses, coheres (transforms?) and makes available.
Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device at some point previously, before it is possible for it to come out.Not necessarily. Logic tells us that the origin of "any energy coming out of any device" must be explainable. And such an explanation must take into account factors which involve the ambient electrostatic environment, among others. Perhaps a nuance of this statement might help, re-phrasing it to read,
So I ask can anyone explain exactly how they expect a device to output more energy than is input into the device and it's components previously ?..
Be advised that things may change drastically very shortly. We have learned that reversing the magnetic polarity on a battery SEEMS to turn it into a negative resistor, and it self charges. If you keep a load on it to prevent it from charging, you can continue to pull the flux out of the ambient environment. FOr how long, we don't know yet. So we are focusing on two things...finding a consistent way to flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and seeing how long this negative resistor will last. Way may only need ONE battery.Dave, for what it's worth, I had a similar experience with my batteries running UFOPolitics' 3 and 5 pole motors. My batteries would go into negative polarity, and I assumed this was the radiant charging them (as negative). Running these DC motors seemed to condition the batteries this way, but I didn't see beyond the novelty of it toward a useful prospect the way you, Matt and others have. Your work is very encouraging.
Dave
Especially for FARMHAND:
TESLA: A FEW WATTS IN --- BILLIONS OF WATTS OUT:
He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration; the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces. A vibrating assembly with an adjustable frequency was finally perfected, and by 1897, Tesla was causing trouble with it in and near the neighborhood around his loft laboratory. Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it . Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.
Hi A. King, It's been stated many times before and is well known that a capacitor can be charged with a small wattage over a longer period and discharged at a much larger wattage over a shorter period, even Tesla explained that. There is no extra energy in doing that, similarly a coil can discharge at a much higher wattage than was used to charge it. Means very little except it can be very useful.I think what Aking is trying to instill, is the fact that a tapper box with a hand wound spring, tapping on a lower girder of a frame of a large building, was able to induce a large amount of energy in the building structure and that energy is more than what the tapper put out in total. So in the end, it should be possible to wind the tapper spring with the energy of the moving building and still have some left over. So we should be able to model the mechanical example to an electrical example.
Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.
Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.
..
Reporter A.L. Benson wrote about this device in late 1911 or early 1912 for the Hearst tabloid The World Today. After fastening the resonator ("no larger than an alarm clock") to a steel bar (or "link") two feet long and two inches thick: He set the vibrator in "tune" with the link. For a long time nothing happened-; vibrations of machine and link did not seem to coincide, but at last they did and the great steel began to tremble, increased its trembling until it dilated and contracted like a beating heart; and finally broke. Sledge hammers could not have done it; crowbars could not have done it, but a fusillade of taps, no one of which would have harmed a baby, did it. Tesla was pleased. But not pleased enough it seems: He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one; -ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it . Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake.
Mags: I had this discussion with Verpies long ago. I finally convinced him that the Tesla earthquake machine was not just overunity but massively over unity. In order to sway a building 10 stories high by 6 inches continuously would require an unbelievable and formidable amount of energy. Let's say Tesla put 5 watts in to his tapper.
Just one magnet attached to the top of the building with a wooden scaffolding pick up coil would generate more that 5 watts and would have no effect on the swaying at all. Yes, the trick is to translate the obvious mechanical deal into electronics. But at least we have a concrete example. Anyhow the law of entropy contradicts the law of conservation of energy in my opinion.
It was this Tesla fact alone that convinced me to research ou - because ou is obviously there big time.
Anyhow I replicated Benitez and am still working on it because it is closely related to this thread.
I agree with Farmhand that batteries do weird things and we have to be really careful.
But at least the earthquake machine gives us food for thought. There just has to be an electric equivalent.
Hoppy,
The link to the schematic we are using is here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html#post235538 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html#post235538)
And it is post 2335 on that page.
Be advised that things may change drastically very shortly. We have learned that reversing the magnetic polarity on a battery SEEMS to turn it into a negative resistor, and it self charges. If you keep a load on it to prevent it from charging, you can continue to pull the flux out of the ambient environment. FOr how long, we don't know yet. So we are focusing on two things...finding a consistent way to flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and seeing how long this negative resistor will last. Way may only need ONE battery.
Dave
There are two attached graphic images that help illustrate the phasor concept for a resonant system.
You see the graphic for a voltage and current sine waves that are 90 degrees out of phase. So those could be the two parameters for a resonant LC oscillator.
In the other graphic you can see how the sine wave is the y-axis "shadow" of the rotating phasor. By the same token the x-axis "shadow" of the rotating phasor is another sine wave 90 degrees out of phase with the y-axis sine wave. So you can see how imagining a rotating vector can describe a resonant system.
The length of the vector represents how much energy is in the resonant system. The rotational speed of the vector is the resonant frequency.
So, in any resonant system, if there are zero losses, then the phasor just spins and remains steady state. In the real world there are losses, so as the phasor spins it decreases in length, tracing out a smaller and smaller circle.
When you pump energy into the resonant system, the phasor gets longer in length. That is always being counteracted by the losses that make the phasor shorter in length.
The only way for the phasor to get longer in length is for you to keep pumping energy in to overcome the losses. What does not happen is the phasor spontaneously getting longer in length over time.
MileHigh
Hidden in PLAIN SIGHT:
Tesla's OWN WORDS:
Yes you can bring down a building by ex[c]iting it at it's resonant frequency.
PS: The rudeness in post 2970 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-99.html#post241685) on your thread over at the Energetic Forum is the prime reason I dislike that forum as this type of post is allowed to persist on the forum without moderation.
In fact, it is possible that the
"co-founder/moderator" there encourages such
immature communication.
I agree with your explanation. What is accordig to you the medium that Tesla disturbed with his TMT?
Well said Hoppy! In fact, it is possible that the
"co-founder/moderator" there encourages such
immature communication.
I'm not gonna respond to a-holes
No reply from A.King, maybe he doesn't know what it is that is hiding in plain sight to be able to explain it.
Anyway I'll leave it up to people to do their own research and find the explanations from Tesla if they like.
Regardless Tesla is not needed to see how it happens, anyone who has done experiments with two Tesla coils as a transmitter-transmission line-receiver would realize that.
Basically in my mind if people do not understand the way the Tesla world energy transmission system was intended to work then they ought to do more study.
I think my sketch in my previous post illustrates it as plain as a nose on a face.
A.King will fail to recognize the truth of the matter so he can do the same thing he did here over and over again, to induce false placed hype.
bboj, The media exited by Tesla's system would be the planet, or more to the point the L and C of the planet. When Tesla says the globe behaves like a conductor he meant it.
The globe behaves like a wire, it has inductance and capacitance and therefore it can be used as a "tank" or resonant energy storage device, this "tank" can be tapped by a receiver, but it only requires the transmitter to set the tank in motion. The energy can then be utilized by a Tesla receiver or by using two ground plates placed far apart so as to utilize the difference in potential between the two points. Using two ground plates and low frequency means the plates need to be a long way apart, even many miles , and this method is or was in fact used.
But using a Tesla receiver the full 1.4 WL distance is tapped in the receiver as it has a full 1/4 WL potential difference across it as long as it is placed at the correct distance and the system is "tuned".
Really it is very simple.
Cheers
Farmhand:
It's not quite as simple as that. If I say, "The idea of chem trails is nonsensical foolishness" and you believe in chem trails then I am not calling you a nonsensical fool. I did not attack anyone personally, and I have the right to express my opinion. I was personally attacked repeatedly and viciously and sometimes rather ridiculously with some crazy and offensive metaphors. You had nothing to say about that either.
So you have to distinguish between discussing ideas and even the expression lots of derision about them, which is fine, and discussing people and attacking them, which is not fine. If you believe in something that somebody else does not believe in and they state their opinion, you just have to deal with it in a normal way and and not spiral downwards into some dark cavern.
A.king made some nonsensical comments about Tesla shaking a building with some unknown device that are completely untrue and I said as much. He is not responding and I don't care. It's the truth that matters and when people irresponsibly say that resonance is an over unity process sometimes it's worth it to set the record straight and say that it's not an over unity process. If that prevents some unknowing person from sending money to somebody like Daniel Nunez then so much the better. That's a small victory for the truth and a victory for the person that did not fritter their money away on a coil for $600 that doesn't do anything remarkable at all. They can buy a spool of wire at their local electronics store for $8.99 instead and chances are it will outperform the $600 Nunez coil.
MileHigh
I have the right to express my opinion.
OK Well Tesla's main principle was resonance. He understood it from his early days when "practicing on skyscrapers". He also discovered "standing waves". He knew that he could create a resonant state which caused energy to appear from somewhere other than the circuit. I am not going to get into an argument about how. The point is that the phenomenon exists. In my opinion it is related to the law of entropy.
In Tesla's writings he states plainly that his Wardencliffe device lost absolutely no power and sometimes gained power.
