Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: sterlinga on May 01, 2008, 04:56:29 AM

Title: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: sterlinga on May 01, 2008, 04:56:29 AM
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling's_Continuous_Charging_Device (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling's_Continuous_Charging_Device)

Arizona inventor says he has developed a device that will put out a continuous 12 volt electrical current which he has then been using to run motors, small appliances, and charge batteries.

I conducting a special 1:20-hour, live interview with him, Apr. 30.  Download from http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2008/080430_DavidBowling_ContinuousCharger.mp3

Sterling
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TheOne on May 01, 2008, 05:23:08 AM
Sound a good invention, the only thing that bother me is we cannot have any info how to reproduce it (again).... Stupid patent pending that will waste couple of year of our precious time.

I hope this technologies will come out soon!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: HideousMonster on May 01, 2008, 02:42:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: PwrDream on May 01, 2008, 07:05:07 PM
Hey, He gave out his email address.... if you really want to build it, do you best email pitch to him as to how you should be one of the caretakers of his knowledge (in case anything happens to him)...  I'm sure after a few signatures on your part that he would pass along the info so you could reproduce his discovery....  I personally don't blame him for wanting a patent... if it's the real thing.  The person who comes up with technology like this has a right to earn a bit from it... I  know I'd try and retire off of the invention if I were him...


PwrDream
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 01, 2008, 07:49:27 PM
If you listened to the interview, it would have become obvious how he connects the batteries. He connects two in parallel as input and the third battery is connected in series with the motor windings as output. That's why the system will stop whenever the output battery is fully charged. The only difficulty involves here is that one has to open and reconfigure the motor windings for the output battery. Tesla had come up with similar configurations.

My only problem is that I found it hard to believe this could be the solution to FE generation.

Just follow the interview and everything will become obvious to you. If he doesn't make it public in a few minutes, he won't be able to patent it anymore as I am about to draw a circuit and post it on the internet. I gave him only the end of the day to do the right thing. If by 12PM tonight he doesn't act, I will post the connection diagram.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 01, 2008, 08:38:44 PM
Seems the principle is pretty easy:
He is using the Newman sparkgap principle because he is using a
DC motor ? ( have not listened it fully yet) in series with the drive batteries to charge
empty batteries.

So he is using the sparking commutator of the motor to
convert the free electrons that show up at the commutator switching
and uses this via the produced radio frequency bursts to charge up his empty
batteries in series with the motor.

You just only have to modify a 12 Volts DC motor a bit to have the commutator graphite brushes
to make the tips a bit more needle like, so they will spark more
and don?t use a capcitor across the commutator, so that it does not suppress the
sparking..

You basically convert graphite ( carbon) to electricity on a direct oxidation conversion process.
You use up in the process some graphite but it is a very efficient process.

Same principle that happens in the Newman machines.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 01, 2008, 08:43:24 PM
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...
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 01, 2008, 09:39:55 PM
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

He said, that when he loaded his motor mechanically more by slowing it down,
that the empty battery gets charged up even faster.
Well, yes, that is also very easy to understand as you draw a bigger current from
the 24 Volts DC source you will also generate much more sparking and rf bursts at the
motor commutator and this way also charge up your empty battery even faster.

Many thanks to David for showing us this successful system.

I also had already planed from my Newman motor studies to buy soon an electro scooter and modify the battery
system to incoporate such a direct carbon conversion process and now
this is a good idea to do it just this way as David did it.
This way I hope to be able to ride the electro scooter much longer or infinitely
without needing it to reacharge.
Maybe only changing the graphite brushes from the motor once a month.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: fletcher on May 01, 2008, 10:32:48 PM
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 !
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TheOne on May 02, 2008, 02:02:29 AM
If putting a load make the charging process better, just connect another generator on the shaft of the generator and recharge the other batteries faster!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: fletcher on May 02, 2008, 02:09:37 AM
I have just read the daily FE News tag top left of this site - there they mention just such a possibility which also came to mind - just imagine ships traveling across the oceans but instead of burning wood or coal carbon & heating a boiler for steam production, having electric motors, batteries & stokers who stack loads of HB pencils [carbon] before the voyage & then feeding them in as replacement graphite brushes every few days - got to carry a pencil sharpener at all times though.

Go to work on a pencil a day ;)

Hope there is something to this, the experts in this area should know !
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 02, 2008, 02:58:41 AM
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 !

Yes, it can be used.
There are some companies, who want to build commercial fuel cells on direct conversion of
carbon, but the process by using it in a sparking commutators is much more simple
and cost effective.

It was a long way for me to see this from my Newman
experiments, but now much more people are coming forward and
verify this principle.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 02, 2008, 07:10:36 PM
All,

I just uploaded a file somewhere on the internet. I will provide a link soon if we don't hear from this guy. I don't want to hurt a fellow FE researcher so one needs to be a bit more patient. We still don't know if this guy is misinterpreting his observations. Anyway, is there a way to upload files bigger than 50KB on this forum?.

thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 02, 2008, 08:34:38 PM
  In summary:

1.  He says in his audio interview that sometimes it takes 10 or 15 minutes for the "effect" to show up.

2.  He says that others have bought miniature motors at Radio Shack & duplicated the "effect".

3.  Remember that the Kipper Motor took awhile to get going & had the same effects.
     Rotating car alternator = rotating mag field = Aether output.



.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 03, 2008, 12:01:23 AM
Stefan theory can be easily disproven using a brushless motor instead. What makes stefan theory more appealing is the fact we know matter to energy conversion is real and proven but ether energy is yet to be proven. But I agree that vacuum energy is also a possibility though remote and unproven.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tak22 on May 03, 2008, 07:23:36 PM
So, are dozens of us busily grabbing the nearest DC motor, a few batteries, and testing this?  ;D As far as theory and construction goes it doesn't get much easier than this.  I don't have any free time for another week, but I challenge all of you to have this tested/proven/disproven/improved before then.

It ain't no TPU or SMOT.  ;) , so just go do it!  :D

Do it for Hans.

tak
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 03, 2008, 09:35:04 PM
I thought I'd check out what people had to say about what I came up with. Those of you who think I'm keeping this secret because I am greedy are so wrong. Yes, I would like to get a patent in place so I can make some money, but once the patent goes through, it becomes public knowledge, and if the patent DOESN'T go through, well, all my notes have been given to a number of people and one of them might accidentally leak it out on the internet. What a shame. This weekend I'm running the tests that a physicist and an electrical engineer advised me to run for proof of concept for my patent. I also want empirical data so I don't keep having doubts in my own mind every time I talk to the people who are a whole lot smarter than me about this stuff and keep causing me to doubt what I have seen with my own eyes as some error in my calculations. By Sunday night I will have all the proof I will ever need, and no oner will ever be able to put a doubt in my mind again. The provisional has already been filed, so I am safe from all of you who want to post your ideas about what I came up with. All I'm looking for is the chance to cut a deal with a major investor and a little head start, and I agree that this info needs to be out there. We have to stop the use of fossil fuels NOW. I truly hope this is the answer, and if my data proves out by Sunday, I will be back here talking about it. Oh, and I know what the "right thing" is....it's making sure I can PROVE what I say so I don't become the laughing stock of the internet.  Have a little faith!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on May 03, 2008, 10:16:25 PM
@ DBowling

Hi David, thanks for coming by.

Welcome and congratulations!  I look forward to hearing from you as soon as you are able to join us in full disclosure in order for us to replicate and validate your setup.

Don't be disheartened by the lack of trust and faith from the previous posts, I myself am getting frustrated with many hopeful FE devices disappearing down the annals of the patent office along with their inventors,  I still hope you'll come through in the end :)

With respect,

Paul

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tak22 on May 03, 2008, 10:41:19 PM
Very well said David! I asked for results in a week, and you give hope for it to happen in days  :)

Thank you for your expression of sincerity, and I hope your tests this weekend give you all the empirical data you need to go forward with your plans.

tak
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: xee on May 03, 2008, 11:43:03 PM
@ DBowling
Before you sell your house, I suggest you do the following experiment. Three 18 AH 12 volt batteries contain over 600 watt-hours of energy (200 watt-hours each) and therefore should light a 100 watt bulb for 6 hours or a 50 watt bulb for 12 hours. If your system is continuously generating power then it should be able to light the 100 watt bulb for 12 hours or a 50 watt bulb for 24 hours. If it can do that, then you can sell your house. Good luck, I hope it works.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 04, 2008, 12:21:00 AM
I guess maybe that means I won't have all the data I wanted by Sunday night, but I should have some. I will post what I get, and continue to run the test until I have recharged the batteries five times. Since I am charging four with two, it would mean I got 10 times the energy output of the two batteries if I am able to charge them and then run the 100 watt lightbulb for eight hours or so on each charge.  That should be enough proof for anyone, especially if I just keep doing it and keep records of it. I know I will have to get my data independently verified, but I have a sceptical electrical engineer friend who has already talked to me about the second law of thermodynamics and how this couldn't work. I intend to let him duplicate the experiment himself. Looks like I will be spending the night in my shop again tonight and probably tomorrow night as well!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 04, 2008, 12:22:43 AM
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

So David, what do you think of hartiberlin's comments, is he correct?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on May 04, 2008, 12:33:11 AM
Stephan is always the first hand up in class [thats why he's the Boss now]  he's already driving the elec scooter around  Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: fletcher on May 04, 2008, 01:14:19 AM
Good luck with the testing David - hard empirical facts are hard to dispute, either way - sounds like you're getting together a robust testing strategy.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 04, 2008, 01:41:07 PM
Dear Mr. Bowling,

I listened to the audio interview, but I still have a question.

If a friend or neighbor came to you with a half discharged 12V battery, could you place that 1 battery ALL BY ITSELF on your Widget & recharge that 1 battery?

If not, what is the minimum number of batteries that you would need to charge that half dead battery?


Thank you in advance for your reply sir.


.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: CLaNZeR on May 04, 2008, 01:50:38 PM
Excellent stuff!! 2008 is certainly turning out to be full of interesting stuff!

Good luck David .

Cheers

Sean.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 04, 2008, 04:42:11 PM
So what's new David, are you off the grid yet?

How did last night's testing go?

Please give us an update.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: xee on May 04, 2008, 04:56:59 PM
@ DBowling
I hope you are not fooling yourself into thinking a battery is charged just because it has a voltage of 12 volts. I have attached a plot for a 17 AH 12 volt battery. Notice that it takes 20 hours to discharge at a rate of almost 1 amp. While it is delivering 0.85 amps to a load, the battery voltage is over 12 volts until the battery is only 25% charged (at 15 hours). If the load was less than 0.85 amps this voltage would be even higher when it was only 25% charged. Also notice that even when only 25% charged, the battery will deliver 0.85 amps for over 5 hours. Thus one fully charged battery can charge 3 other batteries to 25% and the charged batteries will each measure 12 volts and deliver almost an amp of power for over 5 hours. BUT, all that was done was to move charge from one battery to 3 other batteries, no new energy was created.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Guard_Dog on May 04, 2008, 06:00:37 PM
The guard dog barks at John Galt_USA - keep watching your back Mr. Bowling and two huge thumbs up  :D
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged

The enigmatic John Galt is the male hero of Atlas Shrugged, and typifies the Randian hero. By trade, he is an engineer, and has developed a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity that has the potential to change the world. However, in disgust at the collectivization forced upon him at his workplace at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, he goes on strike, depriving the world of his invaluable invention.
John Galt's name is enshrined in the question "Who is John Galt?" The phrase is used popularly as an expression of helplessness and despair at the sorry state of the world. The answer is expressed in a range of legends: none of which is entirely true, but all of which reflect an aspect of his achievements and labours.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: HideousMonster on May 04, 2008, 06:03:26 PM
"Those of you who think I'm keeping this secret because I am greedy are so wrong. Yes, I would like to get a patent in place so I can make some money."

Let's hope your patent doesn't become one of the thousands that have been officially classified by the US military.  And let's hope that secrecy in pursuit of fortune and glory doesn't earn you the same fate as that of Mr. Stanley Meyer.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 04, 2008, 08:46:19 PM
For those of you following this, here is how I started. I  discharged the batteries I am going to charge by attaching them to a common automobile headlight and running them down until the bulb no longer even glows. Since I don't know enough about capacitors to use them to discharge, this is as good as I can get. Then charge them up with my device until I read about 13.1 volts on my volt meter. Then attach a DC inverter to them. I attach a Kill-A-Watt meter (brand name) to the inverter and plug in a 100 watt light bulb. I run it  until the inverter beeps at me and tells me there is not enough current to keep the bulb running. I realize there will actually be electricity in the batteries at this point, but I really don't care. All I care about is I started as close to zero as I can get, and I will measure the kilowatt output (which seems to be about  .33 per charge and runs the light bulb for three hours) I charged the batteries three times yesterday and last night and ran them down. On the fourth time it wouldn't work. I believe this is because I have been pulling the batteries out of the charge circuit as soon as they read 13.1 volts instead of waiting for the system to shut itself down when everything is charged. Or else the whole thing is a dud. I will keep trying.

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. But that's what testing is all about. Anyway, I will keep posting what I discover, so if it ever comes out right, you will see the data here. I think the errors are mine rather than a failure of the system, but only time will tell as I continue testing.

As for the question about whether or not I could charge a partially charged battery. I think the batteries I am putting into my system now have a partial charge even after running the 100 watt light bulb for three hours. But I haven't measured them to see.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 04, 2008, 11:15:52 PM
Hi guys,

May I suggest you to consult this page:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch.html)

And notably the Peter Lindemann 's post about the Tesla Switch. (08-23-2007)

Quote
..........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.
.......................................

Emphasis are mine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, as Reported by Sterling D. Allan

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling's_Continuous_Charging_Device
 (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling's_Continuous_Charging_Device)
Quote
The system does not involve resisters, diodes, rectifiers, transistors. It's
basically just batteries, a motor, wires, and switches
.

@Dbowling :
So, IMHO, the design of your Continuous Charging Device is perhaps genuine (and
certainly easier to built) but should use some "Tesla Switch" principle.
And I bet is  does work... :)

Best
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: xee on May 05, 2008, 01:28:51 AM
@ DBowling
If it doesn't work it is better to find out before you quit your job and sell your house, rather than afterwards. I still hope you will get it working, but your data does not look good at this time. These kinds of ups and downs are part of doing research.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 05, 2008, 06:15:33 AM
Just an update...I have gone back to charging two batteries at a time, as many times as possible, and if that doesn't work, will go back to one. The problem with only charging one is that when I try to measure how many Kwh it puts out running a 100 watt light bulb, it doesn't put out much and will take me forever to get the data to prove anything. But that may be my only option. I have charged two batteries in parallel twice so far today, and am running my light bulb now to discharge them the second time. I will post again tomorrow night with the results. Lots of folks have e-mailed me to say this won't work, and lots with words of encouragement. I guess only time will tell. If it turns out to be a dud I will be really glad I didn't waste everyone's time and money by posting my circuit here.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 05, 2008, 07:47:38 AM
The digital meter probably has a choke or ferrite bead to suppress transients.  This might explain why the system wouldn't run with the digital meter in place, but did with the analog one.

I like Stefan's theory.  Seems right-on to me.

David:  If you get this thing running consistently, it should be a snap to wire up a switchboard to automatically flip the batteries around, all the while running a load.  If you could run a decent load for a very long time, say 100x as long as you could with the batteries alone, that should convince even the most dyed-in-the-wool skeptic.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: fletcher on May 05, 2008, 07:59:47 AM
That sounds very sensible zerotensor.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: seekingknowledge on May 05, 2008, 09:08:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Doug1 on May 05, 2008, 11:54:45 AM
  Yes it does work. This is the experiment that got me started down this endless path to begin with.
   I used a 24 volt dc motor from a Merits wheel chair and ran it off a 12 volt deep cycle battery with a charge of 11 volts. No motor load because the battery was drained very low and half the voltage the motor was rated for. I was at the time more exited by the thing then over any other event in my life.
  Timing the device was the hardest part. The inside commutator was left alone but used for reference to build the external commutator which was made simple by taking the braking disc that came with the motor and applying fat pieces of wire onto the flat surface spaced evenly and slightly off alignment slightly compared to the inside commutator segments. The disc was built up with Elmers glue until the wires were completely covered and then it was sanded down to expose the wires so they could be used as contacts as the motor spun. Aluminum strips #4 were placed so as to make contact and feed the the power from the battery in short pulses to the motor internal commutator. The second set of contacts were used to pick up the back emf and spark event which was isolated through timing back to the single battery 12vdc. It often reached over 125v on the battery terminals using an ordinary volt meter. After three of the longest most boring days of my life watching this set up run with periods of varying battery voltages ranging from 11.5v to 125.v I turned it off the wife was getting pissed.
  The spark gap thing does work but it also has a short life because the sparks are eating your contact materials which throws the timing off slightly requiring adjustments. I did not consider using two batteries because i did not have any faith it would work to begin with partly because of the crude construct secondly because it just did not seem possible.
   And so the path from hell began with a pile of parts from an old farts wheel chair.
 It would be nice to try it with a golf cart motor only next time I would maybe not use so much junk or make it look nicer or something. The sparks change color at times in conjunction with the voltage readings mostly this was seen at night. If you think you can watch paint dry for 36 hours straight, enjoy.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 05, 2008, 01:57:07 PM
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.

David:

It seems that you are confusing energy, power, and capacity.  This can get complicated when you are dealing with chemical batteries.  Stick to what you can show.  Here's a simple experiment you could perform which may help to illuminate what is going on:

Get 6 fresh, identical batteries.  Do your discharge thing with two of them. Set-up your device with two of the good batteries and one dead, just like before.  Now, separately, wire up the remaining three batteries , using a length of wire in place of the motor.  Test both setups with identical loads.

Without knowing the actual details of your circuit, I can't say for certain that this test would make sense, but if it does, this should provide us with a qualitative demonstration of the effect, if it exists.

Voltage and current measurements are nice and all, but if you really have something here you should be able to demonstrate it clearly without getting into the messy quantitative stuff.  I don't care about the voltage and the current readings-- those can be misleading.  Show us the energy!  The quantitative measurements can be made in a university lab once the viability of the technique has been clearly demonstrated.

I strongly recommend that you disclose the circuit as soon as possible.  Forget the "black box" gambit, unless it is your intention to turn-off serious interest and label yourself a charlatan.  (There will no doubt be more than enough of that, anyway).
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 05, 2008, 04:47:52 PM
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.

It depends on what kind of DC motor you use.
A standard 12 Volts car motor as was used in this case might have already have some
bad brushes contacts as the graphite brushes have been worn out
and this way it is sparking at the commutator.
This way you get the desired effect.
But surely you will improve it, if you make the brush?s tips smaller than the copper
segments gap length, so every time the graphite tip comes to a copper gap, it fires
the BackEMF from the coils of the DC motor.

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 05, 2008, 06:26:31 PM
I have been having trouble getting things working right, and some of the data I presented here, I needed to explain a little better.
I completely exhausted two 18Ah hour and one 33Ah battery by hooking them up to a headlight. I charged them through my system and then ran a 100 watt lightbulb for three hours before the AC inverter beeped at me and said I had no more power to run it. I did that three times. It produced .33 KWh hours of electricity according to the Kill_A-Watt meter and ran the light bulb 3 times for three hours each time. Each time I let it run to the 3 hour mark, even though it was beeping, because it was still going and three hours was a nice round number. On the fourth time my batteries I was using to charge with were dead. So I produced 990 watts. If ALL the batteries in the system had been fully charged there would have been about 1260 watts of power available. Since only two were charged, there should have been 432 watts available. So if the (2 18AH and one 33Ah) batteries were really dead, I produced more than I should have, but still not "endless energy" as I had hoped. I am assuming there was some life in those batteries, but enough to make up the difference between the 432 that should have been available in only two batteries and the 990 I produced, especially when I had been running the motor for 9 hours? I don't think so. I wanted to produce 10 times the 1260 watts the batteries were capable of, IF THEY HAD ALL BEEN FULL so the experiment failed, but I think the results were still significant. It would have been nice if I couod have produced at least 1260 watts and run the motor the whole time.

When I first started messing with this, I noticed that when I was charging a battery and connected my AC inverter to the battery I was charging and plugged in a light bulb, the motor sped up and the voltage on the first two batteries increased. At one point it showed 18 volts across the batteries and that scared us, so we shut it down. We let the two batteries set, and a half hour later they still showed 14 volts. We discharged them using small motors down to around 12 volts because we were worried. We also noticed that when we put a load on the motor by tightening the pulley, it increased the voltage measured on the charging battery. I don't remember if it increased the voltage measured on the other two batteries, and that is not in my notes, so I may not have measured it.

Now, when I put a load on the battery I am charging, the voltage in the first two batteries goes DOWN. I think this is where my problem lies. In the beginning it was going up, and those batteries were recharging. They aren't anymore. I've got some variables here that I need to isolate.
1. The batteries I am using now are from a different manufacturer----my original batteries are in California with the machine I built at a friend's house.
2. The batteries I am using now were charged using my system, and then charged from a wall charger. I noticed that took way longer than usual, and the meter never read "full" no matter how long I had them on the charger. Perhaps switching back and forth has done something to the batteries
3. I've run the heck out of this motor for three weeks now. Maybe when it was brand new it was capable of doing something it is not capable of doing now.

I am going back to the very first experiment I did with my original motor, two batteries and my original dead battery and start over from there. If I can't figure this out in a couple days, I will just post my circuit here and let the brainiacs on the internet have at it. This worked. It is not working now...or at least not like it was. I am still getting more watts of power out of this than it should be capable of producing from the two charged batteries, but they are running down after only charging the system a few times. Oh, and one other thing I noticed over the weekend as I kept trying to make this work.

I charged four batteries (two 18Ah and one 33Ah) three times before exhausting my two starter batteries
I charged TWO (18Ah) batteries three times before exhausting my starter batteries
I haven't tried charging just one battery yet, but I will do that tonight and see what happens.
It seems to be "charging sessions" but I will have to see.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Guard_Dog on May 05, 2008, 06:36:07 PM
Hey Dave,
Don't get too carried away. I'm inclined to agree with the 'keep it simple' approach. There will be plenty of brains on the job to refine, maximize, and quantify the actual limits in time. Hook it up to something and let it run indefinitely. All you need to prove is that it will keep regenerating the batteries on it's own without any outside help. If it can start and stop itself as it charges and recharges a worn out battery that won't hold its charge, then maybe you can try a good battery on the back end with a small draw that should slowly take the back end voltage down until the motor starts back up again.
I'm wondering also if you've thought of hooking it up at your fathers house in place of the solar array to see if you can keep his bank charged up for several days. Do you need to take all the load off the back end for it to do its thing or can you leave some load in place while you charge and it will still be capable of completing the cycle and replenishing the front end? In other words, like when you did the test with the old battery, if you had a light bulb hooked to the old battery on the back end, would it still kick back in (once the voltage has dropped enough) and the motor come on with that light bulb still hooked up (on the back end battery)? And will it still replenish the two front end batteries in the end with that light bulb still burning (a low load)?
Whatever the case may be, don't give yourself a headache: simplicity is the key in my opinion.
Cheers!

P.S. I just read your last post and it kind of answers what I was wondering about. It sounds like the draw might have to be removed from the back end before recharging... also sounds like you might be wearing out the brushes in your original motor... doh! (minor details)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 05, 2008, 10:24:40 PM
Mr Bowling,

Do you have the first 2 Batteries in Parallel for 12V out to the Motor?  Or do you have the first 2 batteries in Series for 24V out to the Motor?

I am asking because I think I know what the problem is.


Thanks.
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Linearfashion on May 05, 2008, 11:04:54 PM
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!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 05, 2008, 11:56:04 PM
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 totally agree.  I suspect that the old batteries being charged may have been sulfated & thus "APPEAR" to be 100% charged to capacity, but are really not.

I have tried 2 different DC Motors & I CANNOT duplicate anything OverUnity.  The only reason the motor speeds up when a 12V Bulb or (Inverter Load) is applied across the Output Load is because the TOTAL Load Impedance (Battery + Bulb) now is LOWER, hence pulling more current through the Motor.


   ???



.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 06, 2008, 01:45:47 AM
I spoke with my partner in crime who helped me build this thing in the first place. He has been running tests on his own with his own machine so that we could compare notes. He isn't having the same problems I have so we are meeting tomorrow afternoon and I will post after I talk to him. I don't know how much he has been running his or what tests he has done.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 06, 2008, 01:58:54 AM
Unfortunately, I believe now David misinterpreted the results due to a lack of battery knowledge. Thus, I agree this has been another wild goose chase. However, let's not be discouraged. The fight must go on.

Thanks,

Miki.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on May 06, 2008, 02:26:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on May 06, 2008, 02:29:22 AM
The spark gap? something here!! Stephan what about that Newman reference? can this go further  Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Feynman on May 06, 2008, 02:55:37 AM
Nice David, I hope your results continue after more testing.  There are many paths opening.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: xee on May 06, 2008, 03:04:13 AM
David,
Can you post the model numbers of the motors that worked and didn't work here? Maybe someone can provide information about what might be the differences in them.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Linearfashion on May 06, 2008, 03:52:22 AM
Great determination David! I was wondering if maybe there is something to do with motor rpm. Perhaps your more powerful motor was spinning to slow. Maybe a tacometer should be added to your arsenel. If frequency of the sparking has something to do with it, that could be fine tuned with a tach. Good Luck

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 06, 2008, 04:32:33 AM
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.

@DB:
This is very encouraging!  This seems to support the idea that the sparking commutator in the motor is the key, as Stefan eruditely noted.  Bravo, David, for your perseverance.  Looking forward to your results.

Yes, at the end of the day, kW-hours is an appropriate standard-- this is a unit of energy.  Your previous discussion of "Wattage" made no sense to me.   A Watt is a unit of power-- energy per unit time.  Confusing energy and power is a common mistake among beginners, probably because the two terms are often used interchangeably in casual English.  You probably already knew this, but anyway, I hope this clarifies the terminology a bit.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 06, 2008, 11:55:01 AM
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.

Hi David,
great to hear, that your old motor still works.
Yes, please do a Wattshour tests.
Only this can tell, how much energy was being stored in the batteries.

It really depends on the sparking of the commutator.
Maybe your newer motor has a small capacitor build in to suppress the sparking ?
Try to remove the cap, if there is one.
Good luck.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 06, 2008, 01:01:27 PM
Hi David,
it also depends a lot, in which angle the commutator is fixed to the axis shaft.
That way you can control , when the motor windings are energized and
released again from the power input.

If you turn and fix the commutator slightly back or forth on the axis,
you can control how much the motor works also as a generator..

Maybe you first motor was  better in this case, that the manufacturer
had setup the commutator a bit false or too late rotation wise, so the BackEMF bursts had
more power in it, due to a better energizing from the rotating permanent magnets inside the motor.

If you have a coil?s current cut and the BackEMF voltage happening and the
spark jumping
and at the same a magnet inducing a changing magnet field into the coil,
the BackEMF voltage does get a real good "push" so to say and the
energy in this BackEMF spike increases dramatically.

Now this combined with burning the graphite at the spark which puts out  the
additional energy inside the motor commutator  adds more energy into the
whole circuit.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: callanan on May 06, 2008, 04:00:11 PM
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 06, 2008, 04:46:10 PM
@callanan
You must put the motor in series with the second battery, not in parallel...
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 06, 2008, 06:55:39 PM
Not even close my friend. The configuration is much simpler than that. The implementation is hard though since you may need to do some mod to the motor's windings.

Thanks,

Miki.

.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 06, 2008, 11:55:12 PM
Dave, you can discharge batteries fairly fast by buying 12V bulbs that are the same size & thread as household bulbs.  They are generally 50 watts (4 Amps) apiece & are sold at Auto Supply stores.  You can screw them into regular household light receptacles, connected to your batteries.

Connect 2 in parallel for 8 amps, 3 for 12 amps, 4 for 16 amps, etc.
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Meccanojoe. on May 07, 2008, 12:03:55 AM
Hello All,
               as this is my first post let me introduce myself.My name is Joe and I am based in Ireland.II am interested in  wind solar and free energy.Anyway I have been following this thread with much interest.I have a question.It is my understanding that David is powering a 12volt inverter to check how much power his charged batteries are capble of giving out.He plugs a KWh meter into inverter and mains light bulb as a load.
 Now my question is this is the inverter a sine or modified sine wave type.  ??? ?If it is modified sine the KWH meter might be giving incorrect reading.
                                                                                        Joe.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 07, 2008, 01:15:06 AM
This is the correct circuit diagramm.
The incandescent lamp is optional and will also consume
power from the radio frequency bursts...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 07, 2008, 02:00:34 AM
Great schematic Stefan.  Maybe Dave will come back with good news.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Linearfashion on May 07, 2008, 02:34:18 AM
@ Stefan,
 I believe the lamp is in parallel with the "charging" battery(s)
at least thats what i have deduced from the interview, you may have more info. than I
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 07, 2008, 02:51:27 AM
The lamp can be a 120 Volts incandescent lamp maybe 25 Watts type.
It is optional.
The main effect is the sparking copper-graphite commutator of the DC motor pumping
RF bursts into the charge battery B3.

Just do it first without the lamp.
The lamp is only a good indicator, that there are RF bursts on the line.
With the normal DC input current the lamp would not light
cause its DC resistance is too low and much lower than the motor impedance.
Just only if the RF bursts are coming from the commutator the big RF burst currents will
light up also the lamp a bit.

This could be a good indicator, that the circuit is working then to charge the battery B3 ( and optionally B4,B5, B6).

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 07, 2008, 02:56:40 AM
Stefan,

First let me say that I lean more toward your carbon conversion theory. However, this circuit connection doesn't implement that theory. You  need to mod the motor's internal wirings to some extent. Additional works need to be done inside the motor's cage particularly around the commutator and brushes. Very little to almost no additional hardware is required.

Anyway, if this is really what David had in mind, then we should be moving past his circuit. The good thing is that we have a starting point.

Thanks,

Miki.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Linearfashion on May 07, 2008, 02:57:48 AM
It sounds to me Stefan that you have duplicated the effect and are convinced of overunity. Does David get the Prize!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nightlife on May 07, 2008, 03:49:42 AM
Linearfashion, this is can not be considered as true over unity. It could be over unity if over unity the contest speaks of is based on human physical cost.

 To claim true over unity, we must prove what energy is first and that has yet to be done. We can not claim to produce more energy then the energy used unless we know what energy is and where it comes from. Just because we build something that shows to produce more does not mean that more is actually produced. The production may never have even taken place and the accumulation may be what has been achieved. Then we have to consider the energy used to produce the materials used as well as the energy that is held in the materials.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Linearfashion on May 07, 2008, 04:06:59 AM
I agree entirely. It was an attempt at humor. A poor one, but please don't think I do not take over unity seriously. I am limited in my formal education, however I have great vision and understanding of this fascinating dimension we live in. I do feel that over unity is only achievable from the perspective  we have in this dimension. What I mean is, if you had the perspective of God (for example) all energy is re circulatory and therefore over unity is not necessary nor possible. If it wasn't obvious I was trying to say that the ultimate perspective can "see" all dimensions, and that being said I believe when we achieve over unity we are circulating energy inter- dimensionally.


Feel free to expand.

Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 07, 2008, 06:09:11 AM
What's new David? Please give us an update.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: judo_jack63 on May 07, 2008, 08:21:39 PM
Hi all,

I must interject that none of this is new! Been going on since the days of good ol' Tesla, and even in a derivative way with E.V. Gray. Woops, forgot John Bedini....... He publicly posted the schematic for this design many years ago in association with the "Tesla Switch".

The circuit USUALLY uses a "low resistance load" as shown in the schematic. Well, what is a low resistance load? Many people use a standard 12v bulb. But, you can use a 12v motor, with the exact results that Mr. Bowling claims.

Fact is, so many people in this area of research are newbies and have no idea of the research already performed; or they are brainwashed by the misinformation artists, or just can't focus on a project without changes. I make this statement with all due respect, but; calling attention to all of the wild and grandiose explanations for some simple process in the public domain for decades.

What is the purpose of this statement? To show that the information is out there, but only a handful of people actually do the work. Too many people sign up to chat and exchange ideas based on conventional EM theory. If more people would actually do the experiments and stop the chat, we could force out the devices that have been mysteriously lost for many years!!!!

A few facts.

I applaud Mr. Bowling for actually doing the work. Eventhough it is not an original design, at least he is trying, and deserves kudos for his hard work.

Next fact. This has NOTHING to do with brush conversion to energy. A standard bulb can charge the 3rd battery! No graphite brushes there...So, the bulb that is in a previous schematic as optional to absorb rf energy is more than that.. IT IS A LOAD!

The energy that does the charging is going from high potential to low potential. Therefore it flows into the 3rd battery to charge it. The charge flows from one set of batteries to the other. The motor or bulb is just a load to power as the energy flows from high to low potential.

Take a look at the way it is wired. Positive to positive.. EV Gray "split the positive" this way.  John Bedini has said so many times, the batteries are in "charge mode". As long as the potential traveling into another battery is at least 2 volts higher, it will sink to the lower potential... (in this case, charge the battery)

Next, has it even remotely occurred to anyone that this system could reach a resonant point?? Hahahha... How much research has actually been done on this project... Need I state the fact that the battery impedance will match at some point? Damn, those primary battery voltages stay the same for dozens of hours, and just keep charging batteries or running loads.......

Well, until the brushes change, or something mechanical breaks. So, lets replace the standard motor with pulse motors,  aka brushless motors. How long can we sustain that resonant circuit???  TRY IT...

Why the inductive loads increase the motor speed?? The resonant frequency changes , and the motor matches it. People keep forgetting that more energy drain from a battery also changes its internal impedance. Gotta get back in resonance..

Perhaps people could do the work and find these answers on their own. Then everyone could go buy a bunch of deep cycle marine batteries, a nice inverter, and run all the loads that you want, while keeping ALL the batteries charged.

Oh yeah, to keep nosy people from asking questions, add a solar panel somewhere for looks. Gotta remember, people resist change, and we need all the good minds we can keep. Don't want any trouble.

YES, this system will charge solar battery banks! Of course, may need a motor that can handle the power requirements. Pulse or otherwise.

Just keep in mind a few things. Never exceed the C-20 discharge rate of the batteries, never exceed the load capacity of your inverter, and DON'T hypothesize, just do it.......

Another thing, why not use a Bedini battery charger to "condition" your batteries to begin with? Your batteries will put out more power and charge quicker. It will also resurrect old sulfated batteries for use.

Dammit, sometimes these batteries powering my system read less than 12v... What the heck, the system is still running my loads and charging batteries......JUST LET IT WORK FOR YOU....No questions. Mother Nature is great.

Here is a link to look at and see what looks familiar with all of this... REMEMBER THE PAST.. If we forget it, we will never get ahead of this current world crisis.

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/tesla.html

Don't worry about rotating the batteries yet. Well, until you understand what is really happening. Teslas energy shuttling... Oh yeah, this DOES work with capacitors also... But they leak a bit, so they must keep adding a bit of a charge to them, but it will work.

Good luck, and hope people will stop hiding the truth and open their eyes.

JJ

PS, who am I to speak about all of this????

Well, we will just say, it has been running for a looooong time in practical application.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 07, 2008, 08:45:41 PM


Hi Judo_Jack63 ,

Welcome to the club.
Yes,I do agree with you, it sounds like a Tesla Switch.
Actually, a was talking about this switch in a previous (apparently unnoticed  :P) post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4612.msg93978.html#msg93978 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4612.msg93978.html#msg93978)

As far as I can catch it, you have been experimenting the Tesla Switch.
Could you tell us more about your experiments?

Best
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 09:09:09 PM
@JJ

Quote
A standard bulb can charge the 3rd battery! No graphite brushes there...

Can you post a schematic for such a circuit?  Most Bedini systems use moving parts.

Thanks
Feynman

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on May 07, 2008, 09:11:57 PM
@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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nightlife on May 07, 2008, 10:11:48 PM
One problem I find with Bedini motors and others are that they use several magnets. Each of the magnets have center polarity's which take away from the efficiency because they only use half of the magnets surface for the attraction and or repel. The other half is not utilized and actually causes a resistance. If the several magnets were replaced with just one like in this next picture I have designed, then the whole magnet can be utilized and It should add more to the torque.

 You would have to shut off the coil just before the center of polarity is reached and then turn back on just after the center is passed but you would also have to switch the coils polarity as well. This would have to be done each time a center of polarity comes around.

The first will show one coil design, the second will show a four coil design and the last will show a one coil design that utilizes both poles of the coil.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: judo_jack63 on May 07, 2008, 10:19:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Feynman on May 07, 2008, 10:31:35 PM
Quote
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.

You must be kidding, right?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 07, 2008, 10:56:30 PM
@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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: judo_jack63 on May 07, 2008, 11:07:21 PM
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 every with success.

1st, let's think a minute about how all of these boards and groups over the years have spread the information. Then reflect on the success stories, based on the "AVAILABLE" information.. Hhhhmmmmm. There is a common factor. There is something always missing.

Lots of people always claim to have great engineering backgrounds and state Ohms Law 50 different ways, and therefore negate any possibility of success if it does not function as per the commonly known theories of physics.

I ask, have ALL of the laws of physics been discovered? No. We are not yet advanced to know it all yet; as well, the establishment has conveniently "lost" the things that were being discovered 100 years ago.

Ok, now for some light on this subject.

Yes, I have experimented extensively with Tesla Switches, Bedini devices of all sorts, and many other OU claims. I will respond to your replies in order.

 Sorry to have missed the post regarding previous Tesla Switch info. I just located this thread and thought I would briefly help clear up some misconceptions.

Can I post a schematic for the circuit? Well, I thought I did when I attached Bedini's diagram. Just because Bedini "mostly" uses moving parts, does not mean that ALL of Bedini's information is related to mechanical processes. If you have studied his work, there are Solid State circuits also, and Yes, I have built them, and yes again; they do work (if an engineer knows how they function to make adjustments)

Also, yes I am still connected to the grid also. When enough money allows, perhaps something on a large scale could be constructed to change that, but for now, I am like most other people scraping for money, buying gasoline, and paying the utility companies.

Next, well, many individuals building Bedini circuits and others don't really see what is happening. Many things come into play to achieve the results that should manifest. Proper battery conditioning is a factor. Something that Sterling Allen did not do properly before he started reporting the Schoolgirl Motor results.

When properly conditioned, the batteries will put out MORE power than when new, and charge MUCH quicker. There is a lot of that in the Public Domain now that John has discussed it thoroughly.

Next, did you actually put a "timing light" on the Bedini motors to look at the pulse timing? Yep, here is how the cancellation of energy is avoided. The line delay of the inductor makes the transistor fire in such a way that the magnet is NOT over the pole piece when it sends it's energy to the coil. As a result, what happens to the "back-emf"????? Think about it.

Now, one MUST start out with batteries that are SIMILAR and in good condition to see the effect in a reasonable time. Instead, many people take junk batteries for overunity experiments, and get no results.

Now, in my previous post. If you keep the supply battery in a higher state of potential than the output battery, what would happen? Your potential would travel from high to low, THROUGH the circuit (powering it for what cost???) and end up in the output battery! You paid NOTHING for the energy, only the transistor switching cost (if it is properly tuned)..

Sooo.. How much did you "pay" to charge the battery????? How about the wheel turning??? Kinetic energy as well..... Add all of the Joules and see how much you got for what you paid.... Oh yeah, when your meter says a certain number of mA to run the circuit, did you remember to calculate the PULSE WIDTH?????

The power is NOT steady on like DC, it is PULSED.. So lets subtract the off cycle width from the meter readings.... Getting close to even or better yet??? Geezzzz. This machine just keeps running past the battery specs....

OK, now to the Tesla switch info. There has been a lot of misinformation out there, and speculations.. Let's clear it up. What does it do??

Runs a higher potential through a load to a lower potential. Therefore the charge ends up in a different battery.. Ok, now take that battery with the gain, and put it in series with another battery to give higher potential through the load again to a lower potential one. What happens? The charge then moves again from high to low, and ends up in the lower one as gain (powering the load).

So, lets cycle it over and over again.. Round and round..... Just run high to low, THROUGH the load, moving from battery to battery... Now you have a big loop of ENERGY SHUTTLING!

Next, when the battery impedances reach the same, it will go into resonant operation, and you will see much more gains... Nuff said???

I don't give out circuits, and engage in long discussions. I just want people to think about what is happening in the circuits, and design circuits based on what NEEDS to happen, instead of following incomplete internet schematics and claiming that they don't work!!!!! OU has been here forever, but too many have closed eyes and believe all that they hear instead of analyzing THEIR empirical results.

Get to building the Bowling/Bedini/Tesla circuit. Let's see how many can make it resonant and get OVERWHEALMING gains, without draining those batteries... Hint- If your batteries do not ALL charge back up completely, then move the one with the most gain into the series (High potential) position...

Then keep running the circuit, and charging battery after battery...Convert all of this energy (from charged batteries and loads operated) into Joules and compare at how much it originally took you to charge the 2 batteries...... Compared to the amount you can draw from all of your charged batteries and loads.......

I know the answer, and Mr. Bowling and a few others have a good idea based on REAL experiments.. Put down the brainiac mindsets and get back to the workbench..

I don't really like food shortages and $4.00 per gallon gasoline..

But, until all of us can stick together, then let's just fill the pockets of the Arab countries with our hard earned money. Forget that food we must eat; hell, we gotta a monkey on our backs called OIL!

Just food for thought.

JJ



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on May 07, 2008, 11:53:35 PM
@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.


Stefan,

Can you explain how to get a sparkgap with the right tuned spark?
Tuned to what? The RPM or the coils in the motor?

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 08, 2008, 12:03:54 AM
Having the right distance of copper-graphite electrodes, the right oscillation burst frequency occuring and
having a dphi/dt flux change inside the coils during the spark jump.

Also you see it from the flame of the spark.
The blue-whitish sparks seem to be the best ones...

Also they make a "hissing" sound.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on May 08, 2008, 01:50:01 AM
Regarding the circuit that Ossie Callanan posted before my version
I must clarify, that this might be also a way to test this out.
I thought, Ossie had tried to draw the circuit from the interview, but
it is just his own research, how he does it...

Here is the message I got from him and he was to busy to post it himself,
so here we go:


Hi Stefan,

I never post anything I have not built and tested myself. I have used this and many other types of circuits that assist in anomalous battery charging effects over many years. I no longer claim any circuits are mine and I don't believe anyone can or should claim that they own a circuit. They really only can claim coming across a particular circuit configuration and that they shown it to other people but almost everything we think we discovered has already been done by someone else in the past. David Bowling just stumbled across this but there are only a few of us who have been working with such circuits and can understand them to a degree. He has no clue what is going on, let alone what goes on in the battery and how to use it.

The circuit I posted was posted as is for a purpose. Hopefully if people started playing with it, it will start to teach them and perhaps some will understand.

Firstly, do not think that the batteries should be good and new batteries. These types of circuits will fail where brand new good batteries are used unless you make it very large and very low impedance to match the new batteries which is very difficult to do.

Secondly, do not presume the motor is 12 volts. The motor must be able to run, but only by the voltage difference between battery 2 and battery 3 which attempt to cancel each other out in voltage. This means that a low voltage motor is required, 0-3 volts, but 12 volt motors can work but run slower which does assist with the commutators.

There is both a voltage and impedance balancing act going on between the left and right side of the circuit. Because of this, there are two energies flowing through this circuit. The ideal  and best version of this circuit is not to have the lamp at all which is bypassed. Then it really does some amazing things but you cannot do this with normal batteries because of their low impedance...

The motor can be replace with a number of things but everything you have said about the spark gap being the cause of the excess energy is true except for your aparent belief in thinking that the energy from the spark gap is conventional and usable in a convention sense. This is not the case. The spark gap coupled with the motor windings and the spacial field interaction around the spinning rotor cause some sort of effect in the conventional energy flowing through the circuit to and from the batteries. Peter Lindemann calls it electrical "fractionation". But I don't know what it is, I just build and test circuits and devices and try to understand what works infront of me...

Ossie
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 08, 2008, 02:14:00 AM
Good points.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 08, 2008, 03:20:54 AM
This is a bit of an aside, but seems related to the theoretical side of the discussion going on here:

There's a guy in my hometown who has been developing a hydrogen-on-demand system using plasma hydrolysis with carbon rods.  Could it be that the same underlying phenomenon is responsible for the excess energy reported in both systems?  Both create an arc of plasma on the surface of carbon via electrical discharge, and both seem to yield a net excess of energy.  The energy is captured by a battery in the one case, while it goes into hydrogen production in the other.  These harvesting strategies are electrochemical processes.  Maybe what's going on here is that electrons are *somehow* generated "out of nothing" at the arcing surface of the graphite.  These extra electrons are captured by nearby material (coils in the motor and water molecules in the electrolysis cell).  In the motor coils, the extra electrons won't immediately or directly contribute to a direct current, but instead must be "coaxed out" by a battery (or perhaps a capacitor).  In the hydrolysis scenario, the electrons go directly into splitting the water molecule. ... 

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 08, 2008, 04:42:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 08, 2008, 06:45:02 AM
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.

Thanks, Miki.  I will do that, once the url quits returning 404's.  I've been able to connect just once in the last two days, and not for lack of trying.  The server keeps going down.   (cockup or conspiracy?) ;)

In the meantime, care to give a thumbnail sketch of the theory?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 08, 2008, 05:50:51 PM
Anything new David?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 08, 2008, 08:18:06 PM

Hi guys

While we are at Carbon:

1) The (Ren? Louis) Vall?e Synergetic Generator (VSG) is on:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/index.htm)
Notably on:http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg10.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg10.htm)
The web server is OK.

2) About
Quote
"hydrogen-on-demand system using plasma hydrolysis with carbon rods"
,
You can consult the Naudin's experiments with the 'BingoFuel' on:
http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/index.htm (http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/index.htm)
Notably on: http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm (http://bingofuel.online.fr/bingofuel/html/bfr10.htm)

JLN managed to close the loop (for a while).
A vid is on:
http://freenrg.info/Hydrogen/JNaudin_BingoF_Reactor_Closed_Loop.ram  (http://freenrg.info/Hydrogen/JNaudin_BingoF_Reactor_Closed_Loop.ram)


(http://freenrg.info/Hydrogen/JNaudin_BingoF_Reactor_Closed_Loop.jpg)

Best

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Feynman on May 08, 2008, 08:28:02 PM
@NerzhDishual

I think it is interesting that Stefan has been saying for a long time now that carbon (graphite) spark gaps are the best, and only recently Koen dug up the Protelf/VSG stuff out of the archives, which showed that carbon can be used in these cold nuclear reactions.

Are they connected?  I wish I knew!   I think maybe over the next 8 - 12 weeks we might get a better idea on how Protelf, carbon spark gaps, and plasma electrolysis are related or not.

@zerotensor

The thumbnail sketch of the theory is the following...
1) discharge high amounts of current at 35V into a pure carbon rod with thoriated tungsten electrode
2) make sure colinear b-field is applied
3) twenty milliseconds later you get a surge of beta electrons which come flying out of the carbon rod

Why?  Well the theory goes that the electrons you pumped into the carbon actually end up fusing in the carbon atom's nucleus, converting a proton to a neutron for a split second (yielding Boron-12 and a neutrino).  This then sponateously decays, yielding back the original proton and releasing a much higher energy electron than what you put in.

Does it relate to spark gaps?  No idea! ;) ;)


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 08, 2008, 11:20:06 PM

@Feynman,

Yes, I do agree with you!
I also know that Stefan keeps informing us about Spark gaps, carbon and else...
Actually, few of us seem to have got(ten) his message...

Spark gaps, carbon, resonance, shapes (pyramid for ex), hight gradients, coils, unsymmetrical designs, chance (serendipity) etc, are, IMHO, the keys of 'OU'.
 
I'm not a scientist, just a retired-civil-servant-self-taught-computer-programmer (are the words in the right order?  :P)

I  have built a lot of 'things' with various, but not obvious (OU-wise), success. I keep on being a 'self taught' newbie and building devices with my mere "prick and my knife" (French expression = 'ma bite et mon couteau', sorry  :)).
That is why I only criticize the critics/skeptics.
I'm however just beginning - after years of erring - to understand some essential 'usably' OU concepts.

Best
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 09, 2008, 01:19:14 AM
Nice diagram.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 09, 2008, 04:37:39 AM
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.

What's new David? Please give us an update.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 09, 2008, 05:56:47 PM
I found David Bowling's Generator Listed on:

Http://KeelyNet.com

.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Guard_Dog on May 09, 2008, 06:39:22 PM
The guard dog sits and waits PATIENTLY without BADGERING the inventor.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 10, 2008, 06:31:08 PM
This little tutorial might be helpful to those who don't fully understand batteries particularly lead-acid batteries.

http://www.batterystuff.com/tutorial_battery.html (http://www.batterystuff.com/tutorial_battery.html)

thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 11, 2008, 04:46:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 11, 2008, 07:09:25 PM
Not completely true. I agree David circuit will not turn out to be what everyone originally thought. However, the discussion on carbon-to-energy principle that it sets in motion has merits and is worth further investigations.

Last Friday I brought a small $5 motor from Radio Shark. I wired it up according to David circuit as diagrammed by Stefan and let it run for 8 hours or so. Yes, the motor run and the output battery got a charge. But I don't think this will give us what we all want. David original interpretations were based on a lack of knowledge about batteries and battery charging.

Thanks,

Miki.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on May 13, 2008, 01:56:30 AM
David, Talk to us.

What's the latest news?
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 13, 2008, 10:36:56 AM
What's the latest news?

David Bowling has left the building!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: AquariuZ on May 16, 2008, 12:24:16 AM
Where is David?

 ???

What a bummer....

I guess his electrical engineering friend found a flaw and now he does not come back here....

Damn....

H?O man
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: zerotensor on May 16, 2008, 02:12:57 AM
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.
Or perhaps he's still testing and solidifying his case beyond any doubt...

I hope it's one of these, but sadly, AquariuZ is probably right.

Hey David:  a negative result is still a result!  Let us know --we won't hold it against you!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on May 16, 2008, 03:10:06 AM
I agree with you zerotensor.

Even a failed attempt is still a valid attempt whether it works or not, at least we know which configuration worked or didn't work :)

David:  Any post, of even failed configuration(s) would be greatly appreciated, it could save all of us the trouble of duplicating a circuit that's known NOT to work, would appreciate a response soon to let us know if any of the proposed circuits mentioned on this thread so far would work or fail to function in relation to your's, if there is any chance of hearing about this or just a hello from you it would be great,

Regards to all,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on May 17, 2008, 03:52:34 AM
we never know what really happen when someone disappear

i know there is too much of that to be normal

i suspect some of them are self disapearing after eluding us paid as secret conspiracy manipulators

many disappear suspectly, and reappear so different that it seems not to be the same person

this forum is a good source of information to find rapidly what have to disappear

and i know they put a lot of energy to keep us away

i have many example in my head...

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: miki02131 on May 19, 2008, 08:10:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: RhettSpencer on May 22, 2008, 03:31:01 PM
Back in 1992 or 1991 Ron Brandt spent a few weeks with me and we ran his transistor switched circut using 4 batteries 6 transistors and a few other components.  we uses a signal generator to adjust the switching freq for maximum output to the load. we used 4 car headlights for the load on the switching unit and 1 on each of the baseline batteries.  we had 2 extra batteries we used as baselines.  to start off we charged all batteries using an astron 50 amp powersupply. all batteries were new.

We measured the SG of the electrolite and also the battery voltage 4 hours after charging before we began testing.  each of the baseline batteries with 1 headlight attached lasted I believe 7 hours before reaching 7 volts, our cutoff point.  the 4 batteries being switched ran for 73 hours before reaching the 7 volt mark.
We would check the frequency every hour or so longer intervals at night maybe 4 hours to keep it at maximum output to the load.  somewhere around 900 to 1100 Hz if i remember correctly.

after the first test all batteries were recharged with the power supply and we calculated the total recharge power we used to get the sg and voltage back to where we started. the 4 switching batteries required the same recharge time as the baseline batteries to reach our full charge state.

the second and 3rd test seemed to go about the same. but on the 4th test when trying to recharge the 4 switching batteries something strange happend.  the 4 switching batteries had 50 amps at 15 volts pumping into them but no bubbles, the battery temp was below room temp, and nothing was going on other than my powersupply getting a good workout.  it stayed like this for over 3 days then all at once it started to bubble and the recharge cycle began and the battery came back to life. This happened to all 4 batteries. we ran the test again pretty much same results and again the batteries would not recharge for 3 days. we stopped after this as it was taking way to long and we had lost all the net gain we had achieved in the first tests.

Ron told me that when he was running his electric car his neighbors car had a bad battery and he removed one from his electric car and gave it to them. the alternator on the neighbors car went up in smoke after an hour of driving.  it was more than likely running at full field trying to charge the battery.


We did not use a motor and i believe that is the secret to getting it to self charge. Ron told me he ran his car for months without charging the batteries.

He also told me a strange story that after running the car for a few hours when setting at a stop light the other cars around him all stopped running.  he called it some sort of energy field he thought it was creating. he also told me that his neighbor could not get out of her mobile home one day when he had the motor running and the car in idle for a few hours in is driveway, she yelled for help and when he went to help her it was like walking through air as thick as sand and it took almost all his energy to get to her.

after that he stopped the project to think about what was happening.

It will be interesting if anyone else will have the same battery non charging event happen to them.