So it's all down to perceptions and schooling. It's very difficult to overturn a lifetime's education and there is no point in going there. I base all my statements on either experimental results, other people's experimental results or patents.
I count Tesla's experimental results as the no 1 source.
Hope this helps.
The reason I like the 3 battery thread is because it is related to Benitez's 4 battery patent which I have replicated, as have other experimenters. Benitez's device is approximately cop 2 less system losses. ie different battery behaviour; impedance miss-matches and the like.
Mags: Brilliant!!!
I would just add that weight of the skyscraper substitute is important. The heavier the better!!!
I know that Bedini did a pendulum version and I believe the thing worked for many years although he "tapped" it electronically using the usual magnets and coils.
The device can take time to tune. Tesla used a stethoscope device which I understand was like a pressure censor, and he used this as a feedback device.
The device can take time to tune. Tesla used a stethoscope device which I understand was like a pressure censor, and he used this as a feedback device.
I agree Mags a solid base is vital. Hey Mags, is there any chance you could maybe make a new thread for this ? Maybe experiments with mechanical resonators "Tesla Tappers" or some such title. It is a very interesting subject.Hey farmhand
I refuse to hold grudges so no one should think I have anything personal against them, I hope the same consideration can be given to me but if not so be it. I much prefer to co-operate than compete. I think we all (or most of us) want the same thing, to study, contemplate, experiment and look for new sources of energy to utilize or new ways of exploiting the energy of the unending quantum fluctuations, or going by another name "The Aether itself".
Cheers
Originally Posted by i_ron View Post
That is easy for you to say but won't happen under this situation when secrets are being kept. Peter comes on the list selling books, you and Dave play a cat and mouse game of who is going to let something slip first. It is pathetic.
I was really quite disheartened to see this post, so I'd like to share with you a little bit of my perspective on this. There are only a handful of people I know who have built self-running machines, based on the idea of a regenerative motor turning a low-drag generator, without being shown one first. That list includes: Bob Teal, Robert Adams, John Bedini, myself, and MATT JONES!
Every time I try to talk about this stuff I am shouted down by
naysayers who insist you can't run loads off the potential
difference between two sources of power, and they want data
to back up my claims when I say you can
I looked at the first post of this link Chet posted above.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20494-split-positive-boost-charger.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20494-split-positive-boost-charger.html)
If you look at the circuit, the Ni packs are 30v and the car battery is 12v. The 30v pack, while running the inverter as shown, will be already charging the car battery being it is the higher potential battery. Depending on the voltage drop of the inverter, which could be 17v, 30-12=17. So looking at the current flow, the 12v batt is being charged by the Ni packs. So my question would be, why would we be using the output of the inverter to run a charger to charge the car battery when it is already being charged, and shouldnt we want to charge the Ni packs instead?
Mags
You can run at LEAST a 100 watt load off that inverter while the energy that is
going through the inverter is 12 volts at HOW MANY AMPS? ??? Plus all that
energy that went through the inverter ended up in the lower batteries rather
than expended. Doesn't anybody realize how important that is? ??? ?
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.
It is important to take out electrical energy from a power supply efficiently in view of energy problems. Then, the inventor proposed the feeder system which can maintain supply to electric load over a long period of time as a Patent document 1.
The power supply section by which, as for the feeder system of the description to this Patent document 1, a DC motor and two or more cells were provided in parallel, The series connection of the direct current generator which drives a DC motor as a driving source, and the changeover switch in which the cell energized among each cell is switched for every time required is carried out, and the electrical energy generated with a direct current generator is used for charge of a power supply section, the drive of a DC motor, and the electric supply to electric load.
The current amplification equipment of the present invention is provided with a DC motor, and the 1st rotated with the aforementioned DC motor and a second direct current generator, The positive electrode on the DC-power-supply side is connected to the positive electrode of the aforementioned DC motor, and to the positive electrode of the above-mentioned first direct current generator, The anode of the aforementioned DC motor is connected and to the anode of the above-mentioned first direct current generator, The anode used as the ground on the aforementioned DC-power-supply side is connected, and to the positive electrode of the above-mentioned second direct current generator, The positive electrode of the aforementioned DC motor was connected, the positive electrode of the above-mentioned first direct current generator was connected to the anode of the above-mentioned second direct current generator, and the positive electrode of the above-mentioned second direct current generator and the anode of the aforementioned DC power supply were considered as the output.
[0007]
According to the current amplification equipment of the present invention, it can rotate, when the current from DC power supply flows into a DC motor, and it can be made to generate electricity with a first direct current generator and second direct current generator. From a second direct current generator, the direct output of the output current can be carried out via the second direct current generator from a first direct current generator by this power generation. Therefore, since the 1st and the output current from a second direct current generator are acquired with the current from DC power supply as output current, output current can be efficiently amplified to the current from DC power supply.
[0008]
It is desirable to provide resistance linked to the positive electrode of the above-mentioned second direct current generator and the positive electrode of the above-mentioned first direct current generator. It is desirable to provide resistance linked to the positive electrode of the above-mentioned second direct current generator and the anode of the above-mentioned first direct current generator.
[0009]
The aforementioned DC motor, the above-mentioned first direct current generator, and the above-mentioned second direct current generator are that each axis of rotation is turned in the direction, and the aforementioned DC motor rotates via an endless belt, and it is desirable to go around to the same hand of cut.
Brad,
You ask a question and when I answer it, you tell me I am wrong.
This is why I will no longer waste my time coming here.
You did not want my answer. All you wanted was an opportunity to tell me I am wrong.
Well, you got it, but after today you won't get any more chances.
I will not waste my time arguing with someone who has a closed mind because of what they "believe" and will not take the time to build the system and do the PROPER testing you are so committed to but have obviously NOT done.
I have spent 8 years of my life working with potential differences.
I have spent thousands of dollars and run thousands of tests.
I have ruined a hundred batteries running batteries in circuits that did not provide enough energy across the potential to properly charge the low side. Many of those are in my "dead battery bank", but some have been turned in for core charges.
I have paid for lab time at the university to use their battery analyzer to do controlled measurements of inputs and outputs. Tests that are far more accurate than a "pacific gravity" test. And by the way, it is a "SPECIFIC" gravity test, not "pacific". I have done that too. Have YOU? I didn't think so.
I know what I know.
Have you actually built this circuit and put a scope on it? Because when you tune the boost module, you can select the voltage that hits the battery on the other side of the load and it is hit with 14.5 volts. Period. The motor will actually put out 14.5 out the other side, or MORE, WITHOUT a boost converter in the mix because it acts as a generator at the same time it is running as a motor, and run between the potentials that generated voltage comes out in a way that does NOT happen in a normal situation. But that is ANOTHER issue. What the boost module does is maintain the voltage at 14.5 to the charge battery for a much longer period of time, when the TRUE voltage across the potential has dropped to as low as 7 or 8 volts because the charge battery has come UP while the primaries have gone DOWN. Anyone who has EVER run this circuit for an extended length of time can tell you that they will get extended run times out of the batteries. Will it run forever? NO! I am not saying it will. I am saying that as PART OF A SYSTEM, it gets you where you want to be.
You can choose to BELIEVE what you WANT to BELIEVE and I will choose to KNOW what I KNOW. Yes, I AM encouraging people to build the ENTIRE system I spoke of above, because I know that AS A SYSTEM it works. I have it sitting on the bench in my shop and it produces free energy. Is the specific circuit BY ITSELF COP>1? Yes it is. But that is NOT enough to get people where they want to be. I am NOT saying that it is. You only recover about 80-90% of what is run through the system, but do you have any idea what that works out to when coupled with an efficient generator?
But you win Brad.
I will go away now
Another victory for those with a closed mind
And do you know WHY I am giving in so easy? Because YOU are not important, and because this BASIC information that I have tried so hard to share is just the BEGINNING of a long path I went down to find the answers I was looking for. We have moved beyond this. Way beyond. It was our hope that this BASIC information would start others down the correct path, but if you want to be the road block to that, be my guest. My conscience is clear. I have tried MANY TIMES to get the information out there and that is all anyone can do. Best of luck to ya mate.
You ask a question and when I answer it, you tell me
I am wrong.
This is why I will no longer waste my time coming here.
You did not want my answer. All you wanted was an
opportunity to tell me I am wrong.
Well, you got it, but after today you won't get any more
chances.
I will not waste my time arguing with someone who has
a closed mind because of what they "believe" and will
not take the time to build the system and do the PROPER
testing you are so committed to but have obviously NOT
done.
But most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, this
is NOTHING but the basics of this technology.
It sets you on the right path.
It teaches you HOW to use energy without using it up.
And when you master THAT.....!!!
Put four batteries in parallel and run a brushed dc motor for as long is it will run. Then take the same four batteries and run the motor using this system, rotating the batteries, and see how long it will run. Simple test. Any child can do it. THEN tell me I am wrong. Or don't.