Rhett


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: edelind on May 22, 2008, 04:18:17 PM
@RhettSpencer
Do you have any schematic of that circuit?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: RhettSpencer on May 22, 2008, 05:00:48 PM
http://www.icehouse.net/john1/tesla.html

it is the one that says ron brandt.

Rhett
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: JohnGalt_USA on May 23, 2008, 03:25:47 AM
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.

David, are you ever going to give us an update?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tagor on May 24, 2008, 11:29:43 AM
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.

can you put some pics and results of your setup ?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: mrl on May 31, 2008, 10:55:16 PM
The theory as explained at this web site may be the reason why it works.

http://www.kz1300.com/hfgc/

There may be an RF DC modulation that causes a form of super conducting effect.  The motor acts like an  in circuit modulator of the DC line, which then lowers the apparent resistance of the circuit.  If this is true then you may be able to achieve the same thing my using a modulating transformer in place of the motor.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on June 15, 2008, 01:18:37 AM
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.

After going there and read everything i think it's better to try to reproduce David Bowling system, Hartiberlin explain very well how to tune it, the audio interview is long , it's a radio shack motor with gear box like those one use in a robot, i guess anyone can find a little dc motor and look inside to see what kind of spark he get

i have perform many discharge in my carbo fusion test, and now i look for the easy way

i may succeed with big capacitors instead of acid batterys

David Bowling got a success, Hartiberlin solve it and will win the price ! yeah

David is not there anymore, we do not need more input to go forward
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Guard_Dog on June 15, 2008, 09:56:54 PM
The guard dog suddenly forgets what he was supposed to be doing and jumps up and down excitedly!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nul-points on June 15, 2008, 11:36:43 PM
say look, folks - it's Lee-Tseung's guard dog  ;)

hey, what ya doin' so far from home, boy?!?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on June 17, 2008, 03:05:07 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nul-points on June 17, 2008, 08:46:34 AM
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

LOL - keep your hair on, Drannom - it's called a joke :)

...say, it's not you  is it?!?  ;)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: k4zep on June 18, 2008, 03:04:58 PM
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

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on June 21, 2008, 10:33:29 PM
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

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: icanbeatbob on June 21, 2008, 11:13:36 PM
Would like to see an update on this. Anyone heard anything?

Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: k4zep on June 21, 2008, 11:40:31 PM
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



Anything is possible, documentation is where the rubber meets the road.......Carbon Fusion is a possibility too!  I just don't know!  I do know that lead acid batteries are the most aggravating storage units in the world to work with.  They will lead you all over the place as they slowly go dead!  I'll be most impressed after 50-100 cycles with load.

Ben
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on June 22, 2008, 12:49:13 PM
Would like to see an update on this. Anyone heard anything?

Brad

The first thing i wish to know is : Is he still alive ? and if he come back my question would be: Is he the same he was ?

Anyway we are waiting for some good will to reproduce this experiment, we know that he used a radio shack gear box motor like those one in a robot, it seem not so difficult to find, there are not so much radio shack robot with gear box

Heuu is that an update ?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Ecirme on July 18, 2008, 10:51:55 PM
 ::)  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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: k4zep on July 19, 2008, 12:40:19 AM
::)  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.

Hi,

My thoughts are:

Don't pay up front, have them ship it and payment upon proof of operation.........................If they want the money up front, shame on them, if you pay it up front, shame on you.

 At least go to "factory" and have YOUR unit on pallet ready to ship demonstrated, load  and longevity..........Question how you will maintain it, warranty on batteries, inverter, etc. Are you prepared to install, take your home off grid or wire a grid transfer switch, etc?  How about local utility, building and installation laws???????........Lot to look into here.

Ben
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: modernsteam on July 22, 2008, 01:11:06 AM
Re:
stefan & miki .. if you are right ... as opposed to buying & replacing batteries ...

Assuming the batteries are lead acid, and as long as none of the cells are shorted, they can be re-charged with an Energenx charger available from John Bedini for a bit over US$200 plus shipping plus tax. That removes the sulfation on the electrodes and restores them to almost new condition, as John would say. One pays a bit more up front for the battery charger, but saves down the line by having batteries which last longer ... sorry for the pitch ..Perhaps the Energenx charger can be worked into the self-running aspect of the Bowling device.

Hal Ade
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: cyclopz on September 10, 2008, 07:01:48 PM
I just heard about this and listened to the free energy now episode about it. I hope it really works... that'd be cool. I'm wondering what could possibly be happening to keep it running though? Do you think it's related to quantum theory or something about electrons being in two places at once? Maybe it's double charging things that way? I don't know. What happened with this device?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Drannom on September 11, 2008, 12:12:13 PM
1:There is a theory somewhere in this forum telling that if you use pulsation to charge a battery, then the ionic acid will continu to flow a little bit between two pulsations

2:the other theory is there is sort of cold fusion graphit inside the little motor

3:and the theory of both 1 and 2


and a good way to keep good battery is to put some epson salt in it, then the sulfatation does not occur

anyway all of this is like a Tesla Switch
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: cyclopz on September 11, 2008, 09:02:27 PM
I wonder what happened to the inventor. Suddenly he just disappeared? I wonder if it was just a hoax or if it really was real.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2008, 08:51:58 AM
I have moved to California and haven't been playing with my batteries for a while. I've made lots of mistakes, including trying to use batteries that didn't work. It's been months since I even looked at this post, but I will check it from time to time. I have put everything I know here so those of you with more brains and experience can make of it what you will. I hope somebody gets something out of this that leads somewhere and remembers to keep me posted. dbbowing@hotmail.com

For those of you who have been persistant enough to stick with this, here is what I can tell you, and from the beginning.....Many of you have chimed in that you felt like you knew what the schematic I was using was, and to some extent, many of you were right.....but also wrong, because something I did was not quite as it appeared. I used three batteries and a motor, and that is all. No hidden circuits, no resistors....nothing else.  Battery 1 had it's positive pole connected to the positive pole of the motor. It's negative pole was connected to the positive terminal of battery 2. The negative terminal of battery 2 was connected to the NEGATIVE terminal of battery 3. The positive terminal of battery 3 was connected to the other leg (negative) of the motor, thus forming a complete circuit. Batteries 1 and Battery 2 are fully charged. Battery 3 is very, very, VERY low in charge. MANY people have done this experiment using EXACTLY this schematic and with no exceptional results. This diagram is all over the internet and is credited to John Bedini. It is part of what is known as the Tesla swith from what I can tell. What makes what I have done different you may ask? Well, read on.

Here is what I did differently. Battery 3 is a battery that will NOT hold a charge, even when charged with "cold electricity." If the battery TRULY will not hold a charge and is extremely low to begin with, here is what will happen. You will complete this circuit and NOTHING will happen. The motor will not start and everything will just sit there. Be patient. Wait. After a few minutes, possibly as many as 15 or 20, the charge will build up in Battery 3 and suddenly the motor will start up and run. It will continue to run for a while as the charge in the three batteries attempts to equalize. Once this gets close to happening, the motor shuts off. Wait. Wait patiently. As battery 3 loses its charge, the motor will kick back on, everything will work for a while until the charge builds up toward equalization between the three batteries, and then it will shut off again. This cycle will repeat over and over and over again....far beyond what three batteries could ever hope to produce individually. I don't know why. It just does. Try it for yourself.

This was my FIRST experiment. If you get it to work like this, you know you have the three batteries you need to progress farther. If battery 3 HOLDS it charge, go find a different battery because you have "Fixed" battery 3, but ruined it for this process.

Now I will tell you what I did that made all the difference. I connected the devices that I wanted to run on 12 volts of electricity between battery 2 and 3. (Yes, this means that both sides of the devices were connected to negative terminals of batteries.) The minute the motor kicked on (which told me battery 3 had a partial charge) I turned on my electrical devices to keep battery 3 from being charged to the point where it would shut the system down again. The hardest part of the whole experiment was making sure that battery 3 got enough electricity to keep the circuit complete (remember it's a bad battery and its life will drain out if it is not constantly fed), but not enough to reach the point of equalization (they never really "equalize, that's just what they seem to be trying to do) where it shut down the whole system. The worst thing that will happen is battery 3 won't get enough juice to keep the thing running and it will shut off. I was able to connect up an AC inverter and run small power tools and even my shop vac on the electricity I was producing without discharging batteries 1 and 2. I put many, many, many batteries into this circuit to charge them, all without discharging batteries 1 and 2.

Sorry it has taken me so long to give you all the scoop. Lots of changes in my life lately and I am not giving this the time and attention it deserves.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 04, 2008, 06:58:45 PM
Hi David,

Thank you very much for posting the description of your circuit, I wish you the best in your new start in California  :)

I've drawn the circuit as you described (see attached) but I'm not sure if it's correct as the description mentioned "The positive terminal of battery 3 was connected to the other leg (negative) of the motor, thus forming a complete circuit." but that left the Negative of Battery 1 unconnected.  So I've drawn the circuit with the positive terminal of battery 3 connected to the Negative of Battery 1.

Please let us know if this is correct the next time you drop by.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 04, 2008, 09:16:37 PM
@Goat,

I think he connected the circuit like this.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 04, 2008, 09:41:16 PM
Hi Groundloop

Thanks for the schematic, as I mentioned I wasn't sure about the description of "The positive terminal of battery 3 was connected to the other leg (negative) of the motor, thus forming a complete circuit." and I am glad to see you concur.  Your inclusion of the switch in between Battery 2 & 3 makes it much clearer for others as well ;D

I'll give it a try once I get proper batteries and a motor as the ones I have now are not working as planned :P

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 04, 2008, 10:08:22 PM
@Goat,

Did he say what kind of electric motor he used? Will a 12 Volt drill motor do?
I'm charging up two of my 12 V 7 A batteries now and will try this out.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2008, 10:31:59 PM
If you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that you have the drawing correct.

" Battery 1 had it's positive pole connected to the positive pole of the motor. It's negative pole was connected to the positive terminal of battery 2. "
Maybe I should have said: "Battery 1 had it's positive pole connected to the positive pole of the motor. The negative pole of battery 1 was was connected to the positive terminal of battery 2. "

Either way, your drawing is correct. I think the key is that battery 3 is a DEAD battery which will NOT hold a charge. I charged it overnight with my charger before I began the experiments, and it barely registered on the meter the next day.

My first experiment was amazing to watch. When the circuit was completed nothing would happen, and then suddenly the motor would start up and begin to run. It would run until the voltages on all three batteries read 13 or 14 volts, and then the whole thing would shut off. In a few minutes, once battery 3 lost its charge again, the motor would kick on and battery 3 would charge up again.

Also, I did hook batteries and other 12 volt devices directly to battery 3 when the system was charging it, hoping to keep it from getting too much of a charge and making the whole process shut down again.

I used batteries from different manufacturers and ruined some of them. When I go home tonight I will post the info (I did this once already if somebody checks back) on the motor I used and the names of the different battery companies, although I think you can see that much in some of the original pictures I posted. Good luck guys. I hope someone duplicates this and we can start figuring out WHY it works.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 04, 2008, 10:38:34 PM
@Dbowling,

Thank you for confirming the circuit setup. In you picture there is a belt and a "thingy" connected
to your motor. What is the "thingy" doing?

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2008, 10:56:03 PM
The motor was attached to a gear box to slow the rotation. There was a belt on the output of the gear box to a tension arm. At the end of the tension arm was a turnbuckle I could tighten down to slow the motor. I was experimenting with how additional loads on the motor changed the output and sped up the charging process.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 04, 2008, 11:08:11 PM
@Dbowling,

Thanks.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on November 04, 2008, 11:41:41 PM
THANK YOU GroundLoop for sharing that Great Drawing.



One sad thing I keep noticing on OverUnity is that we members tend to not give thanks when thanks is due someone.  MARCO is another that has shared a lot of his hard work, but very few even thanked him.  Let us all strive to reverse that trend.

.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 04, 2008, 11:55:50 PM
@FatBird,

Thanks, yes I agree. :-)

Attached is my first small humble test. I have used two charged 1,2V 2000mAh NiMeh batteries connected
to a small 1,5 Volt 2mA electric motor, connected to a 1,2V 1600mAh fully drained NiMeh battery.

The motor runs and the drained battery is slowely beeing charged.

Groundloop.
Title: Attention Admins - Please delete my last posts
Post by: Goat on November 05, 2008, 08:16:53 AM
@ Dbowling & Groundloop

A million apologies for misinterpreting the description of the circuit wiring.

@ Admins, if you happen to read this, please delete this post and the last posts from today made by myself, I was way off on the schematic and concur with Groundloop's correction in his schematic which is correct, my schematic was wrong.   

Please delete my schematic and responses because they were both wrong  :P

Sorry all.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 05, 2008, 08:26:26 AM
@ OU.com Admins and Sterling D. Allan

Please update the http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling%27s_Continuous_Charging_Devicehttp://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Bowling%27s_Continuous_Charging_Device web page with David Bowling's new updates.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pese on November 05, 2008, 09:07:09 AM
@Goat,

I think he connected the circuit like this.

Groundloop.
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
Pese
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Omega_0 on November 05, 2008, 03:46:57 PM
Looks very simple and interesting .
Thanks for sharing it.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 05, 2008, 06:12:07 PM
Please remember the most important part of my diagram was that battery number 3 is a DEAD battery. Not just a LOW battery, but a DEAD one that WILL NOT HOLD A CHARGE. If it holds a charge, things DO NOT WORK as I have described them. This is critical for who knows what reason. Here is my best guess based on the results I have seen.
When electricity is flowing into the "dead" battery it is forced through it and out the other side, charging it. But as the motor pulses during its rotation that completed circuit is continuously broken allowing the "cold" electricity from an outside source to be added to the system.

If battery 3 is just a low battery, yes it will charge, the motor will run, and you will even be able to run additional loads, but eventually the voltage on batteries 1 and 2 will go down.

The info on the motor I was using

CIM
First Robotics
FR801-001
12Vdc
101104

That's everything that was written on the motor.

I used Werker 12 volt 18 amp hour batteries, Universal Batteries 12 volt 18 amp hours and Power Sonic 12 volt 18 amp hour batteries.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 05, 2008, 06:31:22 PM
If you read my description of my first experiment again, you will see that when I first flipped the switch, NOTHING happened. The motor did not run. I sat around for 15 or 20 minutes talking to a friend, and suddenly the motor started. It ran until all three batteries were fully charged, and then it SHUT ITSELF OFF. Battery 3 slowly drained and then it started back up again ALL BY ITSELF. It repeated this cycle over and over and over for several DAYS. I just let it run. If you flip the switch and yours starts up, you know that you do NOT have a dead battery in the #3 position, so go find a DEAD one.  Until you get the system to do THIS, you do NOT have a system that will continue to charge itself and run small appliances. Eventually battery 1 and 2 will run down as you continue to draw power from them to charge battery 3. Battery 3 HAS to be a battery that will NOT hold a charge. I wish I knew why, since I believe that, and the pulsing of the motor are the two things that make this whole thing work, and finding a dead battery isn't always easy.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Omega_0 on November 05, 2008, 07:55:54 PM

It repeated this cycle over and over and over for several DAYS. I just let it run.


Sounds good ... :)


and finding a dead battery isn't always easy.


Lol , thats right, I'm trying to find one, may be ,kill a battery intentionally.

But thanks for a clear cut description and I guess its the first time in the history of this site that we have complete information on something.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 05, 2008, 10:52:53 PM
@Dbowling,

Thanks for the additional information.

I found the data sheet for the motor you are using. (Attached.)

I can see from the data sheet that your motor is very similar to a electric drill motor,
so I will give it a try. I'm currently charging up two of my 12 Volt 7 Ampere batteries.
I have a dead 12 Volt 7 Ampere battery that will not charge up on a regular charger
or on a Bedini type charger, so I suppose the battery is what you say, dead.

Do you have any theories why a lead acid battery is transformed into a negative resistor
when the battery is "dead" eg. heavy sulfated etc?

Groundloop.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 05, 2008, 11:19:44 PM
You've got everything right. I hooked all kinds of things to the terminals of battery 3 to keep it from getting charged, including my AC inverter. When I did that and turned the device plugged into the inverter on, the motor would speed up like crazy and the voltage on 1 and 2 would go way up. Sometimes as high as 16 or 18 volts and I got worried that the whole thing would blow up and I shut it down. The first time I did that, I remember we actually ran out of the room after we "pulled the plug" because the voltages on those two batteries was so high, and we were so intent on reading what was going on in battery 3 that we forgot about them. We were seriously worried about getting sprayed with battery acid. That night I bought two more meters so I had one for each battery.

I wish you all luck, and if anything comes of this, I hope you will keep me in the loop. I put this out here in the hopes that people a lot smarter than me will figure out ways to do this without a "dead" battery, because I am convinced that I could run a 12 volt electric motor hooked up to battery 3 until the end of time with this process. I just don't know if it would produce enough amps to run an electric car on. I would be interested in finding out.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 05, 2008, 11:40:04 PM
In answer to your question I have no idea why a bad battery like this would act as a negative capacitor.
Here are the things I have actually observed.
1. With a dead battery in the system, and no external load, it will charge all the batteries to "full" capacity, and then shut itself off. How it knows what "full" is, I do not know. When disconnected from the system and measured seperately at this point, batteries 1 and 2 would read around 14 volts. Battery 3 would read the same, but after sitting for a while, would read almost nothing.

2. When a load is connected to battery 3 during the charging process, the voltages on batteries 1 and 2 increase faster and climb higher as if trying to equalize with battery 3 which is in use. Almost like it wants to put an equal amount of electricity down all three "pipes" even though only one is using any electricity.

3. Some of these same things will happen when battery 3 is just a "low" battery, but eventually batteries 1 and 2 will decrease in charge rather than increase, so eventually there comes a point where it won't work anymore.

It has been said that a battery really just acts as a gate to the energy that is all around us. Perhaps a dead battery has a constant flow of electricity through it when it is part of a circuit, but when the battery is "dead" the circuit through the battery is only complete part of the time as the motor turns and pulses the circuit. When the circuit is interrupted, (Or maybe when it is complete) energy comes into the battery from the outside and flows out during the other part of the rotation of the motor. The motor is acting as a super fast switch that allows something to happen inside that dead battery.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 06, 2008, 12:07:22 AM
@Dbowling,

Your theories are as good as mine, I guess. I think I have an explanation on why it shut off
the motor. At first you have two 12 volt batteries in series connected through the motor and
then to a zero volt battery. The "dead" zero volt battery now has a very high internal resistance
and the motor will not run. Then the "dead" battery gains some charge and the internal resistance
drops. The motor will now have approx. 12 volt and the lower resistance in the "dead" battery
will now allow some current to flow. When the "dead" battery has gained voltage then the voltage
potential over the motor drops. The motor stops and the "dead" battery will now loose its charge
turning to high internal resistance again. Then everything repeats.

When my two 12V7A batteries is charged then I will have approx. 168 Watt/h to play with.
(Much less in real life.) So I will hook up a 12 Volt 25 Watt light bulb as a load. If the light
bulb will light at full brightness for more than 7 hours, then there is over unity. Easy to test.
But first I must test to see if I can duplicate the on off circuit behavior.

Small steps..............

[EDIT] I have found a little more information on your motor.
See: http://www.firstwiki.net/index.php/CIM_motor
Company: http://home.cclmotors.com/welcome.aspx
A good replacement are:
The 2 1/2" CIM motor sold by BaneBots, part number M4-R0062-12 is identical to the CIM.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 06, 2008, 03:55:16 AM
It sounds like you know way more about electricity than I do. I'm glad. Maybe after you finish seeing if you can duplicate what I've done, you can look at another idea I have been keeping on the back burner. It is something I got from a european patent that supposedly works, but I have barely enough knowledge to put it together. I haven't yet in fact, because I haven't assembled all the parts. Radio shack does not have them all in stock and I need to order some. Not expensive, but time consuming, and time is somewhat of a premium for me most weeks. This just happens to be a really rare week so I've been trying to get as much as possible out to people. Let me know your results. I will be really interested.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pese on November 06, 2008, 04:19:58 AM
Attention
if you have 3 12 volt batteries.
AND 1 one of this is REVERS connected so : "this battery
is not an Zero Volt battery - not an "zero Ohm wire"
it is an battery, that have never 0 volt and 0 Ohm (inner resitance)
In any time anlead acid battery have his voltage , also must never
"unload". 
So the voltage (out) from this 3 batteries circuit is::

+ 12
+ 12
- 12
------
= 12 (positv voltages)

This circuit himself (withouout other parts, have the (first unbelibal) effect :
If the output is connected to an Load (Motor or bulb , resistor enc.
)
the 3 batterie will be charged !!!
(if they  was "weaker" before  as #1 and #2

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 06, 2008, 07:50:49 AM
@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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Omega_0 on November 06, 2008, 08:22:05 AM
David Bowling,

Did you do comparison tests ?

1 - For how many hours the motor runs when the Battery 1 and 2 only, are connected to it?
2 - For how many hours the motor runs when the Battery 1, 2 and 3(dead battery) are connected to it? (Excluding the time it halts automatically during the run cycles)

If 2 > 1, we have something here.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 06, 2008, 07:56:20 PM
Let me put it to you this way. I took a 4th battery and connected it between batteries two and three. When it was charged to over 13 volts, I disconnected it from the loop and ran a 12 volt headlight from a car off of it until it wouldn't light the headlight anymore. Then I hooked it up again and recharged it. I kept doing this over and over for five days, day and night, getting very little sleep. At the end of five days the charge in batteries 1 and 2 was the same, and I had run that headlight for well over 80 hours. I KNOW I have something. But replicating it and figuring out WHY it works so that we can do it without a "dead" battery is the issue. You can't put something into production when you have to include a "dead" battery as part of the "kit".
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 06, 2008, 08:52:57 PM
Hi all  ;D- im new to this particular thread - aka eel by the way - a bit shorter for everyone hehe

i thought i would get my two pence worth in here - im currently setting up one of these devices with three lead acid batteries - 2x 105 Ahr rating and one 55 Ahr, the 55 is going to be my 'dead' one or batt3 in the loop. went up the local scrapheap this morning and managed to get the 3 batteries for £1 each! - bargain for an experiment.

ive had some interesting results with my mini setup - 3 ni mh configured as we know its meant to be with a meccano motor as my 'motor' havent done loads on it - its been a study point more than anything. i took 3 batts straight from the wrapper 12 hours ago uncharged (i presume) and theyve only just conked now. it needs more data this whole thing which i know we are trying for so lets keep positive folks and keep up the good work.
one thing to note - as has been said before, i think it just needs a resistive load and might be nothing to do with the carbon brush arcing principle which is good news - i will be trying various loads

ill keep ya all posted about results as soon as ive got something going.

take care all,
eel
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: petersone on November 06, 2008, 10:23:23 PM
Hi David and all
I think it would be quite a novelty to have a dead battery in the kit, all the other "free energy" devices seem  to need a live one.
Very interesting project,following it, and hope to build it soon.
peter
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 07, 2008, 12:26:51 AM
@All,

Attached is a drawing and photo of my setup. I'm using two 7A batteries and one 1,3A battery.
The "dead" 1,3A battery climbed fast to the sum of battery 1 and 2. The motor does not run
and the light bulb does not light. So, I can conclude that the first part of the replica is confirmed.
The "dead" battery has such a high internal resistance that no current can flow in the circuit.
I will keep the circuit connected to see if the motor starts at some point in future time.

[EDIT] I have been waiting for over an hour now and the motor never starts. The only thing that happens
          is that the two big batteries is being slowly drained.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Kator01 on November 07, 2008, 02:05:14 AM
Hi all,

now it is interesting that no one has really correct numbers or knowledge of the condition of this Bat 3 used in the original experiment.

Whatever the condition of this Bat 3 was, this circuit puts Bat 1 + Bat 2 in parallel-mode to Bat 3.

Now all electronic professionals know that one never ever puts two batteries ( I mean any kind of rechargeable battery ) in parallell - even if one uses two kinds of exact the same voltage. The reason is simply this : even the smallest voltage-difference ( and this will happen for sure after a certain amount of time elapsed ) and even with no load attached will finally end up with both of the batteries go dead. They permantly work against each other and it is just a matter of time. A long-experienced electronic professional told me this some time ago.

Despite this well known fact, lap-top batteries are constructed exactly this way. I opened a lot of these battery-sets  in the past and found them partly totally dead - and all of these dead parts were the ones put in parallell.. This is the reason that these battery-sets die fast or at least loose capacity within a year or so- in addition to this :  there is a chip built in ( sort of timer ) which shuts them off after a certain period. I found in some of these sets almost every part fully charged - yet it did not deliver any power if I tried to draw power from the external leads.

@groundloop : one technique to try to bring a dead battery to live again is to apply duble or more of the nominal voltage in a pulsed mode. This could happen here if there are spikes from the motor-brushes. But with the voltage-drop across the motor there will be no more than 12 Volt at the beginning.

I hope you will have success but my knowledge tells me this is a typical obscure bedini-circuit where you need to spend a lot of time for experimenting until you find out the truth about it. I hate wasting time.

Regards

Kator



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 07, 2008, 02:24:17 AM
@Kator01,

The purpose of this circuit is not to bring a dead battery to live again.

The purpose is to produce free energy. If this circuit really works and
give us free energy then who cares if some "rules" are broken, eg.
connecting two batteries in series and then in parallel with a third one
through a load.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 07, 2008, 06:13:02 AM
@Groundloop

In your last test, did you try placing a direct lead connection behind the light and wait for the motor to start and then disconnect the lead?  I have had the same experience as David mentioned where after several minutes the Battery 3 would charge up and start the motor, unfortunately it was at the voltage expense of Battery 1&2 so not there yet.

I have ran a couple of tests on different motor configurations and depending on the motor and 12V lamp size I got different results, but none are achieving any meaningful results so far.

From re-reading the early posts David mentioned that when he went back to his old motor everything started working again so I still wonder how many variables from the original design makes this process not work? 

So I'm aiming for an "as close to the original components that David used" at this point so thanks for the motor info you gave us earlier, I'd like to get one of those by next week and the original sized batteries and give that a try.

@ Dbowling

In your earlier posts (Reply #50-2) you mentioned that your friend had replicated your design with no problems and that's when you went back to the original motor, was the motor that you changed from the original that much different?  Or was it the same model but newer? And how about your friend's motor?  Same motor?  New or used? 

Regards,
Paul

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 07, 2008, 08:35:23 AM
@Goat,

Yes, I did try to remove the lamp and use a wire instead. My motor did not start. I think my motor
is to big for my small batteries. The only effect I got was draining of the two big batteries and some
voltage gain in my "dead" battery. I agree that the only way to fully replicate this circuit is to use
the same motor and correct sized (ampere) batteries. Then the only unknown variable will be the
"dead" battery, as Kator01 correctly states.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 07, 2008, 08:35:46 AM
@Groundloop

For a couple of hundred Canadian pesos would you be willing to work with David in replicating his original design using as close as possible components, I'll pay for the test.  It would probably cost me more to mess it up anyways  ::)

@Groundloop & Dbowling PM me if you are interested. 

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 07, 2008, 08:42:13 AM
@Groundloop

Yes the batteries and motor sizes definitely have an effect on the overall circuit, that's why I tried many different variations, they all have different effects, that's why I'm wondering about going towards the original circuit that David and his friend replicated.

Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, I'm here to help you if you need it.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 07, 2008, 08:51:56 AM
@Goat,

Thank you for your nice offer. I think I must do more research on the circuit first. I have different batteries and motors to test first. I also have an "800" motor that is very close in design to the CIM motor. This weekend I will try out my 42 ampere batteries. Small steps......

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Kator01 on November 07, 2008, 01:08:09 PM
Hi groundloop,

you bet I know this but I assume you will kill Bat 1 and 2 in the long run. Even if you will get some free energy for a period would this be cost-effective ? It will also cost two much time to find out. Battery-charge-capacity tests are not an easy thing to do especially because you do not know if it it some free energy or if it is standard recovery-behaviour.

I did a simple test with 3 supercaps ( each 50 Farad, 2.3 Volt ), two fully loaded, one empty.

Motor would run for 15 min and stopped. Voltage-measurement taken over a period of 24 hours across Cap1 +2 ( in series ) and the single cap3 show that charge is lost gradually in both parts. After 3 hours voltage leveled  to 1.37 Volt. Today it is about 1.22 Volt for each part.

Why did i use supecaps ? They are not killed beeing switched in parallell and there are no chemical reactions
involved.

Do I hear the believers of Bedini shout at me : This is exactly the key here to this free-energy-machine, you fool !

Nahh .. nah...

good luck folks

Kator01
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 07, 2008, 05:09:38 PM
Hi Kator01,

First you should study super capacitors a little bit more. :-)

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor

Super capacitor is a electrochemical device.

That said, it is good to see you are doing research. Dynacaps and Supercaps is
great tools in that regard. You can get fast results. I do not agree with you that you will
kill battery 1 and 2. If it is true (as Dbowling is saying) that both batteries in fact
charge when you run the device then battery 1 and 2 will survive.

Regards,
Groundloop.




Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 07, 2008, 06:26:03 PM
Let me throw one more thing in here. I keep emphasizing that battery 3 needs to be a dead battery, but possibly my definition of a dead battery is not the same as everyone elses. I am very new to this stuff, and spend a lot of time playing around. The battery I use will take a charge, but it will NOT hold it. I could charge it up to 14 volts, but if I let it set overnight, it drops down to very little on the meter. Hope that info helps.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Kator01 on November 07, 2008, 08:27:38 PM
Hi Dbowling,

this is exaclty like dead batteries behave. I have regenerated maybe 100 lead-acid batteries "saved" from our local dump by a halfwave-puls-circuit directly connected to my 230 Volt-grid in series to an incandescant bulb ( 10 Watt ).
I could very quickly find out if this battery wil come to life again. If the bulb remained dark for 1 hour ( no AC-pulsed-current was flowing ) the inner resitance remained high but voltage was rising up to 14 or even 16 Volt but it cound not maintain this level very long. So we are speaking here about the same thing.

@groundloop : I have studied supercaps in depth. I was buying the first supercaps I could get my hands on way back in 1999 and got very good specs at that time .  It is a double layer but not a electro-chemical-strorage-process, as you certainly know and can not be compared to lead-batteries. The supercaps have a very large ESR and this is the reason I was using them because the effect - especially the heat-dissipation at the inner lead-junctions - can be observed more clearly by fast loss of energy.

I continued my measurements today and all I see is proof of what  I had described earlier. Motor is not running any longer, both cap-systems - the two in series and cap3 have now identical voltage-level, however they get drained continuously at an equal pace which is in accordance with the physical law that no two devices - even if I measure the exact same voltage-level in both cap-systems - doe actually have the same level. Even the smallest difference which must occur leads to a small discharge-current to the other system until this system reaches a super-small voltage-difference higher and here we go again but this time the current is flowing the other way around. So this back and forth - flow in my setup  is very small and must be recorded with different means. In your setup you have bigger currents and observe a very slow pulsation between these two systems and this reflects itself in periods of activation and rest of your motor. You should observe with each cycle a clock- and then a counter-clockwise rotation.

As user XEE was stating - along with his charge-discharge diagramm - there is no energy-gain. It just takes may be a few months until the system comes to an equilibrium.

But anyway there is always somthing to learn with this setup here - at least it was for me.
I am finished with this one. Will move to other things.

Best Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: AbbaRue on November 07, 2008, 10:29:20 PM
One very interesting point I have learned from this thread is about a battery differing from a capacitor.
A discharged battery has a high resistance whereas a discharged capacitor has a very low resistance.
Maybe this principle could be utilized in some way. 
Also considering using a battery capacitor combo could yield some interesting results.
Place a charge into a battery then switch it to discharge into a capacitor, then back to the source to repeat it again.

If a dead battery is important to this setup because it charges and discharges quickly,
and has a high internal resistance then I have an idea.

Make a very small 12 volt battery of your own that charges and discharged very quickly.
You could make a simple rechargeable battery from nickel and iron seperated with a fabric soaked in potassium hydroxide.
Or 2 lead plates separated with a fabric soaked in alum may even work.
If someone has a dead car battery hanging around they could very carefully remove a few of the plates to make one.
If you used just 2 plates per cell this would make a battery that charges and discharges very quickly.

Maybe try using 10 AAA rechargeable batteries to get 12.5 Volts. They should charge and discharge quickly.

One theory I've read is that the excess energy is coming from the motor brushes as they slowly burn away.
If this is the case then the ideal motor for this would be one that has been modified to use 2 spring loaded carbon brushes.
Then as the brushes burn away the spring keeps feeding the carbon brushes into the motor.
The motor can be a very low power motor, it just needs to keep spinning to produce the carbon arc.
A fly wheel would store the energy so it needs very little power to keep it going.

Which brings us back to tapping power from a spark gap.  Which is probably what this is.
And the dead battery with its high internal resistance aids in doing so.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: gotoluc on November 08, 2008, 05:50:09 AM
Hi Dbowling,

I just noticed your topic and obviously find it very interesting. I also see that Groundloop is here and doing his best in helping as usual.

Thank you for sharing and Groundloop and others trying to replicate the effect you have found. I'm away from home for a couple of weeks but I will also try a replication once I get back home.

Thanks for sharing

Luc
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: slayer007 on November 09, 2008, 02:33:53 PM
I wounder if you could use a compositor insteed of a dead battery and just keep a load on the compositor.
Maybe run the inverter off it or charge another battery thats not really dead.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 09, 2008, 10:40:43 PM
Hi all,  ::) still setting up the experiment scene for daves replication or as close as i can get it at least, i'm currently trying to kill this battery still and ive shorted it and some more and it still keeps conducting my load straight away but i'll keep trying - does anybody know a aure way to get my battery like daves and the others? i'm not sure i'm doing it right or efficiently - non conductive with the motor initially and dead as a dodo?
any help would be great to helping me help toward the cause - thanks,

eel  ;D
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 09, 2008, 11:04:54 PM
@Anothertruthfinder,

If it is a water/acid lead acid battery the just drain the battery with a light bulb until no light.
Then short the battery with a thick wire for some hours. Then fully charge the battery
again as far as it will go. Repeat until no charging is possible. A normal car battery
will probably "survive" approx. 11 discharges to low voltage before it is "dead".

@slayer007,

A capacitor has a low internal resistance (to current) when not charged. It has a high resistance (to current)
when fully charged. A "dead" lead acid battery has high internal resistance (to current) when not charged.
It has a lower internal resistance (to current) when charged. So the two items has the opposite response to
current. I do not think a capacitor will work in this circuit.
 
Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: elektromann on November 09, 2008, 11:06:23 PM
Pese I think, is right.
If I were in my flashlight batteries, the 3 pieces a 1.2Volt (NC) used a
upside down, I have built instead 3.6Volt only 1.2 volts on my bulb.

At 3 pieces 12-volt batteries, I sure the same behavior (but timezone 10)

If I take 2 batteries and an incorrectly pole around, I have ZERO volts.
But also, it can not be otherwise ...
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 09, 2008, 11:35:01 PM
hi @ groundloop,
       
         thanks for the advice,  will certainly go through those stages and get there eventually lol - just gonna put it on charge and let it drain tomorrow etc.
       
         might have to rethink my bat3 though cause its 55ahr and bat1 & 2 are 105ahr but ill try and see - i guess its all data be it positive or negative.

thanks again,
 
    eel  ;D
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 10, 2008, 01:57:27 AM
Hi All

I've created a synopsis of the posts that David Bowling has already made on this thread (see attached document).

The document is listed in chronological order. 

On the last pages David explains what he means by a "dead" battery which are very relevant to making this work, I think  :P

Regards,
Paul





 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 10, 2008, 03:31:48 AM
Hi All

Damn I knew I was going to mess this up somewhere...LOL...turns out it's the last line in the document.... :P

"Dead Battery Description:

Battery can be charged up to 14 volts, if disconnected and set overnight it drops down to very little on the voltage meter."

Should have been edited at the time of posting to....

"Battery can be charged up to 14 volts, if left connected/disconnected and set overnight it drops down to very little on the voltage meter?"

Forgot to change the . for the ? and the connected part... :o

Regards,
Paul

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 10, 2008, 06:42:59 AM
@Goat,

Can't read .odt files. Can you post in another format?

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 10, 2008, 01:54:56 PM
Hi Groundloop & All

I converted the file to a pdf format, unfortunately it went from 38 KB to 117 KB so I had to add it to the file upload section as "David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device Synopsis", please go the download section to retrieve it.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 10, 2008, 05:02:47 PM
Hi All

I renamed and re-uploaded the file as "David Bowling's Posts Synopsis of Continuous Charging Device.pdf" because Reply #52 was missing in the document, I also set the pdf to open at 100% magnification instead of the default 130%, it seems to have shrunk the size of the document a little by doing that  ;D

Please see the Dowloads section at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=0 for the newer copy.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 10, 2008, 09:51:36 PM
@Goat,

Thanks.  :D

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: lon92 on November 11, 2008, 05:14:05 PM
Hi y'all!!

Firstly, I would like to thanks David Bowling for his willingness to share his invention...  ;)
Hope you success...

I have several questions...

I just replicated David circuit that drawn by Groundloop...  ;D

The result are very weird...
The third battery is getting warm...

So, the question is, is my replication failed?
Any suggestions??
 
Thanks!!  8)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 11, 2008, 05:47:54 PM
@lon92,

Did your third battery charge up?

Test with a 12 volt light bulb, if you get light for a long time then
your third battery is not "dead".

How warm did the battery get? Smoking hot or just warm to the touch?

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 11, 2008, 05:51:34 PM
@ lon92

It's hard to tell from the information you posted whether your experiment is a success or failure.  You would need to post information such as the voltages in the batteries at the start and stop of your experiment as well as the size of the batteries used and motor description.

Please read through the document mentioned in Reply #182 http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item183 , it should shed some light on the process involved to make this work, there seems to be several variables that will make this NOT work so try to stick to the original components used by David.

Hope that helps  :)

Regards,
Paul

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: lon92 on November 11, 2008, 06:54:41 PM
Thanks Groundloop and Goat for your fast reply...  :D

@Groundloop
The battery is just warm to touch, not to hot...  ;)

I just tried put a headlight to the third battery, It light up brightly for a very long time...
My meter says it was 7.8 Volt...  :P

Not a dead battery...  ;D


@Goat
Thanks Goat!! I never knew about that file!!  ;D

I just read the document. I found that all of my procedure were correct...  ;D

Both of my batteries were fully charged...
After running test, my first battery was 9.9 V, second battery was 8.3V and third battery was 8.3V...

The weird effect is 2nd batt. and 3rd batt. were the same volt... Hmmm...  :o


@All
Well, it looks like Groundloop just proof me wrong...  ;D Thank Groundloop!!  ;)

Now I need to search for new dead battery...  ;D


Thanks again!!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 11, 2008, 08:12:58 PM
Hi all  ;D, im still in the process of 'killing' my 'bat3' - after i discharged it i went for another charge and drain cycle and went to charge it up but it blew the 30amp fuse in my charger  ???is this normal? am i supposed to let the battery 'settle' for a while before charging it? cause i had it shorted for a couple of hours after the bulb drainied it then i had a gap of 2 mins the hooked up the charger and full current showed on the meter for one second then pop and a dead fuse!
i dont want to keep replacing fuses like this and it seems pretty harsh thats why i was wondering if its normal lead acid characteristic?

thanks,
   eel
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 11, 2008, 08:55:19 PM
@Anothertruthfinder,

Yes, it is normal. Use a 100 Watt car head light in series with the plus wire going
from your charger to the plus on the battery. This will prevent a blown fuse.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 11, 2008, 09:12:52 PM
@All,

Did a test today with my 42 Ah batteries. Here is what I logged:

"Test of David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

All three batteries are FIAMM-GS 12V 42Ah.
Load are 12 Volt 25 Watt/h light bulb.
Motor is a MABUCHI RS-775SH and also a LESHI FRS-550PM 60023-12V.
The LEHSI motor is from a 12 Volt drill unit.

START VOLTAGE:

Battery 1 = 12.69 Volt Charged
Battery 2 = 12.71 Volt Charged
Battery 3 =  0,37 Volt Not charged.

Test start: Time=20:00 Motor does NOT run.

Motor starts to run Time=20:05
Battery 3 climbed to 14,29 Volt in 5 minutes.

Time=20:20 Disconnected motor.
Battery 1 = 12,47V Battery 2 = 12,48V
Battery 3 dropped to 7,5 Volt in 5 minutes.

Time=20:25 Connected motor again.
Motor is running, waiting for motor to stop.

Time=20:35 Motor will not stop. Disconnected motor
and connected a new motor. The new motor is
a LESHI FRS-550PM 60023-12V. Motor did run fast
and light bulb went down to dim.

Time=20:45 My "dead" battery has charged up to 10,40V.
Battery 1 down to 12,42V and Battery 1 down to 12,40V.
Motor running steady at high speed.

Time=21:00 Disconnected the motor. The "dead" battery
has gained voltage to 10,67V. Connected the light bulb
across battery 3. The light bulb did light. This proves
that my "dead" battery is NOT "dead" enough.

How to kill a battery? That is the question."

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 11, 2008, 09:15:34 PM
thanks @groundloop - just shows my lack of knowledge in this area lol but ill be careful and follow your advice - i will have a dead battery one day! hehe

i was looking at original photos of davids setup and i believe he said it was a golf cart motor, i found something similar on ebay with gearbox - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/180w-12-Volt-DC-motor-gearbox-unit-for-golf-trolleys_W0QQitemZ170230452097QQihZ007QQcategoryZ40155QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262

this is 180 watt now assuming its similar wattage etc. this baby draws approx 15 amps, david had 18ahr batteries - similar ratings, just wondering if thats maybe a prinicple of it to have a motor thats just below one of the battery's ahr rating in the circuit that would then make for easier scalability and replication.

thanks again,
eel
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 11, 2008, 09:26:59 PM
@Anothertruthfinder,

You maybe right. I do not have to same motor or batteries.
Also, it is very hard to "kill" a lead acid battery, it seems.

I did see the motor "did not run at first" when the "dead" battery was close to zero ( 0,37V) volt.
But after a while the "dead" battery gained charge and the motor just speeded up.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 11, 2008, 09:44:26 PM
 @ groundloop - time will tell i guess also when i finally get my dead bat3 i think i'll be at the very raw basics with just the 3 batts and a motor and see if i can replicate the initial signs david had with just those components
@ all - keep up the good fight folks!

eel
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on November 11, 2008, 11:29:26 PM

Try hooking up the battery to a lawyer or a politician...that should drain the life out of it. :)

Regards...

 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 12, 2008, 06:33:58 AM
@ Cap-Z-ro  ;D

Hi All & DBowling

I've been going through David's posts in http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get183 and at Reply #146 I found the answer to the dead battery issue:

" First flipped the switch, NOTHING happened. The motor did not run. I sat around for 15 or 20 minutes talking to a friend, and suddenly the motor started. It ran until all three batteries were fully charged, and then it SHUT ITSELF OFF. Battery 3 slowly drained and then it started back up again ALL BY ITSELF. It repeated this cycle over and over and over for several DAYS. I just let it run. If you flip the switch and yours starts up, you know that you do NOT have a dead battery in the #3 position, so go find a DEAD one."

I think that pretty well sums it up as far as dead batteries goes  ;D ;D

Problem still lies in the details though and I'm afraid I'm a little ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) when it comes to details, I often take things too literally which is often embarrassing  :P  So I'm slowly picking at it....

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 12, 2008, 07:03:14 AM
@Goat,

I measured my "dead" battery today. The battery was disconnected for 7 hours.
It was down to 2,3 Volt. This means that I DO indeed have a "dead" battery.

>>"It ran until all three batteries were fully charged"

I have a problem with this statement.

My batteries do not charge when the motor runs, they drain.
Also, I did not get the "stop motor" when the "dead" battery gained voltage.
Maybe I need a bigger motor?

So, what are we doing wrong?

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 12, 2008, 08:52:58 AM
@Groundloop

As far as your experiments goes I cannot help you or anyone else unfortunately, this seems like an experiment that only the right conditions will work according to the inventor (David Bowling). 

That is why I would like to get as much information on how to replicate this anomaly, I still have a few things to clear up.

I ordered the motor you mentioned earlier (thanks  ;)) and still have a few questions on the different setups but that's for later :P

At one point there is the mention in Reply #146 where the circuit ran for a few days where the motor would turn itself on and off as battery # 3 would charge and discharge so I think the dead battery along with the right motor and batteries plays a big part in this.
 
I would like to start at that point of the experiment, using David's original components and start replicating his findings one step at a time :P then I would like to progress to the inverter running a light load like David mentioned.

Unless I can duplicate his original experiment I'm afraid I can't help anyone.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 12, 2008, 09:06:53 AM
@ Dbowling

Groundloop & Myself are at an impasse at this point from what I'm seeing.

Is there any way for you to list all the components that you used in the original experiment that made the setup run for 3 days, I know the dead battery is tricky at describing and hopefully the document of your posts makes it clear to everyone that the dead battery seems to be the KEY to making this work, other than that thanks for your posts and continued support.  And please correct me if I'm wrong.

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hoptoad on November 12, 2008, 09:08:36 AM
Try hooking up the battery to a lawyer or a politician...that should drain the life out of it. :)

Regards...

 
ROFL   :D :D :D  .. KneeDeep
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: lon92 on November 12, 2008, 05:55:17 PM
Hi y'all!!
It's me again...  ;)

I just done my experiment...  :)
The result is exactly same as Groundloop...  ;D

I have the same question here...

How to kill the battery!!  :D



Thanks!!
Have a good day...  ;)

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 12, 2008, 07:14:17 PM
@ lon92

If you don't have access to a lawyer or a politician to drain the life out of your battery as Cap-Z-ro mentioned (can't stop chuckling over that one)  ;D please refer to Reply #146 where David mentions  "If you flip the switch and yours starts up, you know that you do NOT have a dead battery in the #3 position, so go find a DEAD one."

There are several posts where David talks about the dead battery and it seems critical that it needs to be completely dead so I think that if the dead battery is able to sustain any kind of voltage it's not dead enough.

The battery that I'm using has been dead for several years and doesn't hold a charge for long but even though the motor started up after several minutes after the switch was turned on Battery 1 & 2 were depleting and not recharging in my experiments so I'm still waiting for the proper motor to arrive. 

I'm afraid that if this does work it requires key components as David mentioned in Reply #45 where he says "Going back to the very first experiment I did with my original motor, two batteries and my original dead battery and start over"

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: lon92 on November 13, 2008, 06:42:13 PM
Thanks Goat for your reply...  :D


I just retry the experiment  with a dead battery...
Just like you, the battery died about 3 years ago...  ;D

At earlier test, the motor not rotate even an inch...

After about 5 hours, the motor start to spin slowly... Its alive!!  :D

The motor run at the same speed for a day until the batt. 1 and batt. 2 exhausted... 

Odd...  :-[
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 13, 2008, 09:02:29 PM
@All,

I can't get hold of the CIM motor so I tried something different. First I "tuned" my
motor impedance with a coil in series with the motor. Then I noticed that I got "big"
sparks when I connected or disconnected the motor, so I added a diode to harvest
the back emf voltage created between the motor and the coil. Now the motor slowed
down a lot and did not use so much power from the batteries. The 12 Volt 25 Watt
light bulb kept the "dead" battery at a low voltage and the light output was very bright.
(I estimate 1/2 the full light output from the bulb.) Then I just let the circuit run for
3 hours. The motor did go up and down in RPM but did not stop or start. Now comes the
"funny" part, both my charged batteries was drained a lot before I started the run. Battery
1 was just 11,7 Volt and Battery 2 was 10,6 Volt. During the run I saw that the voltage
over both batteries go down but ALSO sometimes UP. It was NOT a linear drain as expected.
I aborted the test after 3 hours because my two input batteries got slightly warm to the
touch. Next test will be with a home made coil. I will try to make a coil that I can tune
on the fly when the circuit is running.  Small steps........

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: slayer007 on November 13, 2008, 10:10:20 PM
Is this the same motor?
Its down by the bottom of the page.
Model # cim fr801-001

http://www.trossenrobotics.com/store/c/3086-BaneBots.aspx?&
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 13, 2008, 10:17:55 PM
@slayer007,

Yes.

Thanks for the link.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pese on November 13, 2008, 10:20:52 PM
what is the effect of this circuit?
The motor is running an 24 volts. the back EMF from this Motor
harge an battery with (only) 12 volts.
Can i find any additional power on the output that comes not from
losts from the 24 volt input-battery (2 time 12volts
(
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 13, 2008, 10:30:58 PM
@pese,

The effect of this circuit is that both input batteries gets discharged after a while.
I'm trying to change that.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 13, 2008, 11:00:53 PM
@All,

OK, my tunable coil is done. I tested this setup but my input batteries is depleted and
needs a charging. Will be back later........

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 14, 2008, 04:23:09 AM
Hi All
Just a quick update...

I received the CIM motor today and hooked it using 2 12V 7.5 Ah batteries on #1 & #2 and several different "Dead" batteries on #3. The motor started up on everyone of the dead batteries so I'm still looking for the perfect dead battery out there to get this working with this particular motor  :P  Figured I'd start with the 12V 7.5 Ah batteries and work up to 18 Ah batteries if needed, the present 12V 7.5 Ah batteries are getting the motor running so I'm gonna try to find a better dead battery which will be cheaper than buying 2 new 18 Ah ones :)  If not I'll upgrade if needed  ;D

Here are the specs on the (FR801-001) motor that I got if that helps anyone in comparison to the one that David used:

Banebots FIRST CIM 12V 5280 RPM 345 oz-in Brushed DC Motor
• 5280 no load rpm at 12V
• 12V nominal voltage
• Stall torque: 343oz-in

The Banebots FIRST CIM 12V 5280 RPM 345 oz-in Brushed DC Motor is a CIM motor identical to the one supplied by FIRST (FR801-001). This motor is LEGAL for FIRST competition use. Also available are 56mm gearboxes for these motors to make great robot propulsion systems

Dimensions:
• Diameter: 6.2cm
• Length (without shaft): 11.2cm
• Shaft Length: 3.3cm
• Shaft Diameter: 8mm

Specifications:
• Voltage range: 12V or less
• Nominal Voltage: 12V
• Stall Torque: 343oz-in
• Stall Current: 115A
• Kt: 2.98oz-in/A
• Kv: 442.5 rpm/V
• Efficiency: 65%

Banebots Number: M4-R0062-12

@ Groundloop .... Thanks for all the help this far and good luck on your latest  ;D ;D

Regards,
Paul
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on November 14, 2008, 01:19:39 PM
@ Goat:    I'm gonna try to find a better dead battery which will be cheaper than buying 2 new 18 Ah ones   If not I'll upgrade if needed.



Getting a DEAD battery is NOT difficult, just leave a 12V Car Headlight Bulb on it until it runs down.  Or leave a 12V Motor Home 25 watt or 50 watt Screw In Light Bulb on it until it runs down.  You will have a DEAD battery.  It is really easy.

Thank you.


.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 14, 2008, 02:56:27 PM
@FatBird,

I highly disagree. What you are describing is a drained battery.
A dead battery is defined as a battery that you can't recharge again.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 16, 2008, 06:16:07 PM
@All,

I'm giving up testing on this circuit.
All I have seen in this circuit is draining of batteries.
I hope others get some better results than I have.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Anothertruthfinder on November 16, 2008, 09:35:06 PM
 hi all  :D, i strongly agree with groundloop about the 'dead' battery thing - ive been fully charging, draining, shorting for days and days on end my yet to be bat3, ive lost count of how many times and it still conducts first off - this is a mission in itself! lol
and in the same thoughts as groundloop - i may put this to rest before too long also

@david, i guess youre a busy man but we need more info in the sense of, your bat3 residual voltage from idle for say an hour, the current and voltage you draw across the motor when its doing its magic and the actual motor wattage, is the wire in your circuit all the same and what rating? - these i believe are some missing important parameters in our replication setups - please please please if you can. I realise youve revealed loads of info already but the aforementioned would be very helpful im sure - thanks


catchya all soon,
eel
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Goat on November 16, 2008, 11:23:28 PM
Hi All

My project hasn't moved yet so I can't comment other than there are still lot's of variables in the equation :P

I'm not using the exact same motor and batteries.
My motor doesn't have a gearbox as David's had.
I still need to find the right dead battery if needed.
I still need a couple more specifics on the dead battery, maybe the ones I used were too dead  ???

@ Dbowling

Looking over the history of your posts these 2 strike a cord  :o  Was your "partner in crime who helped me build this thing in the first place" using the exact same components as yours?  If so, what changed in your second circuit when you changed the motor?  Was it only the brushes of the motor or anything else? 

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4612.msg94300#msg94300
« Reply #50 on: May 05, 2008, 11:45:47 PM »

I spoke with my partner in crime who helped me build this thing in the first place. He has been running tests on his own with his own machine so that we could compare notes. He isn't having the same problems I have so we are meeting tomorrow afternoon and I will post after I talk to him. I don't know how much he has been running his or what tests he has done.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4612.msg94309#msg94309
« Reply #52 on: May 06, 2008, 12:26:29 AM »

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.