I have no excessive emotional attachment to beliefs. I have emotional attachment to FACTS. This has been tested. It works. I saw NO test results from TinMan, only a statement which is his opinion. How did his opinion become fact?
Put four batteries in parallel and run a brushed dc motor for as long is it will run. Then take the same four batteries and run the motor using this system, rotating the batteries, and see how long it will run. Simple test. Any child can do it. THEN tell me I am wrong. Or don't.
What it WILL do, as part of a system, is run the heck out of a small motor which can be used to run a generator that puts out MANY TIMES what is needed to maintain the system. The output of that generator can be used as the high side of an even BIGGER potential based system to run a bigger motor and generator and the output of that generator as the high side of a BIGGER system.......until you are running the country on the five batteries on the bench in my garage. If you build it on a very SMALL SCALE and then try to build a potential based system to run off the generated power, you would see what I mean. I NEVER in my life thought I would be worried about producing TOO MUCH power from a system, but that's where this goes rather quickly. And high voltages make me very, very nervous.
You ask a question and when I answer it, you tell me I am wrong.
This is why I will no longer waste my time coming here.
You did not want my answer. All you wanted was an opportunity to tell me I am wrong.
Well, you got it, but after today you won't get any more chances.
I will not waste my time arguing with someone who has a closed mind because of what they "believe" and will not take the time to build the system and do the PROPER testing you are so committed to but have obviously NOT done.
I have spent 8 years of my life working with potential differences.
I have spent thousands of dollars and run thousands of tests.
I have ruined a hundred batteries running batteries in circuits that did not provide enough energy across the potential to properly charge the low side. Many of those are in my "dead battery bank", but some have been turned in for core charges.
I have paid for lab time at the university to use their battery analyzer to do controlled measurements of inputs and outputs. Tests that are far more accurate than a "pacific gravity" test. And by the way, it is a "SPECIFIC" gravity test, not "pacific". I have done that too. Have YOU? I didn't think so.
I know what I know.
Have you actually built this circuit and put a scope on it?
Because when you tune the boost module, you can select the voltage that hits the battery on the other side of the load and it is hit with 14.5 volts. Period. The motor will actually put out 14.5 out the other side, or MORE, WITHOUT a boost converter in the mix because it acts as a generator at the same time it is running as a motor, and run between the potentials that generated voltage comes out in a way that does NOT happen in a normal situation.
You can choose to BELIEVE what you WANT to BELIEVE and I will choose to KNOW what I KNOW. Yes, I AM encouraging people to build the ENTIRE system I spoke of above, because I know that AS A SYSTEM it works. I have it sitting on the bench in my shop and it produces free energy. Is the specific circuit BY ITSELF COP>1? Yes it is. But that is NOT enough to get people where they want to be. I am NOT saying that it is. You only recover about 80-90% of what is run through the system, but do you have any idea what that works out to when coupled with an efficient generator?
But you win Brad.
I will go away now
Another victory for those with a closed mind
And do you know WHY I am giving in so easy? Because YOU are not important,
the best solution to see how efficient is the circuit you run actually , is you replace the batteries by supercaps modules of 12,5v previous charged and make exactly the same test that you made , in that way the the "excuse" about the battery "limitations" in measures will dissipate and you will able to measure with more precision the values . Is only a ideia to help you have more clearly data , in that way no one will use the argument about batteries " mysterious and with almost magical properties".
PS. I KNOW Tinman knows that it is "specific gravity." I have read a lot of his stuff and he's a pretty sharp guy. I just couldn't help myself. LOL
Crikey mate, those few hundred bucks you spent could have brought you a few cartons.
Good to know you have use for them. I thought for a moment you spent all that money to prove it doesn't work!
Brad,
Your schematic is the one I started with 8 years ago. You are not going to be able to keep the inverter running because as the voltage on the two primaries drops and the voltage on battery 3 rises, the voltage potential decreases and the inverter shuts off. Also, you are going to damage battery three because you are hitting it with voltage that is too low for a proper charge. I talked about this, and about the fact that I have a pile of DEAD batteries from running the setup this way over the last 8 years.
Since I came back on this forum to talk about my experiments after a LONG absence I have made SIX posts. In FOUR of the six I speak of the NEED for a DC to DC converter to maintain the charge level at a voltage higher than what is in battery three in order to properly charge it and to properly run the inverter.
post # 384
post #394
post #392
show it in a video in post 392
post # 397
But it isn't in the schematic you posted. Nor do I see it in the video. So please don't assume you are testing the system I am working with when you are running your tests, because you are not. And I use FIVE batteries, not three. Charging or discharging batteries causes ions to move in a specific direction. To reverse the flow of those ions, as in moving batteries from a position where they are charging to a position where they are discharging uses up energy to reverse the ion flow. So I let batteries REST before switching their positions.
I will show a single battery moving through this rotation to explain it. It begins as battery one of the two batteries in series. Battery one and two are discharging so a battery can move from position one to position two with no problem. Then it needs to move into a rest position. Then it moves into the battery three position where it charges. Then it moves into a rest position. Then it is ready to begin the cycle all over.
With only three batteries, you have no way of keeping the system going. You will charge battery three as you run the inverter for a little while, but once battery three is charged, you are done. I'm not sure how, with such a short term LIMITED test you will have the data necessary to determine whether I am correct or incorrect in my claims. Bt at least you are testing. That's more than most folks do, and I sincerely appreciate that.
I should also mention that if you do not measure the continuity between the two negatives on your inverter (there shouldn't BE any, but some inverters show continuity there) you will damage the batteries) You SHOULD be using a pure sign wave inverter.
As to the wonky behavior of your AGM battery. My first experience, which I related here years ago, was with three 12 volt AGM batteries. One battery would take a charge, but would not hold it, so I put it in the third position, much as you did with your wonky battery. When I connected the system up, the voltage across battery 3 was over 24 volts, and the motor would not run. When the voltage across battery three dropped down to 18 volts, the motor would begin to run, and the voltage across battery three would continue to go down. Now with EVERY OTHER SETUP I HAVE RUN SINCE, the voltage will go down to around 14 volts and stabilize, but with this FIRST setup, the voltage would go ALL the way down to around 8 volts, and the motor would shut off. The voltage across battery 3 would immediately jump back to over 24 volt, and the cycle would repeat over and over and over. I decided that if I could keep battery three from charging, it would prevent the system from shutting down, so I hooked an inverter to battery 3 and ran loads off the inverter. I ran loads 24 hours a day for over four weeks, and the system never ran down. Then I took it on a plane to California (to show it to a patent attorney) and it never worked again. Since that day I have been searching for a way to replicate that system, so do not discount the value of a wonky battery. It may be a treasure.
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.
That's the wave form you are looking for. I had some problems with inverters that had continuity between the low voltage and high voltage negative, and neither one was a pure sign wave inverter, so I relegated non-pure sign wave inverters to my "do not use" list. But it is the wave form that is necessary, and you have that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 (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....
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 (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.
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
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. 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
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.
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
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
As the current flow remains the same throughout the system,then yes,the electron flow will be the same,as it is the flowing electrons that carry/create the current flow. !But!,the pressure of this flow is reduced after the inverter,where our starting pressure is 24 volt's,and then the inverter takes 12 of those volts,and the charge battery gets the remaining 12 volts. So what we are saying is the inverter is reducing the pressure delivered to the system by half,and the charge battery receives only half of the pressure that was delivered.
So the electron flow remains the same,but the force of that flow is halved.
We can use the water in pipes analogy to see what the outcome is.
If we have say a 1 inch pipe,and the water is flowing out of that pipe at say 1 LTR a minute,we would have very little pressure at the head to do useful work--like spin a water wheel.
So the pressure is our voltage,and the flow is our electron or current flow.
To get the water flowing out of the end of the pipe to spin the water wheel with more force,we could reduce the nozzle size down to say 1/2 inch. To maintain the same flow rate(electron flow) we would have to increase the pressure(volts),and once we have done this,we have a much higher head pressure to spin the water wheel--even though our flow rate(electron flow) remains the same.
So while the charging battery will see the same electron/current flow,the pressure behind that flow is half of what was delivered to the system,and there for can only do half the work on the charge battery. Regardless of how much electron flow you have,you also need the pressure(voltage) to determine how much work can be done by the electron flow.
Brad
Using your 3 battery measurements – “17.77% is being dissipated as heat by way of ohmic and chemical losses.” Using your 2 battery measurements - 30.32% is being dissipated as heat by way of ohmic and chemical losses…
What % or how many watts is the inverter itself using?
Instead the inverter still acts as a resistor for the charging circuit but is able to convert 60% of that previously wasted power back into usable electricity. No new science, but clever thinking, if one really needed to charge a 12v battery with 24v. I think the Voodoo begins when battery is subjected to charging with high voltage spikes, which might come later, as Brad adds bits and pieces to the basic circuit.