Sorry for all the questions  ::)

Regards,
Paul



 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 25, 2008, 01:46:01 AM
 I had something that was working and now it does not. Eventually all of my batteries run down. I don't know why it worked in the first place and so I don't know how to fix it. All I can do is try to set up the same kind of experiment I had in the beginning and use different motors and batteries. So far I have not been able to get back that magic I had for about two weeks. It is incredibly frustrating. I don't blame many of you for giving up on this when you're getting the kind of results I'm getting right now. I won't give up. I've seen it work. I had video of it working and of the batteries charging. I think it's still on the tape in my camera as a matter of fact, and if it is, anyone is welcome to a copy of it who would like it. I will check tonight to see. I had a seperate volt meter on each battery. I don't know if it will do you any good, because I have given out all the information I have, and I no longer have a working model to take any kinds of readings or measurements from. I thought it was such an amazingly simple thing that I took it apart and loaned batteries to other people for them to construct one, and now I realize I had the perfect combination of things that made it work. If I ever get it working again, I will be back here. In the middle of all this I made a move from Arizona to California, and I haven't really got my shop set up here to experiment again, but I intend to. I know what I saw. I know it worked. I don't have to operate on faith like you do. So I will NOT give up. I will look for that video, and if I find it, put it on u-tube or something and link to it so you can all see it.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 25, 2008, 02:49:21 AM
There is one final thing that popped into my mind tonight. I don't think anyone has successfully duplicted what I had in my set up. And I don't think it has anything to do with motors or wires or anything. I am pretty sure it has to do with battery number three. Go back and read my original description of my original experiment. When I flipped the switch on my original setup, nothing happened. Battery 3 was too low or SOMETHING to complete a circuit. In about 10 to 15 minutes the motor suddenly started. The whole thing ran until all three batteries were at about 14.7 to 15 volts, and then it shut off BY ITSELF!. WHY? WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY,WHY? When someone can get that arrangement of three batteries and a motor to replicate THIS PART of the experiment, they will have the solution to making it work. Right now, I CAN'T get it to do this. Battery number 3 would slowly lose power, and when it got low enough, the motor would kick back on and the whole thing would repeat. It did this over and over and over and over again. THIS IS THE KEY. What was there about battery number three that would shut the motor off when it was fully charged? Is that even logical? It happened. And I'm sure that is the answer to making this thing work again. Someone out there who understands batteries will have to figure this part out. I know it is beyond me, and battery number 3 didn't even belong to me. I had to give it back to the guy it belonged to. He is in Arizona and has given up on this. I am in California and will NOT give up. By the way, I borrowed battery number three from him again and tried to replicate the whole experiment again, and it would NOT work. The motor just continued to run until the batteries were too low to power it. The motor never shut off.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: AbbaRue on November 25, 2008, 12:34:22 PM
I have heard some say that a battery is a negative resistor.
Well maybe in a certain chemical state a battery does function as a negative resistor.
Lead Sulfide is a semiconductor.
So maybe this is what happened in the dead battery, but after continued use the chemical combination was destroyed.

I still think someone should try making a very simple battery out of a few lead plates and some sulfuric acid.
Just use 2 plates per cell and connect them in series to get 12 volts.
A 2 plate battery would charge and discharge very quickly, like a battery that won't hold a charge.


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Groundloop on November 25, 2008, 10:21:35 PM
@Dbowling,

A totally drained and "dead" battery has a high internal resistance. The battery has high internal resistance because almost all of the lead plates is covered with led sulfide. Now you connect the motor and no high current can flow because of the resistance. After some time some few areas of the battery plates will be in contact with the water/acid and a little charge will be gained. Then the internal resistance will drop a lot and now the current is free to flow. The motor starts to run. Then after a while the battery will gain more and more charge just like a capacitor and the voltage over the battery will reach a high enough  voltage so the the motor will stop. The motor can only run when there is a voltage difference over the motor terminals. This was the easy part to understand. The hard part to understand is WHY all three batteries did charge up. Also, why did battery three (the "dead" one) slowly loose charge again? If it was connected to the motor and the motor did not run then there is a path for the current through the motor and to the third battery. It should not have drained again. This is the second part that I do not understand.

Groundloop.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nvisser on January 21, 2009, 10:22:02 PM
Hi all
I`m new
I only stumbled upon this charging device 2 days ago while reading about the bedini(Jim Watson) generator on the panacea website and was referred to David bowling
This is the most brilliant configuration I ever saw as it does not kill the dipole.
All the current drawn by the motor or whatever load you put into that specific location where the motor sits has to go to the GOOD flat battery which will charge with that same amount of current drawn by the motor and so recover all the energy used to run the motor
I cannot see that an extra load anywhere else will work properly
In my 2 days test I used 3  good similar 18aH batteries.
The voltage lost on the 2 good batteries is about the same as the voltage gain on the flat battery and then we got the extra energy of the motor which can be used to drive a Jim Watson type of generator. A big flywheel  with a lot of magnets and some coils in series that generate ac (100volts or more), a bridge rectifier ,   a  capacitor bank and a relay that dumps the 100v volts onto the driving batteries (1 & 2) or maybe used to charge another battery bank that drives an inverter.
Looks like over unity to me!!!
Off cause the flat battery has to be replaced when it is fully charged
I have not reached the point where battery 3 is higher in voltage then the other 2  but I suppose that the voltage over the motor will drop ( 24v -12 =12v over the motor) or when batt3 is fully charged(13.8v) and bat1 &2 are say about 10v each( 20v-13.8 = 6v) which is a bit low to drive a large 12v motor to do some work
So I suppose the batteries has to be rotated all the time
By using 2 x 12v batteries in parallel  in position 3 it will be easy to change them into series when they are fully charged and switch the 2 run down batteries 1& 2 into parallel and make them battery 3 to be charged. They could then be switched by relay( nearly like the tesla switch!) Maybe it is the Tesla switch but only gets switched ones or twice a day instead at 20 -100 Hz.  Maybe Mr Bedini can commend on this
I hope this thread will continue as I see the last posts was last year in November and there are definitely potential in this charger circuit and I hope Mr Bowling filed his patent
Also see the following:

----- Original Message -----
From: HENRY JOHNSON
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:46 AM
Subject: LATEST DEVELOPMENT

HI STERLING
LAST FRIDAY WE HAD THE OPERTUNITY TO RUN OUR PROTO TYPE MOTOR CONNECTED TO A MOPED @ THE FRANKENMUTH MI. HI-SCHOOL. THIS WAS MONITORED BY CHRIS PHILBRICK, AN ENGENEER @ THE VASSAR FOUNDRY, A SCIENCE ADVISOR, FOR INDEPENDANT ASSESMENT.
 
THIS 0.2 HP MOTOR, GENERATOR (WHICH WAS NEVER BUILT TO DO ANYTHIG, BUT RUN) POWERED A 300# MOPED AND RIDER 60 MUNITS. WHEN WE STOPPED THE BATTERIES WERE FULLY CHARGED.
CHRIS'S PHONE # 989 823 7452
RANDY BIERLEIN, OF SCHAFFER, BIERLEIN CHRYSLER WAS ALSO THERE. HIS # 989 751 3559. CALL THEM FOR THIER INDEPENDANT COMMENTS.LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
HENRY
 
From: Sterling D. Allan [mailto:sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:20 PM
To:
Subject: TWM info

I phoned Chris Philbrick, who said that at T=0, the "positive" battery array of 4 12-V motorcycle started at 50.4 V, then ended at 42.5 V.  The "negative" array, also 4 bats in series, start: 49.3 V, ended at 51.6 V.  The moped was driven around the gym continuously for an hour. 210 HP motor, going around 6-8 mph.  8 batteries in all.
 
He said they did not do a control test to see how much energy it would take to do the same thing with a "normal" motor.
 
They will be doing some follow-up tests.
 
He said he was convinced there was "something to it."
 
You can post this at OverUnity.com
 
| Sterling D. Allan, CEO
| New Energy Congress: http://NewEnergyCongress.org
| (Pure Energy Systems) PES Network, Inc.: http://PESWiki.com
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Bob Smith on January 23, 2009, 02:26:52 AM
@nvisser,
Your post made a lot of sense to me. Those who want to better understand what you're saying about the dipole can check the last 2 pages of Patrick Kelly's downloadable Electronics tutorial at:
http://free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter12.pdf

Sorry, I couldn't copy and paste it here.
B

 
 



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nvisser on January 23, 2009, 08:10:02 PM
Hi Bob
Thanks for your reply
If you look at http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf    page5-8 you will find the Electrodyne Tesla switch explanation and it is exactly the Bowling charging device .Only it does not get switched at say 20-100Hz and will not draw the radiant energy.
It did some more tests and found that if I use a motor that only draws 80mA battery3 gains what battery 1 &2 loose in voltage overnight. If I connect a 220v inverter and drive a 60 W bulb ie: a load of 5Amp where the motor must be , battery 3 charges with 5Amps but cannot charge so fast and batteries 1&2 loose voltage to below 10v before bat3 is charged up ,in 40 minutes.
I still think if the motor drives a flywheel, Jim Watson style overunity could be reached
Anyway now that I understand how this circuit operates it is easy to understand the principles of the tesla switch.
I used a 6p rotary switch and wired it exactly like the Electrodyne Tesla switch to easily switch the process over when bat3 (2 in parralel) are fully charged.
I jumped (removed and connect straight) the diodes and used 2 mores switches in place of the bottom 2 diodes in the drawing, so that the batteries positives do not short when they are in series mode.
 I think it will also work for the switched tesla switch. These are 35a diodes and are not cheap and also give extra voltage drop in the circuit
I think next must be to built a tesla switch like this . Mr bedini said somewhere that it has to be switched with sharp rising edge 50% duty cycle pulses of about 20Hz. A think a 7Amps relay should handle that frequency. Nothing more
The Electrodyne Tesla switch used brushes which gave sharp overshoot pulses ( like switches does) and they switched between 100 and 800 hz when apparently it became dangerous. I don’t think it has something to do with the weird things that Ron Brand`s car did because I understood that he used relays and you cannot reach such high freq. with relays
See on this tread this input

   Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #108 on: May 22, 2008, 01:31:01 PM »   
________________________________________
Back in 1992 or 1991 Ron Brandt spent a few weeks with me and we ran his transistor switched circut using 4 batteries 6 transistors and a few other components.  we uses a signal generator to adjust the switching freq for maximum output to the load. we used 4 car headlights for the load on the switching unit and 1 on each of the baseline batteries.  we had 2 extra batteries we used as baselines.  to start off we charged all batteries using an astron 50 amp powersupply. all batteries were new.

We measured the SG of the electrolite and also the battery voltage 4 hours after charging before we began testing.  each of the baseline batteries with 1 headlight attached lasted I believe 7 hours before reaching 7 volts, our cutoff point.  the 4 batteries being switched ran for 73 hours before reaching the 7 volt mark.
We would check the frequency every hour or so longer intervals at night maybe 4 hours to keep it at maximum output to the load.  somewhere around 900 to 1100 Hz if i remember correctly.

after the first test all batteries were recharged with the power supply and we calculated the total recharge power we used to get the sg and voltage back to where we started. the 4 switching batteries required the same recharge time as the baseline batteries to reach our full charge state.

the second and 3rd test seemed to go about the same. but on the 4th test when trying to recharge the 4 switching batteries something strange happend.  the 4 switching batteries had 50 amps at 15 volts pumping into them but no bubbles, the battery temp was below room temp, and nothing was going on other than my powersupply getting a good workout.  it stayed like this for over 3 days then all at once it started to bubble and the recharge cycle began and the battery came back to life. This happened to all 4 batteries. we ran the test again pretty much same results and again the batteries would not recharge for 3 days. we stopped after this as it was taking way to long and we had lost all the net gain we had achieved in the first tests.

Ron told me that when he was running his electric car his neighbors car had a bad battery and he removed one from his electric car and gave it to them. the alternator on the neighbors car went up in smoke after an hour of driving.  it was more than likely running at full field trying to charge the battery.


We did not use a motor and i believe that is the secret to getting it to self charge. Ron told me he ran his car for months without charging the batteries.

He also told me a strange story that after running the car for a few hours when setting at a stop light the other cars around him all stopped running.  he called it some sort of energy field he thought it was creating. he also told me that his neighbor could not get out of her mobile home one day when he had the motor running and the car in idle for a few hours in is driveway, she yelled for help and when he went to help her it was like walking through air as thick as sand and it took almost all his energy to get to her.
after that he stopped the project to think about what was happening.
It will be interesting if anyone else will have the same battery non charging event happen to them.


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Bob Smith on January 25, 2009, 04:57:33 PM
There are elements in the above Ron Brandt story that are consistent with Stan Deyo's remarks about the effects of pulsed DC in when used to negate the forces of gravity.  (You can find them in his series of talks on Youtube). Deyo mentions a prototype plywood board bearing a series of toroids with 2 windings (at right angles to one another, I believe) pulsed with DC.  As the board rises off the bench, the experiementer tries to pass a broomstick under the board, but does so with much resistance - similar to Brandt's neighbour trying to get out of her trailer door, and Brandt trying to walk across her yard to help her (with much difficulty)

Where might be the common element?  Is it a reconfiguring of the electrogravitic characteristics in their surroundings? 

Does resonance come into play here?

Are the effects of gravity intensified or lessened when the aether is tapped to draw cold electricity into a circuit (negative resistor) or battery?

Any thoughts?
B
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Bob Smith on January 31, 2009, 06:32:26 PM
The motor may be the key element in replicating this charging phenomenon.  Each motor has its own switching frequency. It may be that DB's motor had a switching frequency which matched the impedance of his batteries.  The resonance created by this matching may have facilitated the battery's ability to act as a negative resistor.  The key to replicating this effect, therefore, may be in trying a variety of motors which run at different speeds, until resonance is reached.  This may also be achievable with a 555 timer switch, using variable resistor in the circuit to raise or lower frequency.
B
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: gadgetmall on November 15, 2009, 03:16:51 AM
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 .
gadget
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 14, 2009, 11:03:20 PM
I just checked back today and saw that there is still some activity on this thread. Just so you know, I did not fall off the face of the earth or sell out to some big company. I went through some stuff the last year and a half, but I am back now, and trying to get this motor to work again. Last night I hooked up my circuit for the first time in a looooong long time. It still did not work, but my results were not what I expected. My motor got very hot and so did my wires, melting two of them. This was new. I tried a different battery in the third position and that problem disappeared, but while battery number three charged, one and two went down in voltage. I intend to continue switching out that third battery until I can find one that meets the conditions I had before.
1. It must be under 7 volts to begin with
2. It must accept a charge from a conventional charger
2. When fully charged with a conventional charger, it will not hold a charge
If I can find that, I will start to work on trying to see if there is something to the idea of tuning the motor to the batteries. I wwill keep at this for as long as it takes and report here if I make any progress.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nvisser on December 18, 2009, 06:46:24 PM
David
As you said somewhere, this is just a static tesla switch.
John Bedini joint a thread on the tesla switch and is actually giving tips on how to get it working. The fiirst circuit he posted is a lot like yours to explain the principal. See http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-23.html#post74777
from page 23 post 446 and post 457- attatched thumbnail in the bottom.
What I picked up was that the only way for a 4 battery system to charge themself you need a very low voltage load (3-4v).
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 23, 2011, 05:41:23 PM
A day or so ago I was going through some old boxes of junk, and I came across my lab notes for my original experiment. It showed me some things I did not remember, and reinforced how incredibly important it is that we keep good notes.
The day we hooked this setup up for the first time, we used one motor. The second day, when we decided to get all scientific about it, we used a second motor that was totally different and much larger, so I am not convinced that the motor was as critical as I thought it was. I have the model number of BOTH motors in my notes if anyone is interested. I also scanned those notes as .jpg files for anybody who is interested. They can contact me at dbbowling@ hotmail.com and I would be happy to send them a copy. The fact that we used two different motors is the first important issue.


The second, and I believe much more critical issue, is that we originally used battery cables to connect all the batteries. When I was getting ready to take the device to California to meet with the patent attorney, I disassembled it and used 16 gauge wire to make those connections. I only took the motor and pulley device with me, along with a small roll of wire and end connectors, figuring I could get batteries in California and would not have to ship them. I purchased three of them in California, but the system did NOT work for my demonstration to the patent attorney. When I got BACK from California, I continued to use the 16 gauge wire on all my experiments and the thing never, ever worked again. I now believe that those battery cables were a critical element to the success of the device.


The third thing was the bad battery. I kept insisting that it was a battery that would take a charge but not hold it. Nowhere in my notes does it state that as a fact. It simply says that we charged three batteries overnight and when we went to use them, the third battery only showed  4.4 volts as measured on an analogue volt meter. So THAT is the battery we put in position number three.  In my notes it says that we charged the other two batteries to 12.2 volts each, but whether I meant 13.2 or what, I am not sure. I think we know that 12.2 is not a full charge, so I may have just made an error in writing it down. When we hooked everything up, nothing happened. We walked away, and in a few minutes (probably about 10-15) the motor suddenly came on. It ran for a while and shut off. We measured the voltage on battery number three between the positive and negative terminal. It was 24.3 volts, and it began to slowly go down. When it reached around 18 volts the motor started up and ran as the voltage continued to go lower. When it got to 8 volts the motor shut off and the voltage reading jumped immediately back up to the 24.2 volts and then began to go slowly down. When it reached 18 the motor started and ran until it reached 8 and then shut off. This repeated over and over while we ran the motor for over five hours, at the end of which, all three batteries had increased in charge. That was the end of the first day.


Now, in all the experiments I did over the next few days, I kept the charge on battery number 3 between that 8 and 18 volts. Either by putting a load on the motor or by hooking up devices that sucked power. As long as I did that, the thing would keep running.


I should also mention that the analogue meter we were using on the first day had a bad battery and was giving us faulty readings. I know this because on the second day I went out and bought three brand new meters so I could put one on each battery and they showed that our two source batteries were at around 12.9 volts when our original meter showed 12.2. Which means that pretty much NONE of this original data is very accurate. Sorry about that. But the new meters WERE on the batteries when we performed the experiment on the second day that almost blew up the batteries because we overcharged them, and all of the tests I ran after this I used the three meters I purchased to record results, so I am pretty sure they were accurate. Or else all three meters were bad.


I hope this information is beneficial to anyone who stumbles on this thread. With this information in hand, I am going back to the drawing board and see what happens. I have a few "bad" batteries and I am going to see if I can get the initial experiment to repeat...where I hook the motor up and nothing happens for about ten minutes and then the motor starts up. If I can get THAT to happen, I believe I have the RIGHT combination. Wish me luck, because I will certainly SHARE when I figure this all out.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on December 25, 2011, 01:40:31 AM
Hello David,
 
Thank you VERY MUCH for sharing your findings.  Please continue to do so.
 
Can you also post a circuit diagram & those JPG pictures here on Overunity.
 
Thank you sir,
 
 
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Thaelin on December 25, 2011, 09:08:57 PM
   I have to sneak in here for a bit. I have many different types of
test meters laying around. The part where you said you went out
and replaced your "analog" meter with new ones brings up a point.
Most of the time, on the old style meters, a battery is only needed
to check ohms with. In AC/DC/Amps mode, they are passive in nature.
There is an adjustment so you can set the accuracy of the readings
but its just resistance.
   On the other hand, I recently acquired a very old military meter. It
takes two batteries to work and does nothing without them. I think
it was made in the '60s too.

Could you elaborate in that respect for me?
  thay

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 26, 2011, 03:31:29 AM
I tried posting my jpg files and nothing happened. I tried several times. Give me an e-mail address and I will send them to you.


As to the meter, the readings changed when we put in a battery. They were off by 6 or 7 volts as compared to the meter with a new battery and the new meters I bought. The new meters were digital, not analogue, which was ALSO a mistake. This I know NOW! LOL
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 26, 2011, 06:45:34 PM
My notes pages one and two
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 26, 2011, 06:49:03 PM
Apparently it will let me post two pages of notes at a time
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 26, 2011, 06:55:38 PM
When I try and post the next two pages it says my post failed security checks and I need to contact an administrator.  I tried twice to post it and got the same message. Since these are pages I scanned all at the same time, saved at the same time, and am trying to post at the same time, I have no idea why pages five and six would be any different that one, two, three or four, but apparently there is some difference. I gave this my best shot. Sorry guys. I can still e-mail them to anybody who is interested. They contain the hand drawing of the schematic we were using.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on December 26, 2011, 08:46:45 PM
Dave, most of your photos are NOT showing up, but it's not your fault.
 
Ever since they did a Site Upgrade here, most of the new Post Photos are BLANK now.
I thought they would fix it by now, but NO LUCK.
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 26, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
I can see the four I posted, but it won't let me post the rest. I keep getting the "failed security check" and I know that these scans have no security issues because I scanned them myself.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hartiberlin on December 27, 2011, 10:27:41 PM
Please post it in a smaller resolution.
For these note pages the resolution
of 1024x768 would be enough.

Just use the free Irfanview.com
program to scale them down and use 80 % JPEG
quality and then the files will only be around 100 to 300 Kbytes,
so the server will accept them much better...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 28, 2011, 01:19:13 AM
IThanks Stefan, I did as you suggested. Hopefully that will make a big difference.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 28, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
And the last page. I hope this is of use to folks.


I will be spending a lot of time trying to repeat this experiment. The key is, when you make all your connections, and the motor starts up immediately, you don't have a battery in the third position that is going to make this thing work like I had it working. So the first step would be to keep trying "bad" batteries in the third position until you get the setup where the motor does NOT come on immediately, but takes several minutes and then it suddenly starts. But PLEASE remember this. I think that perhaps the constant charging and draining of my battery in the third position eventually did something to rejuvenate that battery, and once that happened, it no longer worked. Or at least that MAY have been the reason it no longer worked.


Regardless, I have not given up on this idea. If you had seen what my boys and I saw, you would never give up either!!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on December 28, 2011, 05:14:58 AM
Hi david, thanks for sharing your information.
It almost sounds like beardens degenerate semiconductor effect, where your batteries 1 and 2 are making a voltage connection with battery 3, yet not allowing current to flow back to them and destroy the dipole.
Instead, they were maintaining or charging due to that effect, like a true one way diode, yet something of a different nature electrically, was feeding back to batteries 1 and 2.
Maybe a radiant type of energy.
One might assume then, that some kind of crystal battery may achieve the same effect, if placed in battery 3 position.
I'm sure some black project already figured this out and built a transistor of some type, that does this very thing you observed, using just one battery, load and degenerate crystalline transistor or diode.
peace love light
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 28, 2011, 07:42:32 AM
It has always been my hope that this could be replicated by replacing battery number three with something else that duplicated the properties of the "bad" battery once there was a working model (again). But getting it to work again is the challenge. Now that my notes have shown me that we used two different motors and it still worked, I KNOW that the motor was not the key. I still have the motor we used as the second motor. I also know that changing from the battery cable to other wires was the point at which it quit working, so it's important to USE battery cables if I want to replicate what DID work. Maybe it is as simple as that, and tomorrow I will be going to Home Depot Lawn and Garden and getting those battery cables to give it a shot. Once that variable has been removed, that leaves battery number three as the ONE thing that has to be duplicated and I have given as much info about that as I have. Now people just need to experiment as I will be doing.


Once you have seen something like this working as I have, it is impossible for anyone to tell you that it "can't" or "won't" work; that there is "no such thing as free energy." I have to admit, there were times at the beginning when I doubted myself, because people I respected kept telling me it was not possible and wanted me to do all kinds of different things to "measure" it, but when I spend almost a full week charging and discharging a battery until I had produced ten or twenty times as long run times as I could possibly have gotten out of the three batteries in the system, while running the motor the whole time, and none of the batteries had gone down in charge, and had in fact increased in charge, it was enough to make a believer out of me for life. I doubt it would have made that much of an impression if I had seen someone else doing it on YouTube, but when you do it yourself, you become a believer. NOBODY can ever convince me that free energy is all a fraud now. That doesn't mean I'm a sucker for everybody who claims to have a free energy device, nor will I buy one from anybody. I just know it is within our power to build one, which is why I will never give up researching this as long as I live.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 30, 2011, 01:09:40 AM
Ok, so I started my experimenting again today with the three batteries. Here is a YOuTube link to my first video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wob6NMEOuvk


NOTE: I had the WRONG gage labeled as the one connected to battery 3. If you will notice, before I flip the switch, the correct gage (which is right next to it and luckily shows up in the videos) shows no voltage for battery 3, but the minute I hit the switch it jumps to 24 volts. I didn't even notice this unit I watched the video, because I never looked at that gauge until I figured out I had labeled the wrong gauge as connected to battery 3.


The voltage jumped to 24 volts but the motor did NOT come on.
When the voltage dropped down to around 18 volts, the motor came on and is running. So far, so good. If it shuts off when the voltage drops to 9 volts, I will have repeated my original experiment.  I am continuing to take videos. Monday I will set up my video camera on the tripod and run through the whole process from beginning to end.
David
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on December 30, 2011, 08:01:41 PM
The voltage on Battery 3 did not drop down to 9 volts and the motor never shut off on its own. It stabilized at 13 volts.



I ran it all night and when I went down in the basement this morning the voltages on batteries 1 & 2 were down. So it didnt work. But before I try a different battery at the 3 position I am going to try a different motor. It dawned on me during the night that this is probably NOT a brushed DC motor I am using and it needs to be or there is no spark gap.


Also I never saw the conditions exactly as with the original. These are the conditions you MUST have before proceeding with ANY OTHER TESTING!!!:


1. When the switch is flipped to complete the circuit, the motor does NOT start. (check- this happened)


2. The voltage on battery 3 jumps to above 24 volts. (check!)


3. The voltage on battery 3 goes slowly down. (check!)


4. When voltage reaches around 18 volts the motor comes on. (check!)


5. The voltage continues to go down to around 9 volts and the motor shuts off by itself. (The voltage went down to around 13 volts and seemed to level off there. That's where it was when I went to bed and it was in the same place this morning, but I can't say for sure that it ran all night) So this condition was NOT met.


6. When the motor shuts off by itself, the batter voltage on battery 3 jumps to 24 volts and the system starts over again. (Since condition 5- the motor shutting off by itself when battery 3 reaches about 9 volts- was not met, this condition was not met either.)


7. The wires connecting the batteries should be as large as possible I am using stranded AWG 6 wire, and using battery cables would be even better I think.


Back to the bench!!
1. Make sure my motor is brushed DC.
2. Make sure batteries 1 & 2 are completely charged from the wall.
3. Make sure battery 3 is a "bad" battery


[/size]
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 03, 2012, 12:57:17 AM
One thing I forgot to mention. MY battery number three which was a "bad" battery and would neither take nor hold a charge, charged up to 12 volts overnight in the three battery setup, and is holding a charge. It is no longer a "bad" battery, so I will have to find a different battery to use in these experiments.
David
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 04, 2012, 01:34:51 AM
You don't have to buy another dead battery.  Just place a reasonably sized load on a battery overnight, & it will be dead by morning.
 
A good load would be a 12V spotlight, or a 12V headlight bulb, or a 12V motor, etc.
Or you could even use 2 or 3 of said items simultaneously overnight to make it drain faster.
 