The inverter takes place of what would normally be a resistor, which would completely waste the IxR.
Hey Carrol
Well I think I explained it. The 3 batteries in series 'each' lost and gained as many electrons as the reverse battery did. If all are in series loop, then there is the same current through all. So if we add up what each of the 3 series batteries lost, it is more than what the reverse batt gained. ;) And 10 batteries in series is an even bigger loss, and Im seeing it as a configuration caused loss. And if we were to just have 2 batts in series, the loss would be less than using 3. Ran it on sim and seems to be correct.
Mags
Mags
Hi Mags,
Sorry for the slow response but I have been very busy for the last couple of days.
First we need to clear up how many batteries we are working with. There are only a total of 3 batteries. 2 connected in series to give us 24 volts going to the load. Then on the other side of the load there is one battery connected in reverse polarity to the 2 series batteries.
Now using conventional logic and conventional electron flow the 2 batteries in series are both giving up the same amount of electrons that are going to the battery connected in reverse. So both those batteries should be loosing charge at the same rate. BUT that is not what we see. The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster.
Brad has posted a possible answer for why that is and he may be right. But a simulation is probably not going to show the same results as we are seeing on the bench.
Carroll
Hey Brad
I get what you are saying. But here is my point....
If we add the inverter in the loop, I believe we are only changing the time period of getting to what ever full charge of the reverse battery is determined as, and using that current flow to do something. So if we break the theoretical direct 3 batteries to 1 reverse battery loop and put the inverter in the loop, the reverse battery will still charge to that determined level of charge, but it will just take longer as the inverter just limits the current vs theoretical direct loop. Like trickle charging instead of brute force, of which, trickle charge is more efficient than the very high heat developed(and batt damage) with high current charging. Once that reverse batt gets to the determined charge, then that is what is discharged from each of the 3 series batteries.
So what Im seeing is the theoretical direct loop will discharge the 3 series batts much further than what the reverse batt took on more due to circuit config where just as much current flows through each of the 3 batts as what went through the reverse batt. But just like the cap to cap, if we use that current flow to run the inverter, or what ever, then we are actually using that flow to do something instead of just pumping up 1 batt with 3 others at a great loss. Stupid losses as I called it. ;)
Mags
Like the cap to cap, what we have discovered and Poynt found some references on, is that any resistance, even 0ohm would have the same results.
" The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster."
I totally agree. Because 'each' of them lost as many amp hours as the reverse battery gained over time. Amp hours is how much current over time, and the same amount of current flows through the whole loop at any given time till switch over rotation of the batteries. But with the forth component, the inverter added to the loop, the loop current is the same for each component in the loop at any given time also, and it just takes longer for the reverse battery to charge, and we also get output from the inverter... So using the inverter helps to reduce total losses because the dump from the 3 batteries to the reverse batt is being used, like the cap to cap discussion. The only difference for the batteries is the time value of the dump before rotation.
Mags
We could build a simple JT type circuit to test this cap to cap transfer system,and see how high in percentage we could get this transfer to happen. I think one of those garden light circuits would do just fine,where we replace the LED for a cap and diode.
Brad
The problem here,is that it is going to be very hard to get accurate power measurements with a high amount of inductive spikes-such as the inverter has.
Brad
Your comment is nonsense and it's a farce because I already told you that your comments were ridiculous and you intentionally ignored what I said. Like I told you before, I haven't been on a bench in 25 years, I have never used a DSO, but I could still spin circles around you on a bench with my eyes closed. Let's do some spoon feeding.
Look at your DSO capture from the current sensing resistor attached to this posting. You think those are "inductive spikes" and the inverter is acting like a reactive load? That doesn't make the slightest stitch of sense at all. Why would the inverter draw power from the battery with "inductive spikes" and look like a reactive load? WHY?
Look at the undershoot on the "inductive spikes." The reasonable assumption at this point in time is that it's the inductance in the interconnect wiring and the power resistor that you are using to monitor the current that is causing the undershoot, and it has nothing to do with the inverter itself. After all, if we assume that it is a train of current pulses going into the inverter, when the inverter shuts off the pulse suddenly, there will be inductive ringing associated with that event in the interconnect wiring.
It appears that the inverter is drawing power from the battery in a continuous train of current pulses, that's all. Each current pulse will be at the applied voltage for a certain amount of time at a certain current level. If for the sake of argument you assumed that the current pulses were all identical (just as an example), then with your DSO you could measure the energy in a single pulse, and multiply that by the pulse frequency, and voila you have measured the power draw of the inverter with your DSO. And there is nothing even remotely inductive or reactive associated with that power draw from the battery.
What is the double sine wave pattern in the spikes? How long have you been using a DSO and watching other people on the forums use DSOs? That sine wave pattern has the classic signature of an aliasing pattern because you are under-sampling the waveform. It's a total fake-out, the sine wave pattern isn't even there, it doesn't exist. All you have to do it turn up the time base and you should see less spikes, and the sine wave pattern should disappear.
The output of your inverter is 240 VAC at 50 Hz, correct? So the period for as full AC sine wave cycle is 20,000 microseconds. Look at your DSO capture, it covers 750 microseconds. I believe that your load is a good old fashioned tungsten filament light bulb. Right now I am assuming that you have no idea at all where the under-sampled DSO capture lines up relative to the inverter's output sine wave. For sure, since the light bulb is a resistive type of load, the inverter is outputting a lot of power at the sine wave peaks. But right now you don't have the slightest idea how the current pulsing input on the inverter responds to the variable power demand by the inverter output over the full cycle of the 50 Hz AC sine wave.
So in summary, it would appear that the inverter draws power from the battery in a train of current pulses. You haven't properly captured the pulse train or the individual pulses. You have no idea what happens on the input when the inverter is drawing much more power at the peaks of the sine wave output. Do the pulses get more frequent, or does the pulse train remain at the same frequency but the pulse width itself is modulated, or does something else happen? You have no idea right now.
MileHigh
Below is a scope shot across a CVR,showing the input current wave form to the inverter.
As you can see,it is the same as a pure sine wave inverters input wave form.
These are the spikes those on the other forum are speaking of on the input,that is one of the reasons that this setup works as claimed-!i believe!?.
As the batteries will only see the input side of the inverter,and not the output side of the inverter,i am at a loss as to why it has to be a pure sine wave inverter?,as battery regulation has nothing to do with the output of the inverter.
The inverter is quite reactive--see scope shot below across CVR to inverter input.
Brad:
These are your initial comments about the current waveform:
You also said this about the waveform:
and "high amount of inductive spikes." Assuming that's true, you can see how you made a huge mistake. You led yourself down a garden path, and took your followers on this thread along with you down that path, with the result being that you and your followers were all lost with respect to how the input side of the inverter draws power from the battery.
I was hoping that you would take a second look at the way the inverter was drawing power from the battery and document it properly so that you and your peers and would all be properly informed about how the input side of the inverter actually worked.
"Dribble" and "idiotic comments" my ass. You are bluffing. Just the fact that you refuse to address anything technical in my posting says it all. For the benefit of yourself and your peers on this thread you need to understand how the input side of the inverter draws current from the battery because that directly affects how the third battery in the charging position gets charged. If you had listened to me and shown initiative and redid your current sensing resistor measurements and posted what looked like good credible data for yourself and your peers I would not even be here.
MileHigh
Below is a scope shot across a CVR,showing the input current wave form to the inverter.
As you can see,it is the same as a pure sine wave inverters input wave form.
These are the spikes those on the other forum are speaking of on the input,that is one of the reasons that this setup works as claimed-!i believe!?.
As the batteries will only see the input side of the inverter,and not the output side of the inverter,i am at a loss as to why it has to be a pure sine wave inverter?,as battery regulation has nothing to do with the output of the inverter.
It looks to me like you are confusing standard back-EMF spikes from a coil, with the current spikes that represent the way the inverter is drawing current from the battery feed.
That's why you are saying "quite reactive"
The only reason that I came here is because you refused to respond to the initial comment I made on the other thread so as to not disturb this thread.
snip...LOL. Reminds me of a friend who often resorts to the expression, "There's no need to repeat yourself. I'm not deaf, I'm ignoring you". :)
Then you obviously did not get the message ::)
snip...
snip...A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.
Like I told you before, I haven't been on a bench in 25 years, I have never used a DSO, but I could still spin circles around you on a bench with my eyes closed. snip..
MileHigh
A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.
Brad:
with the trotting out of the dictionary definition for "reactive." You didn't have to respond to me at all.
MileHigh
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.
You are an amateur comic
A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.
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.
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.
In fact, my skills are already known and you are just bluffing.
snip...
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
Brad: Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.
Brad saw spikes and got confused, simple as that.
Brad presented junk data with a false interpretation of that junk data.
No, I said the sample rate is slower than the signal, that's why you are looking at garbage aliased data.