Thank you for sharing your results & posts David.
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 04, 2012, 08:39:24 PM
A dead battery and a "bad" battery are two different things. When I had this working, the battery in position 3 would not hold a charge. There is a pretty good chance it would not even TAKE a charge, but I didn't clarify that specific piece of information in my notes. My buddy charged the three batteries over night, and I wasn't there when he unhooked them the next morning. It doesn't say in my notes, and I am not sure at this point, so I don't want to speculate one way or another. SO just discharging a battery and putting it in the third position won't get me a working overunity system. Not by a long shot.


When the system was turned on the voltage in battery 3 would jump up to over 24 volts, but the motor would not run. The voltage would go slowly down to 18, at which time the motor would start. It would continue to run as the voltage went slowly down to around 9 volts, at which time the motor would shut off. Then the voltage would jump up again.


It is my belief that battery number three would not hold a charge. But when it was connected, the meter was actually reading the DIFFERENCE between battery number 3 and the other two batteries, or over 24 volts. As battery three charged, that difference would decrease, which is why the voltage went down. At around 18 volts (difference) the motor came on. In my opinion, this is the point at which there was enough voltage on both sides of the motor for it to run somehow. Then at the point where the difference had dropped to 9 volts the motor shut off. WHY? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??   I have no idea. These are the conditions I am again trying to duplicate. Until I have three batteries and a motor that will duplicate these conditions, I do NOT have a system worth running any other tests on. I know that I used two different motors with the original setup, but that "bad" battery was used with both, so it is the KEY as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 04, 2012, 11:01:22 PM
David, I found this diagram on the web, & I think your circuit is the same thing.  Some web sites claim that is the same circuit Tesla used
to run his electric car.
 
The theory is there are 2 charged bateries & 1 discharged batery.  The current running the motor from the charged batteries
HAS TO PASS THRU THE discharged battery, THUS CHARGING IT FREE OF CHARGE!!  Then the batteries keep getting SWITCHED
around so that there are always 2 charged batteries always CHARGING the dead battery.
 
In fact, why couldn't the Electric Motor DRIVE A GENERATOR instead of a car???
 
=================================================================================================
 
BELOW IS A Web story from a MAN RUNNING THE CIRCUIT BELOW, but switching the batteries aound ELECTRONICALLY.
 
Ron told me that when he was running his electric car his neighbors car had a bad battery and he removed one from his electric car
and gave it to them. The alternator on the neighbors car went up in smoke after an hour of driving.  it was more than likely running
at full field trying to charge the battery.
 
Ron told me he ran his car for months without charging the batteries.
 
He also told me a strange story that after running the car for a few hours when setting at a stop light the other cars around him all stopped running.
He called it some sort of energy field he thought it was creating. he also told me that his neighbor could not get out of her mobile home one day when
he had the motor running and the car in idle for a few hours in is driveway, she yelled for help and when he went to help her it was like walking through
air as thick as sand and it took almost all his energy to get to her.  After that he stopped the project to think about what was happening.
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 04, 2012, 11:33:35 PM
That probably is the same circuit, and I say probably only because the positives and negatives on the batteries aren't labeled. The layout is exactly the same. And that is probably Ron (Ronald) Brandt (sp?) being quoted in that story. I have run across this information several times in the years since I first posted here.


The significant difference here is, when I had the system working, I was able to tap into something that I used to charge up a number of batteries many, many times. I ran electrical appliances off an inverter. Batteries one and two charged up so high I was afraid they would explode, and I had to constantly pull power out of the system or that was in danger of happening. To me that indicates much more than what can be accomplished by switching around batteries, which might prolong how long they last, but will allow them to eventually run down. (Or at least I THINK it will. I could be all wet) I am searching for something else here. I have seen it, and I will know when I see it again. If and when I ever do, I will post the information here.


David
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 05, 2012, 12:00:16 AM
You mentioned that when you had it working correctly, you used Battery Cables.  Maybe the battery cables were lying in a circle (inductance).
So you might want to try SUBSTITUTING A COIL OF WIRE (Inductance) in place of the battery cables.
 
1.  Try making a Coil of wire about 10 or 12 inches in diameter, having about 20 turns.
2.  Try using 12 gauge insulated wire, or bigger.  Using a single wire from some standard house wiring should do the job.
3.  Tape the Coil together with tape to keep it circular.
4.  Place the Coil in series between the 2 good batteries.
5.  Try running your tests again.
6.  Give the test a FEW HOURS because sometimes Free Energy takes awhile to show up.
 
I have seen different web sites claiming that a Coil in series boosts Free Energy somehow.
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 05, 2012, 11:24:06 PM
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 06, 2012, 05:49:36 PM
Update:
So far I have found thee kinds of batteries in my testing, which I have categorized by what happens when I put them in position number three.


1. When a good battery, no matter how low its voltage, is put in position number three, it's voltage jumps immediately to 24+ volts (when you read it with a volt meter from the positive to negative terminal) and the motor begins to run IMMEDIATELY. The voltage begins to drop down to around 13 or 14 volts, where it stabilizes.


2. Bad battery type 1. When it is put in position number three, its voltage  (when you read it with a volt meter from the positive to negative terminal) jumps immediately to 24+ volts, where it remains. I have left one of these in position number three overnight, with no noticeable change. I have found two of these so far. Even after being hooked up in the third position overnight, the voltage does not drop. The battery will also not take a charge from a standard charger after having been disconnected from the system.


3. Bad battery type 2. When it is put in position number three, its voltage  (when you read it with a volt meter from the positive to negative terminal) jumps immediately to 24+ volts. It slowly goes down to around 18 volts, at which time the motor comes on. Its voltage continues to go down to around 13 volts where it stabilizes. The motor continues to run. When removed from the system, this type battery will now take the charge of a conventional charger where before it WOULD NOT. I have found four batteries that meet this criteria. All my "bad" batteries were obtained from an auto parts store where they had been taken in as "core" replacements for new batteries because the auto parts store had determined they were "bad" batteries and sold someone a new battery. I myself tried charging them with two different standard chargers and they would not charge.


4. The criteria I am looking for. When you connect the battery in position number three, the voltage jumps to 24+ volts and begins to go slowly down. At 18 volts the motor comes on and the motor continues to run and the voltage continues to drop. When the voltage reaches 8 or 9 volts, the motor shuts off and the voltage once again jumps to 24+ volts and the cycle repeats. I will continue to check batteries until I find one that meets these criteria. Then the fun will begin.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 06, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
Thank you for sharing your results David.
 
Can you please post the motor name plate stats, like Voltage Rating, Current Rating, RPM Rating, etc.
 
Thank you sir.
 
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 06, 2012, 09:40:10 PM
When I actually had a working system, there are two different motors we used


Fisher Price 12 volt
00968-9003
63822
3E3312 47
It came fro a Fisher Price Power Wheels toy and those are the only markings on it.


The second motor had the following markings


CIM
First Robotics
FR801-001
12Vdc
101104


The motor I am using now, which I THOUGHT was 12 volt DC until you asked your question and I went down to look at it has the following markings


McMillan Electric Company
PM DC Motor
Model S344633401 (the "S" may be an 8..the first "3" may be an 8.... the second "3" may be an 8 or a 2) It is pretty scratched up
P/N 12-0057
26.4 amps


I am not sure that anything about the motor matters except that it is a brushed DC motor.
5020 Rpm
110 Vdc
3HP


I still haven't found a battery to go in the third position that will take a charge but not hold it. This is what I am searching for because I believe it is the KEY to the whole thing.






Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 10, 2012, 01:35:40 AM
A friend of mine APPEARS to be having success with a battery in the third position that is bad but does NOT meet the criteria of dropping in voltage on its own by putting a load on it consisting of a small lightbulb from an auto dome light. I will be trying to replicate what he has done tomorrow while I continue to search for a battery that meets my requirements for the battery in the third position. He's putting together a setup right now to do extensive testing, and I'll keep on posting here.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 11, 2012, 12:49:05 AM
I have had a VERY frustrating day today. Every battery, no matter how bad, that I put in the third position causes the motor to either start right up, or never lets the motor come on at all. I can't find one that will just sit there and increase in charge and THEN the motor starts, no matter how much I drain the battery prior to trying to use it. Even the two I had the other day no longer will do this and are now taking a charge from a standard charger. They are now "good" batteries! Grrrr!!!I am out of bad batteries to try and will have to go on the hunt for some tomorrow. Can't wait for tomorrow!!!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 11, 2012, 08:14:45 AM
On a more positive note. My friend told me today that his battery in the third position won't take a charge up to full, and the motor doesn't come on when the system is first connected, but the battery doesn't drain down like it should and the motor doesn't kick on and off like mine did. However, he is lowering the voltage in that third battery by connecting an auto dome light to it, which is keeping it at right at 4 volts. He is running his motor and running various loads, and feels like he has demonstrated a system that replicates what I had originally. He will be posting here and at EF on the "Use for the Tesla Switch" thread when he has all the data to back up his claims, which may take a couple days. I am trying to replicate what he has done, but still haven't found a battery for the third position. I will be spending my day tomorrow searching for bad batteries at various places. At this point it looks very promising, and once we're sure it works, everything will be posted here.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 12, 2012, 12:42:05 AM
Thank you David for keeping us posted on your work & results.
It does look interesting.
 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 12, 2012, 04:47:11 AM
I got eight batteries today at the auto parts store. Hopefully ONE of them will work. Got my setup all wired so I am ready to use my 120 volt motor as a generator. Had some problems, but got them figured out...I think. WIll know tomorrow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD4fgEhYIAc&list=UU14Bfk5iVL6e7VDp76ScNkA&index=1&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD4fgEhYIAc&list=UU14Bfk5iVL6e7VDp76ScNkA&index=1&feature=plcp)

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on January 12, 2012, 05:36:38 PM
SUPER NICE Lab Setup that you have David, & GREAT videos.
 
I notice that you are spinning an AC motor.  I don't think an AC motor will output anything because there aren't any magnets in it.
A good source of motors that WILL OUTPUT Pulsed DC when rotated are Electric Scooter Motors, because they use Permanent Magnets.
Click on the link below to see some:

 
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=scooter+motor+24&_sacat=0&_odkw=scooter+motor+12&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=scooter+motor+24&_sacat=0&_odkw=scooter+motor+12&_osacat=0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m270.l1313)

 
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 14, 2012, 12:34:13 AM
I thought you could run an AC motor as a generator as long as..
1. You turned it at high enough rpm's
2. You ran a charge through it to begin with to activate the electromagnet. Maybe I'm all wet. At any rate, I'm going to see if I can pick up a car alternator with a 1/2 inch shaft or a small DC motor with a half inch shaft, some more socket, and 12 volt bulbs to of in those sockets.


Here's my video for today's setup.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBo2DyBoiqw


Over the weekend I will be adding a bank of lights and switches for the 12 volt load on the alternator/DC generator. Maybe use some lights and some different caps so I can fine tune the load.


Right now I just turned it on and let it run with the only load on the DC motor being that it is turning the grinder motor. Just want to see how long it runs.
Began running it on two fully charged batteries (and one DEAD one) at 2:15. If it slows down or stops, this is NOT the system I want, so I don't care how long it runs. It should run to the end of time or until the bearings wear out if I have it right. If I have it wrong, who cares how long it runs.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 14, 2012, 03:38:07 AM
Well, the motor was still running when I went down to check, but voltage on battery two had dropped to 11 volts. Going to let it rest and see if it recovers. Also, the "bad" battery now has a voltage of 12.48 even though there was a light bulb connected between its terminals the whole time. I will let this one rest also, but I am afraid I have just fixed another bad battery. #&*$%!!!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 15, 2012, 10:03:16 PM
My buddy reports that his system was up an running for a test yesterday. He hooked up an inverter to battery 3 and it squealed, indicating there was not enough voltage to power it. So then he let it charge for a few minutes and was able to run the inverter and a lightbulb as well as the 12 volt bulb he has across battery three with no apparent change in the voltages of battery 1 or 2. He has been playing with it off and on for a week now, and the voltages on batteries 1 and 2 have remained the same. Sometimes they drop a little depending on the load, but always return to their starting point after resting. Maybe he has something. I certainly hope so. I have yet to find the battery I want or the load I want for the motor, but am working on it!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 26, 2012, 03:01:25 AM
Just to stay current. There are two of us working on two different setups. When we have something that we can share that anyone can repeat step by step, we will post here and at EF. Right now it is just a lot of tedious work trying different things...different loads, different batteries. I haven't found a battery yet that will do what my original setup did when I flip the switch. Still checking out the batteries I have stacked up in the basement. When I have tried them all, then I will move on to trying to replicate my original by altering a standard battery. That will be a little tricky and very interesting. Wish me luck. As is, we are able to make just two batteries last a long long, long, long, long time. SO far, when allowed to rest, they regain their charge. Don't know how long they can keep that up, but that is what testing is for. Looking at things like, can I run it on one set of two batteries with a third bad battery and then switch to two other good batteries and the same bad battery while the first pair rests and recovers. So this would take five batteries, but run continually. Working on those kinds of things.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on January 28, 2012, 12:29:58 PM
Let me see if I can explain where we are now. Find a bad battery...one that only shows ONLY a few volts. Hook it up in the third position. If you don't know what that means, go back through the thread and figure it out. Check the voltages on your other two batteries and record them.  Hook a small 12 volt light between the terminals on the bad battery to keep it from charging. Now run the motor and slowly add additional loads to your inverter which is connected to battery three. I would suggest a 40 watt bulb to begin experimenting with. The motor should speed up when you add a load, and then run for a few minutes and suddenly kick into a zone where the bulb on battery 3 becomes brighter. This is the zone you want to stay in. If you add too much load you will drop out of this zone and the system won't produce enough energy. The way you get it to go back into the zone is either to reduce the load on battery 3, or increase the load on the motor to compensate for the increased load on battery 3. The two HAVE to balance to stay in that zone. Run it for 20 to 30 minutes and then check the voltages on your two batteries. You may have lost a little voltage during the time you were trying to get into the zone, but after several hours your batteries will recover. Make note of what you had to do to balance each individual load on battery three so you don't run down your other two batteries trying to figure out how to get into the zone every time. On my motor I might add another generator coil to my rotor, which will slow it down because of the magnetic attraction and slightly increase the load on the motor. In my original setup I had a turnbuckle I used to tighten a belt on a pulley on the motor to make it work harder. Soon you will establish that for every 100 watt load you add to battery three, you have to do something specific to the motor, and eventually you will reach the capacity of the motor to increase in speed, and this is the max capacity of this motor to put out usable power. If you do it right and take it SLOW, staying in the zone, you can keep increasing your loads. You should get lots and lots of 20-30 minute runs in and keep track of the data. If you do it like this, and keep track of your voltages, you will see that your batteries recover, and you eventually produce way more amp hours of production than two batteries could possibly put out. This is still not where we want to be with this, but it is working.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on February 06, 2012, 03:59:14 PM
I am building a prototype energizer out of wood with 80 coils on it. Once it is completed and I have figured out all the different places I want to have things available for adjustments, I will visit my local machine shop and have one made out of steel. I know I want an adjustable mounting shelf on one end so that I can use different sized motors and motors that come with different sizes and lengths of shafts so that I can continue to experiment with different motors that will need adaptors to connect to my energizer. I know I want to have the coils able to be easily removed so coils with different lengths of wire can be put in their place, and I know I want the coils to be able to screw in and out, to adjust their clearance to the magnets on the rotor, eliminating any small imperfections in the construction. This means the octagon shape of the device must be hinged at some point, or bolted together at two points. Attached is a photo of my construction so far with only 16 coils mounted. Sixteen is all I have wound so far, so I have some work to do to get to 80 coils, but I'll get there. I also know I am going to have to put a threaded sleeve on my rotor shaft that will fit a bearing, so I am working on that. It will need one on each end and one in the middle. For now I can just wrap the rotor shaft with pipe tape to get it to fit the bearing, but I want to be more precise than that with the machine shop version, so I will have to use a larger bearing. A perfect build would allow me to disengage a whole set of coils from the rotor, but while I have already come up with a design for that, it may be beyond my budget for right now. Maybe some day. Anyway, attached is a photo of the present stage of construction. It's not much, but I'm getting there.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on February 15, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
So yesterday I got 100 empty spools in the mail so I can start winding coils. That will take a few days. I have been playing around with this and playing around with it, and I feel like I am learning something every day. Right now my goal is to put together an energizer that is enough of a load that I can get a balance with the load I have to have on battery three to keep it from charging, and then see how much power my energizer puts out. That will be a balanced system where no appreciable energy is used up running the motor or the light off battery three. That does NOT mean that the three batteries in the system may not run down eventually, but they will last much, much, MUCH longer than they should, and I will be pulling power off the energizer the whole time. And it is usually ONLY battery 2 that loses charge. So if I have a battery charging, one resting, and one in the second position that is full, and I can charge one faster than the one in position two is drained, I get the power of the motor for free, which is all I want.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on February 27, 2012, 02:17:28 AM
Since no one here seems interested in working on this, despite the fact that we are having some serious success, we are no posting on EF at http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system.html


Several folks over there are working on it and having success. The longest run we have had so far from anyone trying to duplicate my results is ten hours with a raise in voltage of the two primary batteries. So we're not there yet, but we have lots and lots of things to try.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tysb3 on March 20, 2012, 07:14:47 AM
@Dbowling
should be something interesting for you:

Nevermind, found it:  http://www.fluxite.com/WorkingRadiantEnergy.pdf
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 25, 2013, 10:38:48 PM
Gentlemen,
I am returning here to post this because this is where it all started. I made my very first post about this setup on this forum several years ago. Unfortunately, NOBODY who tried to replicate it could see what I was seeing and soon lost interest. Everyone decided I was full of crap and moved on. Well, as it turns out, I was NOT full of crap. Far from it. After several long years of research we now have a stable system up and running. The longest run I have done so far is ten hours, but I have done long runs three days in a row without drawing down on my primaries. The load I am running on the system is twofold. First there is the inverter, which is only running 18 1/2 watts, which is what I need to run off the inverter to balance with the load I am running off the other half of the circuit, which is the motor. It is running another motor as generator and is pulling 11 amps at 12 volts per hour.


So if someone has an answer for how I can pull just over a hundred amp hours a day for three days in a row out of two 18 amp hour batteries and still have a full charge on my primaries, I would love to hear it. Otherwise I would submit that I am NOT full of crap and this is a working system. We are constantly changing and improving, but the basic circuit can be found here:


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html
Post #2335


It is my intention to run this thing at least 8 hours a day, every day, until the primaries can run it no more. Hopefully that will be for a long, long time. I have to shut it down at night because it is in my basement, and I can't let it run all night. Fire danger, since the basement is right under my bedroom, and also NOISE. There is no insulation in these old houses, so the only thing between me and the motor running the generator is the floor boards, and my wife would not be happy with me. If you go up the page prior to the schematic, you will see a video of the run I did where I caught battery 3 reversing polarity, and I talked about the need to hit one end of the battery with the spike until it reversed polarity and then hit the other end until it reversed back. Instead, Randy found a different method....add a fourth battery,which is reversed. Anyway, it works. So if you are interested in building this setup, here is the parts list.
2 good batteries of the same kind and amp hours, either SLA or AGM.
Two bad batteries of the same kind and amp hours (don't need to be the same as the primary batteries)  that will only hold less than about 6 volts each. The "badder" the better. We are calling those the transducers. A fifth battery that is a good battery, but discharged down to about 12.2 to begin the run. This will be the buffer battery. One bifilar tesla pancake coil about 9' in diameter made with two strands of #12 wire. The end of one wire connected to the beginning of the other. Thats it. Let the fun begin


Dave Bowing
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on July 25, 2013, 11:19:23 PM
David
You are most definately one very Tenacious individual who seems to be impervious to the madness which would surely have driven a weaker mind over the edge by now!
 
Very cool stuff David ....
have you ever attempted any Geiger measurements of the batterys or any  components of the system?
Thx
Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 25, 2013, 11:40:47 PM
Have not tried geiger measurements, but hopefully there is no radiation here! LOL.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on July 26, 2013, 01:47:22 AM
Thank you for sharing David.
1.  Please post the type of motor it is, voltage, current.  Is it a electric scooter motor, etc.
2.  What is a Transducer Battery?
3.  How large is the Bifilar Coil?
4.  It says Under Transducers.  Does that mean 1 HUGE Coil is under ALL batteries at the same time?


Thanks.
Title: !
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 02:17:21 AM

Here are the parts. All this is on the thread at EF.
2 source batteries, full charge, radiant conditioned. Charged with a SSG.[/font][/size]
2 transducer batteries (3rd position), DEAD, no conditioning to start with. The ones I have been using with this setup have 0.1v and 6v. These charges have moved around about a volt during testing. Nothing significant.[/font][/size]
1 Buffer battery, drained charge (11.5v to 12v), radiant conditioned. This I use for my loads.Bifilar coil 9" in diameter. #12 wire (from a piece of house romex)Motor can be ANY brushed dc 12 volt motor. I am using an MY1016 Razor scooter motor obtained on ebay.Inverter is connected to buffer battery and loads connected to inverter. You need to have a load on the motor. Could run another motor as a generator.YOU MUST BALANCE the system or your primaries will GO DOWN!!!!!!!  This is done by watching the voltage on the buffer battery. Let the system run for a couple minutes. During this time your primaries will go DOWN a little. Watch the buffer battery voltage. If it is going up,  increase the load on the inverter or decrease the load on the motor. If it is going down, decrease the load on the inverter or increase the load on the motor. When you stabilize the buffer battery, your primaries will stop going down, will stay level, and will climb back to where you started or higher when you shut down. The faster you stabilize, the higher your end voltage will be.I am running 17 1/2 watts of lights off the inverter. I am drawing 11 amps running the motor as a load using it to turn another motor as generator. In a ten hour run that is over 100 amp hours of power drawn from 2 (18 amp hour) batteries, and the primaries are still charged. The motor is running at over 6000 rpm and I can use it to run my generator. This is REAL POWER.[/font][/size]
Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 02:22:09 AM
Should have mentioned...The 2 primary batteries must be the same kind of battery and same amp hours. The dead (transducer) batteries should be the same kind of batteries and same amp hour, but don't have to be the same as the primaries. The buffer battery...not sure if that matters. Doesn't seem to.
The two transducer batteries (dead ones) sit on the pancake coil. Use a compass to orient them so that north runs corner to corner through the batteries on a diagonal. Any questions, let me know. I am pretty much on the internet all day long on the other forum. Just thought I should post this here because I felt like I owed something, since this was the first place I posted, even if nobody believed me.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 03:04:57 AM
The only limits to this system are what YOU have on your bench, the size of the motor you are using and the size of the inverter you are using. Put as MUCH load on the inverter as it will run...as long as you can balance it with a load on the motor. Or, put as MUCH LOAD on the motor as it can run, as long as you can balance it with a load on the inverter. Remember, BIG loads make the primaries go down fast until you get it balanced, so be ready to do that. The they will hold and eventually recover. But start with small loads and LEARN.


This is not the end. This is the beginning. We are learning more every day and even sharing MOST of it on the forum. We want to put it all together so to speak before we dump everything out there, so hold on. It's going to be quite a ride. Lots of folks working behind the scenes on things like solid state versions, etc. Now that we understand what we've got ahold of, there are going to be some major revelations in the future. I would bet on that. Come join the fun


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 26, 2013, 04:08:39 AM
I admire your efforts and keep up the good work.
You have an interesting project. It is not producing overunity or excess energy, but you are fixing up some old batteries.
The results you are seeing are attributed to many things under the tittle "Battery Effect"
These include surface charge, desulfating, and changing the architecture of the plate surface. All are very explainable.


Now run it with a bank of caps continuous and you will have everyone's attention.
Kind Regards



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 26, 2013, 05:03:17 AM
@markdansie..we dont know that for sure.we have back-emf spikes evry time the brush passes a gap,whers the energy of the backspikes going into?@bowling,the thought occured to me that the dead bat is acting as some sort of diode either allowing use of the backspike or itself being charged by the backspike.current will go easier in one direction through a bat than the other,even if dead,im just toying with ideas here..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 05:53:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: LibreEnergia on July 26, 2013, 09:37:58 AM
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.

Before you waste any more time on this you should do as he suggests and try and run it on capacitors...
There is no excess energy being generated in your setup.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 26, 2013, 12:42:26 PM
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.
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 :)

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 26, 2013, 01:23:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on July 26, 2013, 02:41:54 PM
David
For Clarity,...You are seeing 100 amp hours of work from a 36 amp hour battery bank?
 
Have you calibrated your output measurement protocol ?
 
Sorry if you have answered tnat somewhere already ,However if you are managing to harvest additional energy from this settup we cannot afford to be so dismissive of the possible sources!

Varifying YOUR claim is all that matters here,that requires a good test protocol!
We can do that.........
 
thanks for your patience and for sharing all your hard work.
 
Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on July 26, 2013, 03:16:35 PM
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.
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 :)
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 26, 2013, 05:17:22 PM
wait a minute wait a minute guys.lets first try to analyse what happens in a single battery attatched to a single motor.there is going to be a pulsed current going into the motor due to gaps in the brush contact-time thus what may appear as say 4amphours of steady amps going in is actualy 3amphours?its depends on the gapsize between the brush-motor contacts.if the gaps are tiny then this will be negligable.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 26, 2013, 05:28:51 PM
secondly,on a single bat with single motor,where will the backspikes go into,they must go straight back into the bat,am i right or am i right?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 26, 2013, 05:31:30 PM
Good point Tinman and I acknowledge that  you can not always use caps. However I guess my tolerance is low when I see how people equate gains relying on voltage readings and not understanding what is happening to the battery. I see this time and time again. In the long term it never works out.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 05:32:58 PM
Gentlemen,
I didn't come here to get into a pissing contest, and that is what this is turning into. If you choose not to believe, that is up to you. I learned long ago that when someone doesn't believe they will always call your results into question one way or another and you will spend all your time trying to convince them. I have no time to waste on you. It is YOUR loss, not mine. I felt like I owed the folks here something as this is where my journey began, but I feel like I have paid that debt by coming here, sharing the links to our research, and reporting that we now have a stable system. Other than that, I feel no need to prove myself. My proof is on my bench.


Hoppy, since you have built the thing, I WILL respond to what you said. The original 3BGS was a hit and miss proposition, and only the really dedicated folks who searched through dozens of bad batteries ever found one that would work for even a while. I applaud their efforts and YOURS for building the thing. I completely agree that dead, lifeless batteries may hold a lot of potential under that layer of sulfating and that even though they SHOW low voltage they can contribute to a system. But every battery has an amp hour rating. If you take the POSSIBLE amp hours of all the batteries in the schematic and add them all together, ad then exceed that by 10 or 20 times and still have a full charge in the primaries, would you THEN believe there is something to this? Because that is exactly what we are doing. I showed the amp draw of the motors we are running connected to load here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5O5Cn7Nug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw5O5Cn7Nug)   The only reason we are not getting MORE out of the system is because we are shutting it down. The batteries are still fully charged, and it could run much longer.  I only run mine for 10 hours at a time, because it is in the basement right under my bedroom and the possibilities of a fire during the night in a room right below where I sleep is not a comforting thought. Plus, this old house has no insulation in the floors so the only thing separating me from the noise of the running motor is 3/4 inch oak floorboards. In some places I can see light in the basement through the cracks.