The inverter does not look like a reactive load to the battery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is the basic premise for my explanation for why battery A discharges more quickly: We know that the lighter the load on a battery, the more energy that you can extract from that battery.
The reason for this is that when a battery drives a load power is dissipated in the internal battery resistance and in the load. The larger the load resistance is compared to the internal battery resistance, the more efficient the power transfer is, and therefore you can extract more energy from the battery.
The key to this is that the inverter draws current from the set of batteries as a very short spike of current. The spike may be so short that it is easily affected by other circuit elements. My theory is that the spike of current is not identical in battery B. There is some stray or inherent inductance and capacitance in the setup such that battery A outputs a relatively sharp spike of current, but battery B's output is low-pass filtered and as a result the spike is spread out over time. That means there is a lower current flow over a longer time in battery B and that translates into less losses to internal resistance in battery B and/or a more efficient exporting of energy from battery B.
Below you will see a simplified example done just to get a handle on things and the numbers do add up. I also make an assumption to give me better numbers. I make a "battery B-prime-prime" where I assume that the internal resistance of the battery is non-linear with respect to current draw, and the lighter the current draw, the lower the internal resistance. Of course you can easily measure battery internal resistance vs. current draw and find out for yourself.
Here is what I come up with in a nutshell in a very simple model: Battery A outputs the current pulse that goes into the inverter. Battery A gets it's energy from the current pulse from itself, and from a capacitor that is between the two batteries. After the current pulse is done, then battery B charges up the capacitor much more slowly and sluggishly. That slow charging of the capacitor is a more efficient process. (see the numbers below)
Note: In my crunching notes below in ny conclusion I reverse the order and say that battery B charges up the capacitor first. It really makes no difference and you can look at it either way.
The net result is this: For every current pulse, battery A loses more energy to internal resistance than battery B. There are millions of current pulses so over time battery A discharges faster than battery B.
Number crunching:
Battery A-prime: 12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime: 12 volts, with one ohm internal impedance
Battery B-prime-prime: 12 volts, with 0.5 ohm internal impedance
Battery A-prime: Apply 5 ohm load for one second gives 2 amps for one second, 10 watts dissipated in load, 20 Joules of energy put into load.
2 watts dissipated internally, 2 Joules.total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended: 22 Joules, efficiency 90.9%
---------
What if on Battery B-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?
Load now looks like (11.5V/0.5A) = 23 ohms. 5.75 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23 Joules of energy put into load.
0.5 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 2 Joules total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended: 25 Joules, efficiency 92%
Battery B-prime is more efficient in transferring energy into load than battery A-prime.
---------
What if on Battery B-prime-prime the current is 1/2 amp for 4 seconds?
Load now looks like (11.75V/0.5A) = 23.5 ohms. 5.875 watts dissipated in load for four seconds, 23.5 Joules of energy put into load.
0.25 watts dissipated internally for 4 seconds, 1 Joule total internal dissipation.
Total energy expended: 24.5 Joules, efficiency 95.9%
--------
Simplified model: Battery B-prime-prime fills up a capacitor with 95.9% efficiency, and then Battery A-prime coupled with the capacitor discharges into the load with 90.9% efficiency.
Therefore over time Battery A will discharge more quickly than Battery B.
The LED is 12volts,and it is also not polarity conscious.
Looks to me that you have taken my explanation about the differences in combined internal resistances,and added your own spaghetti to it. Of course the batteries have capacitance,and that is why i did the same test with the capacitors,and asked you to use capacitors instead of batteries to work it out. But once again, your automatic fail button toward me was pushed,and only because you have no idea as to what is going on--this is clearly seen in your last post.
Once again we see you ducking,and not delivering any type of theory before some one else has put there's forward. Then the auto 'fail' button is hit. You then take there theory,word it different,add your own spagetti,and claim some sort of distorted victory.
We see you do this all the time MH,but some of what you posted above shows how i was correct in a mater on another subject--i will get to that tonight when i get home from work,but you should be carful what you post,as you are going against your self this time,and you have just proven me correct on another subject you accused me being wrong in.
What go's around comes around.
Brad
Can you give us some specifics about this special LED? Part number, datasheet, where you bought it, etc.
If it is "not polarity conscious" and runs on 12 volts, then maybe it has some circuitry inside, contains two actual diodes in anti-parallel, or something else of that nature. LEDs are _diodes_, hence are inherently polarity conscious, and for a white LED to run on 12 volts it will usually have at least a current-limiting resistor or a (JT-like) pulsed or buck-type power supply or regulated current-sink type circuitry along with it, or perhaps 4 diode junctions in series.
The fail was you characterizing the draw from the inverter in the form of a train of current spikes as being "inductive" as well as not properly measuring them. The only thing people have right now is a next-to-useless aliasing pattern that "proves that the spikes exist."
There is a lot of baggage in that reply. I simply offered up my own unique and independently thought out possible explanation for why battery A discharges before battery B. I rejected your explanation which doesn't even make sense and put forth a possible explanation myself that had no relation to your "explanation." And I crunched some numbers to see if at least there is some merit to my possible explanation and there is. People are free to run with that and do tests and experiments to see if it is true or not. I can think of all sorts of measurements that could be done with a DSO to investigate this theory as well as some simple bench tests to see if it has merit.
I would think that anybody reading your posting would be just as surprised as me about your crazy allegations.
MileHigh
Just to clarify, with that original setup I had two batteries in series with a motor between them and the single battery in parallel. Splitting the positives. The inverter was connected to battery 3 in the traditional manner, and I ran loads on the inverter.
That setup ran loads 24/7 for several weeks.
I have spent 8 years of my life trying to replicate what that system was capable of, and have never been successful. That particular battery exhibited behavior I have never seen in any other battery
My original description stated that when I hooked up just the three batteries and the motor, nothing happened and my buddy and I kind of walked away and were talking about things for about 10-15 minutes when the motor suddenly started. We only had one meter so we were measuring the voltage across battery 3. It would show 24 volts. It would go down to about 18 volts and the motor would start running. The voltage across battery 3 would continue to go down to around 7 volts and the motor would stop running. The voltage on battery 3 would immediately jump to 24 volts, and the cycle would repeat itself over and over. My assumption at the time was that I needed to keep battery 3 from charging, so I connected the inverter to it and began hooking up loads. It was a 350 watt inverter and I plugged in as many loads to it as I could until it began beeping and the red light went off. I ran it for several weeks before loading it all in a suitcase to take to California to see a patent attorney. It never worked again. Karma, obviously.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
My only clue to why that battery worked is the belief that if you flip the magnetic polarity in a battery you get this kind of unlimited energy. I STILL experiment with that setup on an almost daily basis,but it has nothing to do with how we are running our present circuits.[size=78%] [/size]
The original was a trick of chemistry. Basically to replicate it you would have to find that particular set of circumstances that lead that battery to its dead state. We have tried many dead batteries in a futile attempt to replicate it. David has pallets of them and I used to and gave up. Plus a better part of the small community at energetic forums. He got it at a junk yard, who knows how old it was. He added water to it but it was agm battery.
Talk about finding a needle in a haystack.
But the good news we have seen really close to the same effect with new batteries. It actually has more to do with charging impedance forcing situation in which the ground side current charges the 2 serial batteries. DC is a LOOP. You can create an asymmetrical reaction that carries power through that entire loop. We are currently working on just that at energetic forums. http://www.energeticforum.com/289423-post1072.html.
So basically what can happen is after the charge battery is literally full you can change the potential between the positive poles that is then emulated on the ground side forcing a change in potential on the serial batteries at the same time you are asking for more power out the positive side. Your constantly replacing the power in the serial batteries that you are using to run loads.
Now that doesn't reduce all loss but it makes for incredibly long runs before the batteries have to be rotated or charged.
I'm not going to get into an argument about it. I have already seen the effect and I am reasonably sure in can be replicated and proven. Oscilloscope Current meters can easily see the effect once in place. Finding the right ratio to battery size for both loads and boost is the project at hand.
Hope you guys join in.
Matthew Jones
If you want to know how to make a generator that speeds up under load and reduces the current draw under load ...NB: David posts as Turion. Has he got any formal dynanometer / input power test results?
I am not sure what you mean by formal, but he does give voltages and current readings for his drive motor while only turning the rotor with no coils. Then the same after he added the unloaded coils and when the coils are loaded. He also gives RPM readings if I recall correctly. All that information is in the last few pages of that thread. Most people will need to read the last few pages over a few times to grasp all he has posted.
Carroll
Hi Brad,
In post #451 I believe he addresses that issue by comparing his motor draw with no coils and then with loaded coils. I have copied it here so you don't have to dig through all the other stuff in that thread. What surprised me was that his current draw with loaded coils was LESS than with no coils at all. I have worked with David a lot over the last several years and he can be hard to follow because of his lack of training in electronics but I believe he sincerely is searching for free energy and may be getting close.
Quote:
Mario,
Here is what leads me to believe I have SUUL.
When I run my motor turning the rotor with no coil in place I get a specific amp draw and a specific RPM. I have placed a weight on the shaft that is the same weight as the rotor, and the amp draw and RPM's with that weight in place are the same as with the rotor in place, which leads me to believe that turning a rotor creates no phenomenon that I am not accounting for. When a coil pair is placed near the rotor, the amp draw of the motor goes up and the RPM's go down because of what I call "magnetic drag" which is not the proper term, but it is caused by trying to turn the magnets on the rotor past an iron core to which they are attracted and want to "lock" onto. With one coil pair. the "drag is not that great, but with six coil pair it is so great that without compensation, the motor is incapable of starting the rotor turning, and even if you break the lock and get it started, the amp draw far exceeds the recommended amp draw of the motor.
By adjusting the relationship between the coil pair and passing rotor I can get the amp draw to go back down to almost exactly where it was and the RPM to go up to almost where it was before the coil was added.
Now I add a load to the coil and the amp draw goes down to below what it was with no coil in place and the RPM goes up higher than what it was with no coil in place. Whether the load is a light bulb or an electric motor does not matter. And when the load is removed the amp draw goes back up and the RPM goes back down to the previous level.
The additional RPM's of the generator "under load" produce additional power. To see if this is significant I measure the output of the coil and then reduce the voltage input to achieve the same RPM's as I had before adding the coil. The coil output is GREATER at the higher RPM, obviously.
In summary, with these coils I can get more generated output for the same input or the same output for a reduced input. But to say they are of no use makes no sense to me. But I have an open mind so if you can point out the error in my testing method, I would SINCERELY appreciate it.
End of quote.
Take care,
Carroll
Hi Brad,
I wrote a reply but must have forgotten to post it after reviewing it. Anyway I hope to have a lot more free time in a few months and want to visit Dave to check out his system. I already have a pretty good idea of what he is doing but seeing it first hand will of course make things much clearer. He has said he is open to anyone that wants to come out and check out what he is doing.
Take care,
Carroll
Hi antimony,
It sounds like you are referring to the original system that many of us worked with that required a "special" dead battery. That idea was abandoned a couple of years ago because it just wasn't possible to keep a dead battery dead as you found out.
This is a thread about what David (Turion) is presently working on:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device.html
The last several pages contain the information about his coils he is now using for his generator that speeds up under load. This system uses a set of 3 batteries just like the original except all batteries are good batteries. And he keeps another 2 batteries resting, one before and one after they go into the third position where they get charged. There are a lot of details that really need to be attended to in order to get this system working like it should. I don't have time to cover all of them so you need to read the thread and especially the last several pages.
The two most important details to remember are these: This system will not work with little batteries, especially when everyone wants to draw more power from them than should be drawn. Secondly, this system works much better if a pulse type motor is used between the primary series batteries and the charging battery. The pulse motor can be used to power a generator which is where David is using his coils that cause the generator to speed up under load.
I have verified almost all of David's work except I just have not had time to work on his generator system with the coils that cause speed up under load or SUUL as David calls it. I have gotten extremely long run times by using a system I designed which automatically swaps the batteries around to keep them all charged. They will eventually start going down and that is why you also need the generator to add some charge from time to time and also power other loads. If you can't power other loads then the system is pretty useless so that has been David's goal all along to be able to keep the batteries all charged and power some loads at the same time.
Somewhere in that thread is the information for the automatic battery swapping circuit I built and used. I don't have time right now to dig through the thread to find it. It may be linked to in this thread also. I am not sure if I did that or not.
We do have a mutual friend that has been using the three battery system with swapping to greatly extend his ability to use his solar panels. By using the solar system to keep his batteries topped up and swapping the batteries which actually allows him to reuse the power over and over he can now use his battery bank for days when there is no sun or very little sun.
Take care.
Carroll
In the 3 Battery System, does the input actually pass through the motor without ENTIRELY being "consumed" by the motor? I believe this to be true. In fact, I believe MOST of it goes through the motor.
I believe that the voltage that is input into the MATT MODIFIED PULSE motor passes through it and is joined by the generated voltage plus the collapse of the coil. All of which hits battery 3. Or maybe it is JUST the input voltage and the coil collapse. I don't know for sure.
Dave
In the 3 Battery System, does the input actually pass through the motor without ENTIRELY being "consumed" by the motor? I believe this to be true. In fact, I believe MOST of it goes through the motor.
Matt and I disagreed with Luc, and still do about his test setup (Batteries too small, no pulse motor) as well as his measurements. Not that the NUMBERS on his meters are incorrect. Only that they do not measure what he has STATED they measure, and that his understanding of what is going on is incorrect. Matt said his meters "lie." He said that because they are not telling him what he BELIEVES they are telling him, but it is NOT that the reading on the meter is incorrect. It is HOW he is measuring things. I have taken the liberty of copying the statement Luc made and pasting it here to point out our issue with what he said.
We do not agree that half the input power is being used by the motor. It is our contention that even though 24 volts come out of batteries 1 and 2, there are 12 volts in OPPOSITION that "neutralizes" (for lack of a better work) 12 of those volts and all that enters the motor is the 12 volt difference. Which is why we say the motor is running on the "potential difference." That is our issue with the measurements Luc is making, not the numbers on the meters.
I also disagree with all of his calculations about what is possible with this system. He is presenting numbers for an inaccurate build of a machine he does not understand and making assumptions about what can be done by connecting it to a generator, stating that a combination of a motor run on this system connected to a generator is only capable of recovering 19.7 watts of 25 watts expended.
I have lots of things I have done that move forward and far beyond these simple experiments. So does Matt Jones. I would bet anyone any amount of money they want to bet that you will find that a proper build of this system run between the positives will use FAR less than what is stated, and that a generator can be built that can exceed his estimate of what can be generated. I know because I have built such systems. I will not be sharing how I did it. I have put up with enough crap without introducing NEW concepts which no one is going to want to believe either.
But BUILD this system correctly and you will see what we have seen and can begin down the path we have been on for 10 years now.
I believe Luc's tests are going to prove what I have been saying all along, which I proved to myself 10 years ago but to which no one was willing to listen, including folks on THIS forum. And that is that you can get EXTENDED runs from this system.
Dave,
One thing I remember from my study of generators and motors that strikes me as important is that as the armature coils move from positive to negative magnetic field, when they are in a middle point between the two, the coil that is changing polarity is short circuited at the commutator to remove the stored charge in that coil. The reasoning for that was to reduce sparking at the commutator brush.
Why destroy that charge? Why not use it instead?
Is that one of the things Matt accomplished when he modified the scooter motor design?
Cadman
Small update
Carroll is checking his Matt Motor out and will be shipping it to Luc
also we are working on Getting the batteries to Luc too .
I can verify what Dave is saying about the rest period. I have been running some tests on charging batteries. I have found some interesting things when using a battery analyzer to check out the battery. I have taken a battery right from my pulse charger and tested it for internal resistance, voltage and capacity in cold cranking amps. What I have found is that after letting that battery sit overnight the voltage goes down as would be expected when letting it rest after coming off of the charger. What I found interesting was that the internal resistance dropped overnight and the cca went up.
Carroll
Hi Brad (tinmam)
At this time I would prefer not to get in more debate until I've completed both tests. It's going to take several days or even weeks before we can conclude with any certainty.
I understand you're not agreeing with the discussion but I'm asking you to hold off a little for now.
There's been a lot of drama over all this and it has finally cooled down when they realized I'm doing the best I can with the components I have available to test with.
Thanks for your understanding mate
Luc
So we substituted an inverter for a pulse motor and that worked. But you could only run the inverter with 250 amp hour batteries because you had to have time to adjust the boost module and it had to be readjusted every time you switched batteries.
It sounds like you probably have everything you need to replicate Luc's test with a stock motor. If your batteries are GOOD and large enough, you should get the same results Luc is getting. When he finishes his testing he can share his results and you can make a decision. Then you can rewind the motor as a pulse motor and improve those results. Then add the boost module and improve them a second time.
Carroll
This is normal for any type of battery.
Right after being charged,the battery will be hot,and heat increases the internal resistance.
Once you let the battery cool,the internal resistance go's down,thus the voltage go's down,and the CCA will go up.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this. My pulse charging system does not heat the battery. After 12 hours of charging there is no noticeable difference in the temperature of the battery case and the ambient air temp. I believe the change in internal resistance and capacity is a function of the chemical processes still taking place in the battery after the charging cycle has ended. And yes I do realize this is normal for any battery coming off a charge. I was sharing this so that others might realize the importance of the rest period after charging.
Respectfully,
Carroll
I believe the change in internal resistance and capacity is a function of the chemical processes still taking place in the battery after the charging cycle has ended.