I am not asking you to believe what I am saying. Not my videos, not my measurements, not my posted results. ALL of those can be faked. I am saying spend a few bucks and see for yourself. If you are not willing to do that then it is YOUR problem and you are probably not interested in knowing the truth anyway.


I am not going to be coming back here to post. I have no desire to argue with people. I have research to do. If you want to know the truth, follow what we are doing here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10610-3-battery-generating-system-78.html)


You can skip all the way to page 78, because that is where we begin to talk about the modified 3BGS, and that is what you would want to build. Way easier to tune and you can see the results quickly. But be warned, the folks over there---all of them have systems they have seen work. So YOU will be the odd man out.


Good luck all.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 26, 2013, 06:58:40 PM
@ Hoppy
that was a good explanation. You can also add surface charging effect and also pitting the surface increasing the overall surface area of the plates which actually increases output for some time. Long term the battery will have a much shortened lifespan.


@ Profitis.......correct


@ Dbowling
No pissing contest, just pointing out some potential flaws in your assumptions and measuring methodologies based on past experience. I am trying to help you.
Your posts, research and experiments are much valued I am sure by many and contribute to the collective knowledge.
However when you make claims, they will be peer reviewed and challenged. Packing up you bat and ball as a form of punishment is both immature and childish. However that is always your decision. You talk about belief and relying on only building up number of believers vs collective knowledge is always a dangerous path to follow if you are seeking the truth and progress.
All the best and kind regards
Mark

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 26, 2013, 07:20:40 PM
David,

Thank you for responding to my post. I do not write lightly about my doubt over the 3BGS system being overunity. Like you I have spent much time studying this system and must support you insofar as the system appearing to be overunity in the way it reacts. You will have noticed that when the 'bad' battery is loaded, the two good batteries can hold rigid on their terminal voltages for a long time. When the load is removed from the 'bad' battery, you will also have noticed that as the bad battery charges, there is a very slight alteration in the levels of the two good batteries, especially when measured with a meter showing 3-decimal places. Each successive loading and charging of the 'bad' battery results in a slight lowering of the 'good batteries'.

Now, consider the charging and discharging curves of an LA battery. We have a somewhat conditioned 'bad' battery and two well conditioned 'good' batteries. When the two 'good' batteries are charging the unloaded 'bad' battery, its terminal voltage will rise quite quickly (steep rise of charging curve) as it is still in a poor condition. However the two good batteries are now on load and are operating in a more solid (flat portion) of their discharge curves and will show much less rate of voltage change than the 'bad' battery. In order to establish a true measurement of ampere hours extracted from the system to ampere hours supplied to the system, then it is necessary to measure battery capacities. It is not good enough to assume that just because the motor has drawn 11 Amps for 'x' time and that the 'good batteries have only dropped a few hundredths of a volt in that time period and just because the batteries pop back to the voltage they started at before the test run, that 'free energy' is at play. Now, I'm not saying that your system is not running OU, just that until a more robust measuring system is put into place, this cannot be assumed to be the case. The more batteries introduced into the system, the more complex the measuring situation becomes!

My suggestion for starters would be to purchase a good quality battery analyser that measures capacity. This will not be highly accurate but should give you a better idea of how your system balances with varying loads. A written test procedure would be helpful to provide some testing benchmarks.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 26, 2013, 09:16:44 PM
"It is not good enough to assume that just because the motor has drawn 11 Amps for 'x' time and that the 'good batteries have only dropped a few hundredths of a volt in that time period and just because the batteries pop back to the voltage they started at before the test run, that 'free energy' is at play."


Hoppy, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the five batteries I am using only have so many amp hours of energy in them, and this is according to their amp hour rating. When the system has run a load for ten or twenty times that number of amp hours, somebody should be taking a look at that system,  whether the primary batteries are full (as is my contention) or whether they are flatter than a pancake. I have taken brand new off the shelf batteries, topped them off with a charger, let them rest for a few hours,  and run the same load on them. I know how long they will run that load before they won't run no more. I have done that not once, but several times to get an "average." I don't care about how much voltage is left in my batteries, or even what I started with or ended with. All I care about is how much load I can run for how long compared to a standard setup, and I am telling you the modified 3BGS beats that by miles and miles and miles.


i am not taking my ball and going home. I just don't have the time to argue this all day long with folks who are never going to believe and want me to constantly jump through hoops to prove I am not full of crap. I am on the 3BGS forum all day long. You can find me there any time. I am ALREADY running a test for someone called "Skeptic" over on that site. I am measuring the specific gravity of every cell in the primary batteries. Then running a load for ten times as long as it would run connected to the five batteries I am using if all five were fully charged, according to their amp hour rating and the load I am running. And then measuring the specific gravity of the cells in the primary batteries again. But he doesn't get it either. It is not about what voltage I started with or what remains, it is about how much WORK was done. If I can do ten or twenty times more work than is POSSIBLE with these batteries, where did that energy come from?  We already know that the motor has a 12 volt input and an 18 volt output wired between the positives in this setup, so that is where SOME of it is coming from, but we are seeing way more work than we can account for. Believe or don't believe. Contribute or don't contribute. Build or don't build. All your choice. I am not running away from your disbelief. I just don't have the time to waste trying to prove to you it works. Someone will ALWAYS want one more test.  Build it and do your OWN tests. I did what I came here to do, and now I am leaving. Come join us, or DON'T.


You know where to find me.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 26, 2013, 09:50:19 PM
@bowling..p.s. i hope your lead acids are totaly sealed when running my friend.if there is the slightest air inlet anywhere they will exceed the stated amphour ratings by quite a margin due to oxygen gas taking over as oxidizer when PbO2 runs out at the cathode.specific gravity tests on the acid should reveal much info yes.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 26, 2013, 11:09:46 PM
David,

You say " I know how long they will run that load before they won't run no more."

To get a fair comparison of running 'on system' to 'off system' the same running conditions would need to be copied in terms of actual running times, rest times and loadings. It makes a lot of difference running a load continuously to intermittently in terms battery life. To do this a lot of data needs to be taken when running on the 3BGS before a fair 'off system' comparison could be attempted. Another factor is load sharing. The 'Peukert' effect comes into play here, where batteries in the system are being drained unequally, as would be the case with a 3BGS setup. Some batteries could be loaded under their C20 rating and some in excess of this rating. Running a load under the C20 rating will add 'virtual' capacity to a battery, whereas running over will decrease nominal capacity where this is based on the C20 loading.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 27, 2013, 12:54:14 AM
You people never cease to amaze me. No matter WHAT I say, you are going to come back with something else. I ran the exact test you are talking about. I ran loads that are FAR below the C20 rate of discharge. I ran both systems for the same amount of time. I let them rest for the same amount of time before running again. This is all documented on the thread at EF.


But you know what? I didn't need to do that test AT ALL. It says right on the battery what its amp hour rating is. If I know the amp hour consumption of my load, I know how many amp hours it will run on ANY battery under PERFECT conditions, which include temperature, charge, discharge rate, blah, blah, blah. If I give EVERY battery the absolute benefit of the doubt and assume it puts out the MAX amp hours listed on the battery, which we all know it doesn't, the modified 3BGS can take those EXACT SAME batteries and run that same load for 10 or 20 times as long. And I say the primaries are still fully charged at the end. But does it REALLY matter if they are?


If I leave here, I give you guys the last word, and I hate that, but that's the way it goes, and I have better things to do. I can't say this has been fun, because all it does is annoy me, but like I said, I felt I owed it to some folks. I have paid that debt, so you guys DO get the last word. I am always at EF on the 3BGS thread. Stop on by.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 27, 2013, 01:37:29 AM
@bowling your only true friend will be the specific gravity tests.do them and do them carefuly.they are the only measurements that wont lie to you .every single lead atom that burns will consume an acid molecule and deplete its concentration.you can calculate to perfection exactly how much power was spent this way.make dam sure the vents are shut tight when running and when you open them for samples,close them quick afterward.dont ever leave them open too long,the lead sponge wants to suck air in and self-discharge.Pb+O+H2SO4=PbSO4+H2O
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 27, 2013, 01:40:39 AM
@hoppy dont worry about all that.the only thing we need to know are the specific gravity results.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 27, 2013, 02:47:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 27, 2013, 09:49:49 AM
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,

A motor draw of 2 Amps as opposed to your meter reading of 11 Amps is much more in line with your previously quoted 18+ hours run time. A robust testing procedure is clearly called for making sure that all run times and rest times are accurately recorded and test equipment is fit for purpose and calibrated. In addition to taking SG readings as suggested by Profitis to get an accurate state of charge, a battery analyser would also be helpful to remove guesswork as to actual battery capacities, especially for those not using FLA's.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on July 27, 2013, 01:51:23 PM

Good for you, David. It would be great if everyone would report their problems and errors as well as their successes and positive results.  Criticism from others is often valuable in pointing out problems that we ourselves might miss. Learning comes from analyzing failures, more than from celebrating successes, in my opinion.
I wish you happiness and peace.
 8)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 27, 2013, 02:04:40 PM
backspikes will probably blunten the 4ward reading of ammeters somewhat i guess.depends where the energy of the bakspike is going.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 28, 2013, 03:13:52 AM
@David
The journey is more important than the result.
I applaud you for looking ore carefully at your instrumentation and your methodology. There are many wise, experienced and qualified people here who can assist with advice and experience.
In majority of  cases I have personally seen and been part of testing it came down to measurement errors or poor instrumentation.
The other is making assumptions what a motor or generator is drawing unloaded.


It is good you acknowledge mistakes, that is how we learn and move on.


One suggestion I always make to inventors ....track and try to explain the energy cycle. Where does it come from?


Many of us who you were thinking were criticizing were actually trying to help, some of us  lack diplomacy skills




I wish you the best
Kind Regards



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 28, 2013, 06:52:36 AM
Guys,
I am not concerned simply because not only have I been running this thing for five years, but I have done many test runs where I DIDN'T have an issue with correct measurements of the amp draw. Not only that, but I have a friend who has a battery analyzer that costs way more than I can afford, and he has done runs of HIS 3BGS setup and checked the batteries. And I know what those results were. So the fact that the data was messed up on one test really doesn't concern me. I was very excited about the data, but I still have faith in this system. Anyone who has built the original 3BGS and gotten the right "bad" third battery  (you can go through a LOT before you do!!) will tell you that until that 3rd battery begins to take a charge, you can pull almost unlimited energy out of this system. If you can balance the load on the motor with the load on battery three, you can stretch that time out, but eventually it comes to an end. Sometimes it will last for minutes. Sometimes a day or even a couple weeks. But it always ends when that bad battery begins to charge up. We have Fixed more bad batteries than I care to count. Balancing the load on the motor with the load on battery three was the other big problem with the system. It was extremely difficult to do.


We have a new, modified 3BGS setup that actually uses 5 batteries instead of three, like the original, and I have only tested it in short runs. I did over a dozen runs of from 30 to 60 minutes, without recharging the primaries.Because of their length, they are inconclusive. Although, every time the ending voltage in the primaries was higher than the start voltage. The two LONG runs I did of this new system are the ones that I got inaccurate data from. The best part about the new system is it is easy to keep in balance, and the bad batteries don't seem to take a charge for a really long time, although if you let it get out of balance, "POW", bad battery restored and primaries drop in voltage. So it is looking like our two major issues may be solved. With the old setup I might get one run out of thirty where I could get charging on the primaries, With this new setup, I get it EVERY time. So I am VERY excited.


I have an issue with the connection between the motor and the generator on my current setup, and I have just wound four coils for the generator, which up to now was just a dead weight load on the motor that served no purpose. Tomorrow I will attempt to fix the shaft issue. If I get that done, I will be ready to do a long run of the setup on Monday when I can be around to watch it all day long. The batteries SHOULD be conditioned by then and ready to go. I will be buying four new meters at Harbor Freight first thing on Monday also, as well as a battery analyzer. They have one on sale for $60 that will measure the cold cranking amps of the battery as it sits. I believe that should tell you what you want to know.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 28, 2013, 07:53:40 AM
@ 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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 28, 2013, 10:27:39 AM
@ 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.

David,

Just make sure you don't fool yourself with innacurate data and continue to have fun.

With regards to the scooter motors, be aware that many of the used ones are defective. I have repaired dozens of speed controllers for a local retailer who imported rubbish scooters from China. In many cases, when the motors of the model that you are using were stripped-down, they were found to have burnt windings and did not run as freely as they should have. My advice therefore is not to use secondhand motors!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 28, 2013, 06:29:01 PM
markdansie,


You still aren't understanding me. Whether the meter I use is a $5,000.00 meter or a toy from Radio Shack doesn't matter. A meter is just a tool to help give me information. What maters is results.


Wil my setup run a known load of significance (for instance the motor I have that is pulling 2.5 watts of power) for MANY times longer than is possible when you look at the POSSIBLE amp hours of run time on the five batteries used in the system. I have 69 POSSIBLE amp hours of power, so my motor should be able to run it for 33.6 hours under PERFECT conditions. Now if I can run it for 66 hours or 99 hours and the primaries are still full, I believe I have something. But I am not going to stop there. I am just going to let it run until it stops running, and we will see. I DO need an accurate meter to measure the amps being consumed by the motor, but give me a break, do you really think the amp reading is going to be so far off that my results will be THAT tainted just because I used a meter from Harbor Freight?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 28, 2013, 06:34:36 PM
Hoppy,


I just found out the hard way about those Razor Scooter motors. There are so many "knock offs" out there that like like them and you can't tell the difference because so many different company make that same motor. I am USUALLY rewinding them anyway, to build different configurations of pulse motors, but this ONE time I was trying to run the off the shelf motor and it blew up in my face. (Not literally)


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 28, 2013, 08:17:24 PM
@David
the other devices i also reviewed, tested or other wise also got up to 5 x the run time or power output over the battery ratings, so I do understand what you are seeing.This is for a lot of reasons both I and others have listed, but you only see what you want to see,
That is fine, I am sure in another 5 years we will have the same conversation
I am not sure you  understand or why you ignor others who have a gone before you (and in some cases after)
Mark
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: mscoffman on July 28, 2013, 08:24:35 PM
DBowling,
 
You tend to talk too much. :-) You should be showing computer generated graphs.
 
My tendancy is to roughly monitor the voltage on each battery using the CV control
voltage inputs on multiple CMOS NE555's one for each battery. Feed the digital AC into
a capacitively coupled multiplexor to a computer controller like an Audino so that it
can keep track of the voltage on each battery.
 
Then use the computer controller to reconfigure the circuit using latching relays
(which draw power only when being reconfiured) to discharge the excess energy
into a headlamp load with high and low voltage setpoints. As the system
recharges itself the charge/discharge frequency will increase as the system
reaches maximum charge at which time the the load can be run for a very long
time to discharge the batteries to a nice low level. Then start the recycling
recharge again. Where is the excess energy to recharge the system coming
from?
 
Whether it works with capacitors or not, is dependent on whether LENR in
the Acid/Lead battery is where the extra energy is coming from, or is being
static-electricity voltage downconverted from. So that is worth a try, but
show it with the graphics, that is.
 
Don't tell critics about it...show them about it.
 
:S:MarkSCoffman
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 28, 2013, 08:42:59 PM
Marl,
I appreciate that. It will take me some time and some money to put that all together, but that sounds like a worthwhile setup to use for testing. I will see what I can do. And you are right. I get excited and talk WAY too much. ;-)


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 30, 2013, 01:00:48 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 30, 2013, 03:31:53 AM
idono man idono.maybe that 3rd bat isnt needed at all.maybe because of backspiking any bat would register a longer amphour on any motor straight.a semi-recycling of energy going on.much like any inductor circuit on this website.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 30, 2013, 03:36:38 AM
The third battery serves a purpose. It provides a potential difference to run current through the motor from high 24 volt side to low (bad battery) side with minimal losses except heat and friction. I mistakenly put in here a fact that was about the motor, not battery three, and have edited it out. For those who already read it. Sorry, my mistake. Trying to type while my godson was running around, and I am babysitting.


DAve
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 30, 2013, 09:26:45 AM
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

A good battery tester / analyser is not cheap. A scope will only give you voltage readings, which will not tell you the capacity at the start and end of the test run. You need to have SG readings and / or capacity readings for both of your good batteries. Voltage readings will not give you the info you need. Plot out the full discharge voltage curves for your good batteries and look at them carefully to see why voltage readings alone cannot easily tell you what capacity you have lost over a given time period.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on July 30, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
@ 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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 30, 2013, 11:27:40 AM
no no @markdansie.a specific gravity test will reveal exactly how much power is being burned,regardless of surface area changes.we demand a highly sensitive specific gravity test before and after runs.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 30, 2013, 12:02:39 PM
@ 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

Mark,

I was careful in suggesting that the 'good' batteries are capacity and SG measured to show David that there is capacity removed despite the terminal voltages showing little drop. The bad sulfated battery would be rejected on the analyser anyway of course. However, as Profitis points out, SG readings taken on the bad battery before and after a test run will give a good indication of its state of charge.

You are correct about new batteries that can suffer life reduction through radiant / spike conditioning. This is especially the case with SLABS which have pasted lead plates, where the plates can be damaged by  aggressive conditioning.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on July 30, 2013, 09:37:01 PM
@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.if this man,s s.g. hasnt changed or increased after these runs then we have a serious serious issue here.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 30, 2013, 09:51:01 PM
@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.

Agreed, a battery does not gain or relinquish power, it takes and relinquishes charge to gain or loose capacity.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on July 31, 2013, 10:10:53 AM
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.

I use a Specific Gravity Tester and I have done similar experiments as they are doing quite some time ago, I have observed many strange looking effects but always if a load is run the charge of the batteries as a group is lowered.

Here is a test setup I made some time ago, to "loop" current in a kind of a Tesla Switch or Potential - Switch as I like to call the arrangement. The difference in potential created with three batteries arranged in the three battery "Switch" configuration simply allows loads to run between two positive battery terminals or between two negative battery terminals, there may be some benefits to doing that but none produce free energy. I think the setup in my video is quite efficient and self adjusting. But not of much practical use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YHlA0BNl7M

It must be remembered that the third battery on the load side is in fact part of the load on the other two series batteries, it also provides an opposing emf which could be considered as a counter emf which is somewhat dynamic. The motor or load is just that a motor as a load. it's spikes may well aid in reducing sulfation and allowing the release of "trapped in " charge.

Cheers
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on July 31, 2013, 03:27:41 PM
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

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.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on July 31, 2013, 09:10:24 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on August 01, 2013, 09:41:34 AM
That is a reasonable and good plan Dave.
Steps 1 (!) and 5 are especially important.

Hopefully, the results of your test will
provide some concrete evidence or clues
about what may be taking place.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 01, 2013, 11:00:29 AM
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

David,

No need to rush this. You need to decide on how to set this up for the 3BGS and how you will interpret the results.  There are many variables, so it is difficult to set up a control group to compare results against and to be honest after much thought, I don't think that there is a practical way of showing beyond any reasonable doubt that the 3BGS does or does not gain 'free' energy from an external source. However, by carefully recording start and finish of the three battery SG levels, it should be possible to determine how much capacity has been lost from the 'good' batteries and gained by the 'bad' battery over the course of a test run. If the test is repeated with the 'good' batteries in various states of charge, it should also be possible to get a better picture of system performance over a realistic portion of their discharge curves. More importantly, it should give a better idea as to whether this system has any practical application, given the control measures that are currently needed to be carried out manually to 'balance' the system. In an ideal situation, if excess energy were entering the system big time, then the system SG losses and gains should I think at least balance.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on August 01, 2013, 02:37:25 PM
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.

Yes Hoppy, In the Tesla Switch thread at EF I posted a number of somewhat complicated "Tesla Switch" type arrangements, mostly involving the use of transformers or inverters employing a "switch Back" type of "Dual Entwined, Two-four phase"  kind of principal, like two - three battery "switch setups" but out of phase using only four batteries.  ;D. I ought to be able to post a pic of one of those and someone might like to use some part of the idea, and anyone is welcome to. It's open.  :)

It is an interesting area to experiment in and I do wish Dave and the guys well with their research. I also respect that Dave is 100% genuine.

Cheers

P.S. I do apologize for not producing drawings as yet, a recent rearrangement of files is making finding some things difficult.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on August 01, 2013, 03:46:06 PM
Below is some diagrams I made, the colored arrows (triangles) after a diode is a flyback output and a colored arrow facing a wire is the corresponding input. Dashed lines represent power currents, the colored sections of the torus represent the primary coils, and the setup would have a secondary constituting a transformer or inverter. It could be however many phases. I've a few drawing but I'll just post the one and the sketch.  :)

The sketch is of how a motor could be run from caps in a similar way to the video contraption I posted.   :-[ Disregarding the silly way I drew the motor itself, the power part and potential difference is the point to it.  ;)

And for good measure a Brandt Switch drawing.



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 01, 2013, 04:01:00 PM
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. Just start it up and let it continue to run. The motor pulls just over two amps and may pull more with coils on the generator. I'll find that out today. At some point, if the thing runs for days, people are going to have to admit that the power to keep that motor running is coming from somewhere other than the batteries. Especially when I will be running somewhere between 18 and 50 watts off the inverter at the same time. How long would it have to run to convince YOU??


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 01, 2013, 05:30:18 PM
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

David,

If you are confident about this, then you need to detail exactly how you intend to work out how many ampere hours have been extracted from your primary batteries, given that the mechanical loading on the motor(s) and any applied electrical loading (such as an inverter) on the batteries will be variable over the duration of the run. The rate and level of current draw from your batteries will affect the run time (ref: virtual capacity - Peukerts Law). Also, How do you intend to properly measure the current drawn by the motor? Think in terms of using a power analyser which will give you total watt/hours, which can then be converted to Amp hours by using the average secondary battery voltage measured over the duration of the test. See this link for examples of power analysers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkldBzc-Vs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkldBzc-Vs)

With an instrument of this type, you will also be able to determine the amount of energy in w/hrs delivered to the primary batteries during the charging process. This energy of course needs to be taken into account when working out the overall efficiency of the system.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 01, 2013, 07:05:12 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 01, 2013, 07:18:53 PM
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

Good move. I mentioned overall system efficiency. You need to have some benchmarks as to when you re-charge and measure the input energy to your your primary batteries and a consistent re-charge period between test cycles. This is where the SG level may be a better benchmark than voltage levels, assuming you can measure this accurately enough. The system COP will tell you how close to unity your system is running. This is not a straightforward procedure and as I mentioned earlier, it may be difficult to determine if any free energy is entering the system, especially as I predict the COP will be nowhere near as high as you are expecting.

Please document your test procedure and your measurements for each test cycle, preferably in spreadsheet format, so that all interested parties can use these measurements as a basis for conducting their own tests for comparative purposes. This should encourage more people to come on board to build their own 3BGS systems.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 01, 2013, 07:49:28 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on August 01, 2013, 08:21:32 PM
those s.g. results ought to be very revealing bowt whats going down dave.im holdin thumbs
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 01, 2013, 08:31:29 PM
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


David,

Its important to know how much energy you have put into the batteries before starting a run and have a benchmark as to when to stop the run even if you only do one long run. Otherwise, you do not know how much energy is stored in the battery to begin with in order to calculate COP. I have no doubt that you can run it for a really long time but how long is longer than should be expected for those batteries,  if you don't know what energy you started off with! You can't charge your good batteries from nil capacity or run them down to nil capacity (unless you want to add them to your bad battery pile), so you need a benchmark as to how long the system runs before you system starts eating into the charge that was already in the batteries before you charged them. Otherwise, your results could be really skewed. How do you propose to establish this benchmark?

Hoppy
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 01, 2013, 09:17:59 PM
I have run this motor/gen combination off a fully charged battery until that battery would no longer run the motor. I did this half a dozen times with these brand new lawn and garden batteries and they were all within minutes of each other in run times. I posted those run times already somewhere on EF, but the times are in my notebook. When I have six batteries and they all run the motor for about the same length of time on a full charge, I ASSUME that is about how long they should run that load. Yes, I know SOME batteries might be able to run the load longer, but...TWO of these are the SAME two batteries I am using as my primaries. Now, you have to admit, When they were brand new and fully charged they should have run this motor/gen combo for longer than they will now that I have totally abused them by draining them until they would no longer run the load. So I KNOW how long the good batteries will power this load under the best of circumstances. Now I am adding 4 coils to the generator, which will make it run harder and draw more amps. I am adding the two dead batteries and the buffer battery that is a GOOD battery but has been purposely drained down to 12 volts. I will measure the specific gravity of each cell of all of these before I start.


By the way, that is how I have figured out how long ALL of my batteries should run my load. I bought ten of the 18 1/2 amp hour batteries and used each one to run the motor until it wouldn't run any more. Recorded those run times. Yes, some run the load a little longer than others, but not HOURS longer, NOT days longer, and certainly not WEEKS longer. I took four of those batteries I wanted to kill and recharged them; then did that process over and over and over until they became my "bad" batteries for my experiments. And I recorded THOSE run times too. So I have a fairly GOOD idea of how long a brand new battery will run my motor as a load. Yes there are exceptions to the rule, but they don't happen every time. That's why it's called an exception. With this setup you get those long run times EVERY TIME. That is why I believe there is something there. But...we will see.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 01, 2013, 10:30:56 PM

David,

I hear what you say and hope that you can verify this by taking and recording energy measurements.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2013, 05:27:03 AM
If you guys are watching the thread at EF, you will see that we have a fairly stable setup that is able to run loads while keeping the primary charged and in some cases increasing the voltage in the primaries. The issue is, it will NOT work with lead acid batteries, only with AGM. Can anyone suggest a test that would satisfy everyone using AGM batteries? I would be happy to conduct that test and post the results. I don't know that measuring the specific gravity of AGM batteries will give folks the proof they are looking for.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2013, 12:23:17 PM
AGM batteries are just Lead-Acid batteries with glass fiber mats, sort of like sponges, to hold the electrolyte and to permit H and O recombination, like other SLAs, so no water needs to be added like you have to with flooded LA batteries.

The chemistry is the same as ordinary Lead-Acid batteries, except for the recombination... and this is the same for all SLAs whether they have glass mats, gels, or other electrolyte retention systems.

So what is the explanation for why this system only works with AGM batteries and not other SLAs?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: markdansie on August 08, 2013, 12:46:24 PM
@TK
most people do not  know that AGM batteries have Unobainium in them. This enable many thing never thought possible before.
Kind Regards
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2013, 03:49:19 PM
We have no idea why it only works with AGM's. All we know is that there are some really dedicated folks in this group who have tried it with both, including myself, and it does NOT work with FLA's. That does not mean it won't work with SLA's which are basically just AGM's, but so far no one has tried that. We are trying to keep everyone informed so that folks who are trying to replicate are NOT wasting their time, and what we are seeing is that FLA's don't work.