Brad,
You are mixing up two totally different scenarios. The statements you highlighted in red were made several years ago when Dave was describing the original circuit he was working with that used a "dead battery" that appeared to be able to furnish unlimited amounts of power from some unknown process. Several of us were fortunate enough to stumble across at least one of those batteries. I have personally seen one of those batteries connected in the 3 battery circuit supply 100 watts of power for over 12 hours and the primary batteries actually went up a couple of tenths of a volt.
Duncan was fortunate enough to find one that had so much extra power it actually frosted up the battery and the terminals while running. Unfortunately none of us were ever able to determine why only certain "dead batteries" were able to do this. We believed it had something to do with the crystalline structure of the "dead battery". Also even more unfortunate was the discovery that if you turned off your system, then when restarted it would almost never go back to being able to produce excess power. The batteries would start to repair themselves and that was the end of the excess power.
In that system we had a small motor connected between the primary batteries and the special "dead" battery. But all the loads were pulled from the dead battery, not from the motor. The motor was only used as a source of pulses to energize the "dead" battery. After a few years of searching for the secret of those special "dead" batteries we gave up on that idea.
Carroll
If you want to belittle Luc's efforts after being asked to hold off you should at least do it about the system he is testing and not something from the past that was far different from what is being tested.
But what we learned led Dave to continue with the 3 battery generating system using only good batteries and drawing power from the motor and not battery 3. THIS IS THE SYSTEM LUC IS TESTING!
For those of you who don't know, Luc, who is currently doing the testing, did a couple videos on YouTube in March of 2016 where he basically debunked this system as something that absolutely shows NOTHING extra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s)
But while I believe that both the motor and the batteries Luc is using do not meet the specs for what I consider minimum to get a CONSISTENT positive result, Luc has already shown 238 watt hours of work out of two batteries and one DISCHARGED battery that only hold 120 watt hours. So even had the third battery been fully charged he would have already exceeded the number of watt hours available. And he is not done with the test yet. We will see where he ends up.
I have kept the data from the numerous test results he has posted on a Mac spreadsheet that has an xlsx extension, so I cannot post it here. But I have it if anyone wants it. Otherwise, you can watch his 18 (so far) videos of the testing and extract the data on your own if interested. When he is finished, I will take a screen shot of the spreadsheet and post it.
Both Matt Jones and I attempted to explain what was incorrect about his assumptions and testing, with little success. Pretty much the same thing that has happened every time I have brought this setup to THIS forum.
The only change he made is that in THIS test he rotated the batteries.
24 WATTS IS GOING INTO THE MOTOR AND IT IS CONSUMING 12. REALLY? I DON'T THINK SO, OR LUC WOULD NOT BE GETTING THE RESULTS HE IS GETTING. HARDLY ANYTHING IS CONSUMED BY THE MOTOR. THERE IS ONLY 12 WATTS AVAILABLE TO THE MOTOR. THE OTHER 12 WATTS+ THAT COMES OUT OF THE CHARGE BATTERIES IS NEUTRALIZED BY THE 12 WATTS+ COMING OUT OF BATTERY 3.
24 WATTS IS GOING INTO THE MOTOR AND IT IS CONSUMING 12. REALLY? I DON'T THINK SO
HARDLY ANYTHING IS CONSUMED BY THE MOTOR.
THERE IS ONLY 12 WATTS AVAILABLE TO THE MOTOR. THE OTHER 12 WATTS+ THAT COMES OUT OF THE CHARGE BATTERIES IS NEUTRALIZED BY THE 12 WATTS+ COMING OUT OF BATTERY 3.
CAN THIS BE PROVEN? SURE!!! TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. TAKE YOUR TWO BATTERIES IN SERIES AND CONNECT YOUR MOTOR ACROSS THEM AND MEASURE THE RPM. NOW RUN YOUR MOTOR ON JUST ONE OF THEM AND MEASURE THE RPM. THEN PUT THE SYSTEM BACK TOGETHER AND MEASURE THE RPM OF THE MOTOR RUNNING BETWEEN THE POSITIVES. WHAT IS ITS RPM NOW? IS IT RUNNING ON 24 WATTS OR 12 WATTS?
A MOTOR RUNS ON WHATEVER GOES INTO IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE SOME MAGIC BYPASS CIRCUIT THAT ALLOW HALF THE WATTS TO GO ON THROUGH WITHOUT AFFECTING THE MOTOR AT ALL. THIS IS ALL STANDARD ELECTRICAL STUFF, NOT VOODOO MAGIC.
HERE IS THE SECOND WAY OF PROVING THIS AND IT IS WHAT MATT IS TALKING ABOUT. (I WATCH AND LISTEN MATT, AND I HAVE LEARNED A THING OR TWO FROM YOU) IF YOU HAVE A 12 VOLT BATTERY AND YOU WANT TO MEASURE THE VOLTAGE IN IT, YOU DO NOT TAKE THE TOP OFF AND MEASURE ACROSS FIVE OF THE 6 TWO VOLT SECTIONS INSIDE. YOU MEASURE ACROSS ALL OF THEM. THAT TELLS YOU THE VOLTAGE AVAILABLE IN THE SYSTEM. WHEN YOU PUT TWO 12 VOLT BATTERIES IN SERIES, HOW DO YOU MEASURE THEM? BECAUSE THE TWO BATTERIES ARE CONNECTED IN THE MIDDLE. YOU MEASURE FROM THE POSITIVE OF ONE TO THE NEGATIVE OF THE OTHER. BECAUSE THEY ARE CONNECTED, THEY HAVE BECOME ESSENTIALLY ONE BATTERY. HOW WOULD YOU MEASURE THREE BATTERIES IN SERIES?
THE SAME WAY, RIGHT? IT IS THE SAME WITH THE THREE BATTERIES THAT ARE IN SERIES HERE, EVEN IF ONE IS IN SERIES BACKWARDS.
SO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE WATTS THE MOTOR IS RECEIVING? ??? ?? TAKE THE MOTOR OUT AND PUT YOUR METER BETWEEN THE TWO POSITIVES. CONNECT IT EITHER WAY. ONE WAY IT READS POSITIVE 12 AND THE OTHER WAY IT READS NEGATIVE 12. SO WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU IS AVAILABLE TO THE MOTOR??? IF YOU REPLACE THE METER WITH A MOTOR DO YOU THINK THAT NUMBER IS MAGICALLY GOING TO JUMP TO 24 ON ONE SIDE OF THE MOTOR BUT STAY AT 12 ON THE OTHER SIDE. I DON'T THINK SO TIM.
WE SAY 12 WATTS. YOU SAID 24 WATTS. WHO IS CORRECT?
WE DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THE NUMBERS THAT WERE SHOWING ON LUC'S METER, AND I SAID THAT AT THE TIME. WHAT WE DISAGREED WITH WAS WHAT LUC SAID THOSE NUMBERS WERE SHOWING AND THE WAY HE WAS MEASURING THE SYSTEM.[/font]
ONLY 12 WATTS IS AVAILABLE TO THE MOTOR. PERIOD.
THAT IS WHY WE SAID THE MEASUREMENT IS WRONG AND THAT LUC DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO MEASURE THIS SYSTEM CORRECTLY. AND IF WE ARE CORRECT, AND NOT LUC, THEN THE NUMBERS USED IN ALL THE CALCULATIONS BELOW ARE AUTOMATICALLY INCORRECT. THATS WHY I TOOK EXCEPTION TO ALL OF THE CALCULATIONS BELOW.
However, the motor has converted part of those 12 watts to mechanical power and at best 80% if it is available at the motor shaft which means we have about 9.6 watts in mechanical power at the motor shaft which we can recover back to electrical if we attach a generator to it and can recover at best 80% if it = 7.7 watts and add it to the charge battery which gives a potential total of 19.7 watts recovered from the 24 watts put into the system. HOW MANY WATTS WERE PUT INTO THE MOTOR????
So if we have 24 watts coming out from input batteries and 12 watts going in the charge battery it means half of the input power is being used by the motor and potentially half recovered by the charge battery.
I hope my explanations here made sense.
You guys have to realize you are dealing with something a little different here and standard measurement methods can be deceiving.
We know what we are talking about.
But until you UNDERSTAND what is going on, you will have a hard time applying these principles to other things, and that's where it really gets exciting.
If not, you can continue to believe what you want to believe.
The Load will have applied to it the Voltage Difference
between the Source Pair of Batteries and the Opposing
Battery No. 3.
The "load" is a device such as an electrical motor
which has been "optimized" to produce pulsations
as it draws load current from the source battery
series pair. These pulsations are augmented by
brief inductive discharge pulses from the optimized
load motor as it rotates; the pulses are beneficial
to battery No. 3 as it is being charged.
As the source battery pair discharges they provide
power to both the "load motor" and the "charging
third battery." Once the source pair has discharged
sufficiently the weaker of the two is replaced by
swapping it with the "charged" third battery and
operation resumed.
Is there actually any "overunity" or any other kind of
"magic" going on with this circuit? No.
Is energy that might otherwise be "wasted" being
recovered and applied to the "charging" battery
No. 3? Yes.
There is also the well known (actually by design) ability
of the lead acid battery to increase its ampere hour
rating as it is cycled through several charge-discharge
operations. Most lead acid batteries experience an
approximately 30% increase in capacity as they are used.
This is due to the composition of the plates "forming"
more active material with each discharge-charge cycle.
It has to do with how the plates are manufactured and
the "paste" which fills the plate grids not being fully
activated at the time of manufacture.
In the meantime is there any waste of time associated with
evaluating the Three Battery System? Not at all! As Luc is
demonstrating with his trials there is much to learn and
seeing how things work with our own eyes is an invaluable
learning experience. Provided of course that we are able
to truly comprehend what is being seen.
The thought that Battery No. 3 is "neutralizing"
12 watts by power coming out of it is certainly
an unorthodox view. I'll leave it to others to
comment on. I suspect that in time, Dbowling
will come to realize his error in thinking.
SeaMonkey,
I remember the names of all the people who said that wasn't possible, but refused to test it. They will get coal in their stockings instead of answers. But that is only the beginning of what we have learned about how to use this system. We haven't dumped everything out there because nobody would believe us when we said THIS much of it worked, so have had no reason to share the rest. We know how to SIGNIFICANTLY extend those run times. Whether or not something can be built that will run forever has yet to be determined. Forever isn't here yet and we are far from done. But when you understand how LOOOOOOOOOONG those run times can be, and realize you can use the motor to turn a generator, suddenly you have a system that runs on virtually NOTHING and produces power. That is the advantage of this circuit connected to Matt's modified motor.
That is a perfect description of the basic system as shown by Luc, and even of the system with the pulse motor. All we EVER claimed out of that system was that you could get extended run times.
...
The exact amount of power can be accurately calculated in this system.
...
Brad
Brad,
Here is exactly what happened.
When we first threw the switch, nothing happened. Ten to fifteen minutes later the motor suddenly started up. The voltage on the bad battery would jump to 24 volts. It would go down to about 18 volts, and then the motor would slowly start and begin to run, speeding up gradually. The voltage would continue to drop down to around nine volts, at which time the motor would suddenly shut off and the voltage would immediately jump back to 24 volts and the cycle would repeat. [/size]To try and get the system to keep from shutting off, I ASSUMED I needed to keep the battery in the third position from becoming charged, so I began to hook loads to it. I used an inverter and powered all kinds of loads, balancing the load on battery three by putting an additional LOAD ON THE MOTOR. It did amazing things. Then it quit, or I killed it somehow by taking it apart.
My assumption was that it shut off because battery 3 was charging, but once the system shut off, battery 3 (the bad battery we tried to charge before we started, which WOULD charge up, but wouldn't hold it) wouldn't hold charge. SO when the charge dropped, the system started up again. OVER AND OVER for an entire day before we started putting loads on battery 3/
Have seen this same thing happen with other batteries in the third position for a short time until the battery "repaired" itself, and then quit. But can't get that effect to last or figure out WHY. SO have given up on that.
Well[/glow]
that seems unusual.
very nice work itsu ,some have been discussing the test criteria and adding Temp monitoring was being kicked around too [as opposed to spot checking] , Now it seems data logging temp should be mandatory [checking plus and minus was very smart 8)
hopefully the arduino will have enuff ability to do this on 4 or 5 batteries during the various automated cycling stages.
very nice indeed .
Chet
PS
I am sure you are aware Duncan will be doing a test when he gets back from his trip to see if he can reproduce his frosty battery event
that would truly be something to see.
The good news is that the fellows are seeing much longer run times than have been publicly presented thus far[in this new thread at EF] ,and a much bolder and simpler method to see these extended run times will be shared .
even parts and such are being offered by the fellows [to Luc for testing]
if they can get their thread back over there??
it will be good to finally understand what is happening here ,I believe this next method will finally put this into a very clear perspective.
it will be good to finally understand what is happening here ,I believe this next method will finally put this into a very clear perspective.
Originally Posted by Turion
What if the thing that makes this work is NOT a potential difference between the higher voltage in the source batteries and the lower voltage in the bad batteries, but a potential difference between "positive charged batteries" and "negative charged batteries." Think about that for just a minute.
After all, I know for a fact, and so do many of you, that the bad battery actually flips polarity. and WHILE IT IS FLIPPED, that is when the magic happens. Now, that means that perhaps if we could get a battery to STAY flipped, we could run this thing forever. And maybe a lower voltage bad battery has a greater potential difference than a higher voltage bad battery (when they flip polarity) in relation to the two fully charged good batteries
So lets talk about that for a minute. OBVIOUSLY there is a source of reversed or negative energy hitting that bad battery that causes it to flip, but once it does there is also a source of energy that is great enough to get it to flip BACK to the original. What if those two sources of energy could be isolated from each other and/or isolated from the bad battery? If it is the motor that causes the battery to flip, then we need a different circuit when that happens. Maybe we run it off one bad battery until it flips negative and keep it running there, but the minute it flips positive again, we switch to a second bad battery. Something like that. Alternating between the two.
I have had a battery hooked up to a motor as generator for four days now, trying to create a negative transducer. It reads just short of -12 volts, but as soon as I disconnect the motor, the negative voltage in the battery starts dropping. Why is that? What makes that battery WANT to go positive, and where does that energy go that is showing up as almost -12 volts in the battery right now? It seems to want to settle at about -7 volts, and I can't get it to go any higher than about -11.78 on the negative side.
Dave
Being lead acid batteries have lead electrodes for pos and neg, is one different than the other only by way of charge direction from the start? Like you can get motorcycle batteries without electrolyte, and they have voltage when it is filled, so one of the electrodes must have been pre treated before assy.
Will have to look that up.
Mags
plengo,
That's the setup. You got it right the first time. I'm glad you are seeing some success. Just don't make your runs too long, and batteries one and two will always recover. I don't know how many runs you can make on the system before you have problems with batteries one and two recovering, but I know I have pulled out way more energy from my setup than batteries one and two could possibly hold. My kilowatt meter tells me that, so it's a FACT, not a "belief." And they are still holding their voltage. And it is NOT a surface charge on batteries one and two. I have tested that also..voltage under load. AND I have had the energy produced by my motor hooked up to my energizer for free. So am I producing more energy than the system takes to run? Absolutely, positively, unquestionably, Yes. I need a kilowatt meter that doesn't reset, so I don't have to watch everything so closely, because the minute I shut down, you lose the present run reading. So I always have to write down the reading before I shut it off, and then add it to my total output. But at least it works.
The issue is not what I can do with this system, but what YOU can do. Can you repeat these results? Can YOU find a really good "bad battery" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) and make short runs until your kilowatt meter tells you that you have far exceeded the power that two batteries could possibly produce. Then can you make longer and longer runs until you learn to watch the good batteries and kill the power when you see them begin to go down, so you can let them recover. And then how do we make it better.
plengo,
Possibly your solution is the simplest...keep a huge load on battery three, so there is no chance it will charge. I have wanted to try different diodes and resisters, but am trying to get things welded up for my energizer and it's taking all my time away from more experimenting on my setup. Tell your friends and neighbors and let's get more and more people involved in making a working system out of this. The solution is here somewhere. We just have to find it.
Dave
@Dbowling,
After I have replicated your setup then I can take a look at your new idea. Small steps.....
@Pese,
Please read the text again. I said "dead". This means that something is not exactly, but
pretty close to reality. Then I said >a very high internal resistance< this is on the opposite
scale of zero Ohm. High Ohm equals low current. Low Ohm equals high current.
Now let us talk about a "dead" battery. It is not just a battery. It is a device that has a high
internal resistance at very low voltage. It will climb to a relative high voltage very fast when
you try to charge it. It will drop to a relative low voltage very fast when you try to discharge it.
It is behaving more like a big electrolytic capacitor than a battery, but the internal resistance
is opposite of a electrolytic capacitor regarding charge and voltage. A capacitor has a low internal
resistance when empty, a "dead" battery has a high internal resistance when empty. OK?
Groundloop.
So basically you can do this yourself, if you got a good sparking commutator*******************************************************************************
12 Volts DC motor, hook it up to 2 x 12 Volts batteries in series as the source, so your source is
24 Volts DC and then use the 12 Volts motor in series with an empty 12 Volts battery in
series as the load for the 24 Volts DC source.
The sparking motor will produce enough RF ( radio fequency) bursts from the the "burning" of the graphite brush to
charge up the empty 12 Volts battery very fastly.
Then you can switch again the batteries and keep all of them full
all the time this way by cycling them and have the mechanical output of the motor
for free !
Pretty easy.
But you use up some graphite brushes this way and maybe also some
copper inside the motor commutator.
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: It took me about 20 years to find this out and understand it fully, cause Joe Newman himself did not understand
it and was leading us into the wrong direction...