Dave


I am going to go ahead and run the tests I said I would run with the FLA's, and then run the same tests with my AGM's, and post the results of both. That we we can rule out FLA's if that is what needs to be done, and focus on AGM's in the future.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2013, 04:56:30 PM
Well, just yesterday you said it would only work with AGMs. So now you are saying that you don't really know that, because you haven't tested all other types of batteries.  OK, that's fine with me.

Now... it doesn't work with the FLAs that people have tried. So your conclusion is that it doesn't work with FLAs. I can think of another conclusion, but never mind.

Eventually I suppose it will come down to something like,  it doesn't work with _my_ AGMs, only _yours_.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on August 08, 2013, 05:30:46 PM
Just to make myself perfectly clear.. I had an original setup that I have been working with for five years. That setup worked FOR ME on AGM's so in my original instructions I said it ONLY worked on AGM's because I did not want people trying other kinds of batteries and having NO success and thinking I was full of crap. Over the course of five years people DID try it on other kinds of batteries and some reported success with both SLA's and FLA's, so we modified the original information to include those kinds of batteries, but also said it worked BEST on AGM's. I never tried ANYTHING but AGM's until recently with that setup, and with mixed results.


Recently we have come up with a CHANGE in that original circuit. Instead of three batteries it uses five. We have seen success with this new circuit ONLY with AGM's. People have tried FLA's and had NO SUCCESS. We have NO reports of success with SLA's. So at this time we are NOT SUPPORTING the idea that it works with SLA's or FLA's.


TinselKoala,
If you try it with CONDITIONED AGM's as we have said and it doesn't work for you, you will be the first person it HASN'T worked for that has reported in, so please report your results be they positive OR negative.


I did not believe in all this "free energy crap" when I ran my first experiment with my original setup. I thought it was pretty funny stuff. Another guy and I were just killing some time. But I cannot discount the tests I have run over the last five years. YOU can discount them because you have not run them, and I don't blame you one tiny bit. People need to see this for themselves. That's why I brought this to the forums in the first place. But it is absolutely AMAZING to me how many people automatically discount every word I say without taking the time to try this for themselves...just so they could come back here and tell me I am full of crap if for no OTHER reason.  And then they want ME to run all kinds of experiments to prove I am right, when they aren't going to believe my results no matter WHAT they are anyway. It's all a big game.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on August 08, 2013, 06:25:23 PM
David,

I think it will be difficult for you to get any conclusive results from testing and measuring AGM's. As I mentioned earlier, a battery analyser will give a good idea of how much capacity is lost from the primary battery set but this will not be anywhere near a precise measurement. Nonetheless, its worth doing, so that at least you have some test data. Quite how you determine how much 'unlocked' energy from the dead batteries in your five battery setup is helping run the loads, I don't know.

What will be important for those that have witnessed the manifestation of this abundant free energy, is how to harness it to power a practical application.

Hoppy
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on October 19, 2013, 06:05:55 PM
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


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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on October 19, 2013, 11:53:58 PM
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

David,

Please post a diagram on this thread showing the configuration of batteries and motors etc that you are currently using, together with notes on battery conditions necessary to fulfill requirements for a stable setup. I'm sure a few of us would like to come on board with experimentation.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 20, 2013, 12:45:56 AM
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.

!) 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 ?

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.

Logic and common sense says that for it to come out it must first go in, unless something is created from nothing.

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.

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.

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 ?

..

   
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on October 20, 2013, 01:43:28 AM
Farmhand,
I see you on various threads here and at EF, carefully explaining why OU is not possible. Don't you ever get tired of being so negative all the time? Why it's almost as if someone was PAYING you to be so negative. LOL. But you have outdone yourself this time. If my device doesn't put out as much energy as it took to manufacture the wire and steel and the batteries it was made from it is not a real free energy device?? You have truly lost it! I can't wait to copy and paste what you posted here onto the thread at EF. They are gonna laugh until it hurts.


Either you BELIEVE OU is possible, or you don't. Having seen it for myself on many, many occasions, I have no trouble AT ALL believing it is possible. Now that doesn't mean I buy in to 99.9 percent of the nonsense that is on these forums, because I don't. Unless I can see it with my own eyes and touch it with my own two hands, you would have a heck of a time convincing me it is for real. Now as to your question, how can you get more out that in?


Have you ever been on a sailboat? If you set your sail just right, you can take advantage of the wind that blows and get more work out than YOU put into the system. With the 3BGS, we have built a sail that collects the free flux that is all around us. Believe it or don't. I could care less. If you take the time to build it, you will see.
How does putting a capacitor across a diode raise the voltage drop that occurs across a diode? The voltage is lower on the output side - so where does the energy come from to raise it when you put a capacitor across it?[/font][/size]
The ambient itself raises the voltage on the output side plate of the capacitor to raise it to match the input side of the capacitor thus raising the voltage across the diode and negating the voltage drop across the diode. You did not supply this energy - the ambient did so for you. This is the kinetic ambient background aether that Tesla talks about. Because it is kinetic, you can get it to do work for you by leading it about via electrostatic charges. That's all we are doing. [/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
I know you've seen the thread at EF. You wouldn't come on there and spout this drivel because there are FAR TOO MANY of us on the 3BGS thread who have seen this work and YOU know it. Instead, you come over here where few people know about it and try and put a damper on getting folks involved. Silly man! It's far too late for THAT!![/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
We have already figured out that you can flip the magnetic polarity on a battery, and when you do, you create a negative resistor that sucks in the flux and allows you to use it as energy to run loads. All we're working on now is a consistent method for flipping that magnetic polarity. Too many of us have seen it happen with the 3BGS for anyone to stop us now. Too many of us have had setups that ran for hours or days or weeks. With the folks we have working on it, it's only a matter of time, and then people like you who couldn't cut their way out of the box they are in with a chainsaw will be left way, way behind. [/font][/size]
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on October 20, 2013, 01:50:43 AM
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
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Bob Smith on October 20, 2013, 01:59:26 AM
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.

!) 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 ?
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. 
However, some of the builders of the 3 Battery Generating System are openly acknowledging that energy is coming into the system from the electrostatic environment itself.  Therefore, if more energy is coming out of the battery than what can be derived from its construction materials and charging, we need to consider other explanations as to the origin of this supposedly excess energy coming out of the battery.
Quote
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 ? 
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.
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. 

Quote
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. 
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
So what to do?  IF more energy seems to be coming OUT of the 3BGS than what went IN through its construction and charging, perhaps another explanation is needed, as I have explained above.
Quote
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,
  "Therefore logic tells us that any energy coming out of any device simply has to have gone into the device, either at some point previously, or during its actual time of operation, before it is possible for it to come out."
Quote
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 ?
..
Again, I believe that without an additional temporal frame of reference (i.e., "or during its actual time of operation"), your question, although interesting, fails to take into account key factors which might explain the 3BGS operation.  Without including these factors in your own analysis of this system, I am afraid your efforts to understand it will be an exercise in frustration. 

Bob
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Bob Smith on October 20, 2013, 02:44:00 AM
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
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.
Bob
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 20, 2013, 03:13:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 20, 2013, 03:55:50 AM
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.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 20, 2013, 08:04:21 AM
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.

Nothing to do with Over Unity or extra energy though.

Same thing over and over and over again. Power is not energy.

..
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.

In my mind, the impact of the tapper needs to be high as compared to the amount of vibration in the girder where the tapper was applied. Like when the building was in full shake, or swing, down below, where the tapper was applied, there most likely isnt much movement as compared to any parts of the building above that height. So how do we model that in an electronic circuit?

My first guess would be just for simplicity, we have a microwave oven transformer, where we make the large fine wire inductor with a cap as an LC. Then we have a ramp gen charge a tiny cap to a high voltage and discharge that cap into the primary winding, the low ohm winding, in time with the freq of the LC.

Now, if we were to figure out a mechanism to wind the tapper spring, what part of the building would we be able to extract enough motion from the building to wind the spring a bit at a time, without killing the source(the building in motion)? 

I would probably look to the top of the building, where the most motion is happening. If say the building is moving 6in, left to right, would using that force to wind the spring enough to keep the tapper going, would that be enough resistance or damping to kill the buildings movement? ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 20, 2013, 08:27:01 AM
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.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on October 20, 2013, 08:52:33 AM
Quote
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.

You have to take this story with a grain of salt.  The Hearst newspapers were notorious for "manufacturing" news in that era.  They have a term for it, "Yellow Journalism."  It was all about stirring up a frenzy in the public to sell newspapers.

The story also makes no sense.  How can soldiers marching in step cause a bridge to collapse?  The answer is that although they are setting of a harmonic vibration in the bridge, the key point is that for each step they inject more energy than the wobbling bridge can burn off, and hence the amplitude of the oscillation increases for each step.  When you put a small mechanical oscillator on a steel beam that is oscillating at the resonance frequency, the metal superstructure of the building burns off the energy.  So the resonant vibrations never have a chance to increase in amplitude.  It's just a nonsensical story.  It's the Yellow Journalism version of the opera singer shattering the wine glass (same principle involved.)

Can someone share a link with your best test results?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 20, 2013, 08:58:01 AM
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.

I had thought on making a half mechanical, half electronic to replace the tapper. I decided on a pendulum, but one with a flat metal spring in place of the pivot and just gravity. It would need a solid, heavy base and it can be mounted with the pivot point at the bottom in the base, like the building, or hung like a pen. I lean toward pivot  at the bottom. Also saves construction of a solid frame to pivot from above. ::) ;D

Then put a magnet on the pen, low, close to the base and a coil powered by a circuit to ping it. Then have magnets at the tip of the pen to induce coils to charge the ping circuit. The reason I would like to go the mechanical route is to just see if it could be looped, just as we imagine in Teslas demonstration. It would be interesting to see how much constant resistance or damping at the top of the building that it would take to prevent it from oscillating.  It may be intuitive to see where and how on the pen that the output should be extracted, which could give better insight on modeling the electronic version looped. It may be better to not extract from the tip. Maybe half way down is better. Maybe not when we consider the tiny input and where it is applied. ;) But it shouldnt be left out of the testing.

My Grandfather told me many times about his dad that had 2 motors connected at the shaft and was selfrunning back in the 1910s. He was threatened back then about it by gov and big oil. ;) It was 60 miles out of Pittsburgh where Tesla was working with Westinghouse. Great Grandad had dealings with Westinghouse also for his improvements on the airbrake system, a valve that allowed continuous use of the brakes, as before that they were not continuous use. So I got my influence early. Started with gravity devices in 7th grade. Ive been playing on and off ever since. Graduating into other forms along the way.  Ive settled toward solid state as a main goal, but still ponder motors, gens and mechanical and combinations there of.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 20, 2013, 10:07:37 AM
But don't forget that the building has an enormous amount of stored energy in it, by all the mass so high up. Much energy is expended to get the building high mass up there.
With Tesla's mechanical "tapper" the real high energy output would come when the building collapsed.  ;)

Any swaying in the top structure would be damped by the generation of electricity if ie. coils and magnets were used as a kind of linear generator and the resonant vibration of the structure if the structure was infinitely pliable (meaning it could sway all it wanted without braking and collapsing) then the oscillator "tapper" would not get the great mass of the building to oscillate past an equilibrium point due to loading and damping, lowering of the quality of the building as a "wobbling oscillator" for want of a better description.

I also agree with MileHigh, the story is probably overstated or exaggerated somewhat, as is the way of mere men.

I have no doubt a mechanical oscillator can in fact add the power of all of it's tiny input motions if the input "pulses" are in tune with the resonant frequency of the structure, and destroy it. In some situations. with others the requirements would be "out of range" of abilities.

It's nothing more than an accumulation of energy through resonance.

Any clams of a generator at the top would be OU should be proved before being taken as fact.

In the "unreal" situation that the building had no Mass of was completely inflexible not much would happen.

Here I admit to MileHigh that infinite's are in fact very useful for contemplation. 

..

Oh and convincing a single person means nothing more than you maybe convinced him, he could grown tired of it and just agreed to be done with the inconvenience of the exchange. Regardless convincing one particular person is not proof of anything much. Experiment could show the truth.

..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 20, 2013, 10:33:11 AM
I actually put together a three battery setup with a small motor some time ago which showed efficient looping.

Here is the video. Copy this over to EF David. This was only one of many experiments, It's a self regulating loop, based on potentials.
(Watch what happens when I load the motor with my fingers) (also note the power inputs when the coil discharges are reclaimed and when the transformer is used.)
(the switching circuit near the motor is a distraction, it does nothing). I say "there is some power drain" but note the final voltages of the batteries and if they are rising or falling after switching off certain things. There is no claim of over unity or extra energy in the video. Near the end I have a "dig" at the Muller dynamo crew.

Notice at the very end I disconnect the coil recovery charge wire to the series batteries and the input power to the transformer reduced, so collecting the coil discharges increased input in that setup. The transformer is single phase DC switched. Go figure.  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YHlA0BNl7M

This setup was put together way back before I knew much at all.

Cheers

P.S. On this particular type of setup I call a "potential switch" or "switch" or potential shifting loop circuit, I have put in a lot of thought and experiment.
It is quite interesting to me, however all my experiments pointed to increased battery capacity due to "unlocked energy in the batteries due to desulfation or battery rejuvenation. But that is not to say I am correct totally or even partially. Just what I think.

And I'm, not trying to say it useless or no point to experimenting with it. I'm just saying a great many things are at play. Not easy to say it cannot be unloced potential due to battery desulfation and rejuvenation.

..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on October 20, 2013, 12:28:18 PM
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

Dave,

Thanks for link to your current experimental battery setup.

I have experimented along the 'reverse polarity' lines and have managed to reverse the polarity of SLA batteries whilst they are loaded and being reverse charged from an SG or Tesla coil setup. I can get them to charge for a while whilst reading reverse polarity but this is only short term, as they always flip back at some point and after a couple or so reversals fail to do so. I'm not sure that it is a genuine charge and may more likely be a desulfation effect. The best candidates I have found are from UPS battery strips that have been replaced under maintenance. These typically contain 8 x 5A/hr 12V AGM SLA's, of which at least one of these has shorted cells. The rest can be quite serviceable with a little re-conditioning.  :) I have found that the 'bad' batteries are the best candidates for polarity reversal.  I hope you can find a way of using this reverse polarity battery vagary.

PS: The rudeness in post 2970 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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 20, 2013, 03:10:05 PM
One more time:  Hidden in PLAIN SIGHT:
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 20, 2013, 03:56:01 PM
Hidden in PLAIN SIGHT:
Tesla's OWN WORDS:
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 20, 2013, 04:27:24 PM
Another version of Tesla;s overunity earthquake machine:
In Tesla's own words:
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on October 20, 2013, 05:49:23 PM
Look at the quote, "It would only be necessary to step up the vibrations of the machine."

Tesla is just speaking in common sense terms.  Yes you can bring down a building by exiting it at it's resonant frequency.  But you have to put energy in at a rate above some power threshold to bring the building down.  It's not over unity, you are reading something into the text that is not there.  You need to filter out some of the outlandish claims in the articles and decipher the truth, just like you said.  The truth is right there in the articles.

Think of the wine glass again.  If you can sing the resonant note loud enough, the wine glass shatters.  If you are not loud enough, the wine glass will not shatter.

For any resonant system there are the losses in energy when it resonates and there is a breaking point.  You have to pump power in at a sufficient rate to overcome the losses and reach the breaking point.  It could be a wine glass or a building.  There is no over unity here. The power you pump in becomes heat and mechanical vibration.  The mechanical vibration can absorb and accumulate the energy you pump into the system.

There are always two complimentary components that store energy in a resonant system.  What are they for the wine glass?  What are they for the building?  When you explore these questions you can demystify resonance.

You can look at the two components from a bird's eye view and it looks like a spinning vector.  Think of an arrow spinning around on an axis.  They call it a phasor diagram.  An entire resonant system can be described by imagining a phasor rotating at a certain angular velocity.  The "shadow" that the rotating vector makes in the x and y directions describes two sine waves 90 degrees out of phase.  The correspond to the two complimentary components that store energy in a resonant system.

I found a graphic to show that.

MileHigh
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on October 20, 2013, 06:14:10 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on October 20, 2013, 08:32:11 PM
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

Very well explained and this description and diagrams show how resonance alone cannot be responsible for a device self-running assuming this is even possible.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 21, 2013, 05:49:23 AM
Hidden in PLAIN SIGHT:
Tesla's OWN WORDS:

A.King this is all off topic. But !

I would ask would you please elaborate what your understanding is of the meaning of the last underlined section of the snippet you attached ?

I am fairly sure I know the exact effect he refers to and can locate the description and full explanation from another source.

But I'll wait to see what exactly you are saying you think it actually means in more detail.

You link this stuff and things are implied but you are not saying exactly what your understanding of the text is. I think it pertinent to explain what you think any highlighted sections you present mean as you see it. I know when I link stuff like that I at least try to explain what I think it means. As a point of reference for mutual understanding it's vital in my opinion.

Cheers

P.S. What exactly is it that you are saying is "Hidden in plain sight" ? Please explain.

..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 21, 2013, 06:29:20 AM
Quote from: MileHigh
Yes you can bring down a building by ex[c]iting it at it's resonant frequency.

That may have been possible at the turn of the
century but modern buildings are constructed
with extensive damping to eliminate any possible
destructive resonances.

Bridges too.  Especially very long suspension bridges.

By the way:  MileHigh was beat(en) by Ruslan the Siberian
Rocky.  Tenth round TKO.  It was a great fight.

Quote from: Hoppy
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.

Well said Hoppy!  In fact, it is possible that the
"co-founder/moderator" there encourages such
immature communication.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 21, 2013, 06:30:21 AM
I will need time to locate the actual explanation from Tesla, my reason is I am ill and have a bit of a memory blank but I know it's in one of four documents that he speaks his own words in and explains it well.

Anyway for the time being I have made a sketch to show what I think he is getting at.  ;)

With a standing wave and resonance the potential available for a receiver increases with the distance towards the 1/4 WL.
But with a radiating transmitter the available power for a receiver drops with distance always.

Basically what you and many others have done is point to a section of words from Tesla's writings and claim it says he is getting Over Unity.

Not only is it a misunderstanding, but when it turns out to be shown to be not true or even possible it gives ammunition for people to say Tesla was mad and made wild claims, when in reality he did not even make the claims. In my opinion it's Anti Tesla to do things like that and I for one will speak against it. Too many people putting words into Tesla's mouth that he did not say. That's what I think.

..

To explain it further,
At point "O" not far from the Tesla transmitter there is only a little potential to tap.
At point "A" there is more.
At point "B" even more.
And if tuned spot on at the ground plate of the receiver is the maximum available potential to tap.

Current is relevant to potential (voltage) over resistance,
and power is voltage x current.

Energy transferred is a different thing entirely but is limited by the power.

P.S.


Try this below. Thought experiment.

Now take a Hairpin circuit and turn it on it's side tie one side to ground and analyze that.  ;D

EDIT: Umm also make the hairpin about 30 meters long in your mind,..... then make it as long as is the diameter of the planet.




..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: bboj on October 21, 2013, 07:23:46 AM
I agree with your explanation. What is accordig to you the medium that Tesla disturbed with his TMT?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Hoppy on October 21, 2013, 09:18:20 AM

 In fact, it is possible that the
"co-founder/moderator" there encourages such
immature communication.

I agree!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: forest on October 21, 2013, 09:36:05 AM
I agree with your explanation. What is accordig to you the medium that Tesla disturbed with his TMT?


Think! It's obvious. What is all around everyday in day and night and everywhere ? I have given explanation in 2009  >:( 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: bboj on October 21, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
My wife? But she was not arround at that time.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 22, 2013, 07:37:56 PM
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

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2013, 08:22:54 PM
SeaMonkey:

Your comments with respect to Hoppy's comments about rudeness on your EF thread:

Quote
Well said Hoppy!  In fact, it is possible that the
"co-founder/moderator" there encourages such
immature communication.

It's funny how selective we can be, eh?  Do you recall the recent extreme rudeness and immaturity by someone else when we were discussing alleged "chem trails?"  You didn't seem to have any issue with that, no attempt was made by you to discourage it at all, which implies that you passively encouraged it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 22, 2013, 08:26:31 PM
I'm not gonna respond to a-holes
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 22, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
I'm not gonna respond to a-holes

Ok fair enough, if that is your opinion of me then so be it, but I still don't know that is the case because you are still being vague even in that response.

What is it you mean by "a-holes" ? And who is the comment directed at ?

Anyway if it is me, then that is your opinion, but please do not try to use your opinion of me to hide behind, or use me as an excuse to avoid the issue and the valid question.

What is it that you are saying is hidden in plain sight ?

.........

Not to A.King.

And for the sake of a random comment. The insulting rhetoric and dismissive comments in the "Poll" thread about chemtrails, in my opinion originated from the side that is now complaining of it.

Here's a suggestion. Lets keep our opinions of each others psychological state to ourselves. Might help not to derail discussions into battles of who is bat crap crazy and who is not.  ;)

.. Just a suggestion.

..

P.S. To others, if A.King refuses to answer the question because I asked it then I respectfully request that some other person also asks for him to answer the question or poses the question themselves to him directly.

.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: bboj on October 22, 2013, 09:10:25 PM
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

Hi. Thanks for the response. I understand the principle of TMT and also the fact that he considers the earth as a conductor, but I allways had a problem with the 3d image of the disturbance. If we talk about the LC than that is an elecrtomagnetic field - an elastic electromagnetic field?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on October 22, 2013, 09:22:36 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 22, 2013, 09:27:52 PM
bboj, this is kinda off topic here, continued discussion on this subject should go to another thread, to respect the topic at hand for this thread, David deserves to have his thread topic respected.. Fairs fair. Umm and I think it's my bad so I must apologize to David. Sorry Dave.  :-[

I am quite willing to discuss how I "see" things and give my opinions in an appropriate thread, bboj, I actually really enjoy talking on the subject.  ;D

If you can jump this discussion to an appropriate thread then we can all discuss it, or at least those of us who wish to, can. Maybe a thread started by me is appropriate, I'll need to check.

Still not well, so I can't really do much at the moment other than "discuss" or "conceive".

Cheers
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 22, 2013, 09:35:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 23, 2013, 01:14:46 AM
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

"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."

If Farmhand believes in chem trails, then you are calling him a fool. What is nonsensical is making a statement like "The idea of chem trails is nonsensical foolishness" as if the "idea" and words like "nonsensical" and "foolishness", to describe what exactly? A rock? A wall? A wall and a rock, with ideas, a lack of sense and full of foolishness??? Then basically telling the person you are saying that to, that you didnt mean them, even though they believe in chem trails while being in the same conversation??  Yeah right. :P ;D

"A.king made some nonsensical comments about Tesla shaking a building with some unknown device that are completely untrue and I said as much."

Prove it.  Prove that it didnt happen. You cant. You have no literature or facts to back up your statement "completely untrue".   

But yet you are sooo sure of yourself. Its a good thing many here know your ways, and see through the weeds that you try to plant. ;)


"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."

1  Show me the 'truth' evidence that Tesla never had a pocket sized tapper and never put it on that building. Where is your truth that proves the story never happened???  I mean like, you say the truth matters. Well, other than what 'you think' or 'feel' or 'imagine' where is your proof that the tapper story didnt happen..   lol. You cant.   So its not truth. It is only your opinion. :P


"sometimes it's worth it to set the record straight and say that it's not an over unity process."

When is it not worth it?  Maybe your "sometimes" should be "always worth it" , as that is your game. ;) :P

Mags

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 23, 2013, 01:20:12 AM
I have the right to express my opinion. 

And so do I. ;)   No matter what PMs you send me not to respond to you.   :P ;)

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 23, 2013, 01:50:35 AM
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.

Hey Aking

I got a few things together today to build what we were talking about earlier to simulate the tapper and a resonant structure.  Will be trying either a tall plexi strip with a weighted top and maybe try weighted top and middle, for a resonant wiggle. lol  I imagine the building may have had some standing waves and not necessarily just a waving of the top. ;D

This will be a neat lil project and wont cost much or take too much time to do.

I thought about repeated bending of the plexi strip maybe causing stress cracks at the square edges, so Ill be rounding the long straight edges. When bending plexi with heat, rounding the edges helps the bent edge not bulge out beyond the planned radius, as there are different stresses at the edges than the middle of the bend. So the rounding should keep those bending stresses down when the thing gets swingin. ;D


Should have a base and upright pen together tomorrow at lunch or after work. Ive got a coil I made that I want to try here for a gen pick up that is wound with 42awg. Its 4.49kohm 1.63 H.  It produces nice high voltage in a small cap with one pass of a mag. So we can use that charge to pulse the drive coil near the base.

 

This will be fun. ;D ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on October 23, 2013, 05:10:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 23, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
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.

Hey Aking

Yes, I agree. Im going to try a couple different plexi strips with some different weights, magnets, may as well, instead of tuning with dead weight then adding mags and readjusting, you know. ;D
I think ahead before I commit. Sometimes too much, but thats me. :)

Its not going to be a big thing. Tabletop model.   Im going to try manual signal tuning first. Then if things get interesting, possibly an arduino to time the pulses.  I figure a small magnet a bit higher from the tapper magnet on the pen, and use a linear hall sensor to track the pen swing and ping where ever I want during the swing. This way it will get perfect timing whatever level of swing the pen is in at any time. But first Im going Tesla style. Tune, tune, tune.   ;)   Thats what its all about isnt it. ;) ;)

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 23, 2013, 07:59:31 AM
Not to try to take anything away from any experiment as experiments are always good, I love to watch video's of people interesting experiment.

But I can go out into a paddock or the bush and destroys trees by the same principal more or less that Tesla used for his mechanical tapper.

If the tree has no leaves it works better because there is less "damping".

WARNING! This is dangerous to do, limbs will fall from the tree, do not try this at home unless you are an experienced tree destroyer.  ;D

It can be done different ways. ( I might do this to get dry wood or to make safe a smallish tree with dead limbs ).

Simply put I can just stand at the base of the tree with no leaves preferably a dead tree, and shake it in time with it's responses so that the tree ends up shaking way more than it can take structurally and breaks apart. If a tree has many leaves it is naturally damped from the leaves causing wind resistance and even if there is dead branches in the tree the damping may prevent me from being able to shake the tree enough to break the dead limbs off.

Or I can climb up the tree a bit and begin to sway my entire weight up in the tree a bit in time with it's responses so that I build up enough energy to snap off the tree at it's trunk underneath me, the higher you go the easier it is to break the tree or the bigger the tree a certain person can break. ( I do this to get feed for the goats in dry weather, so they have some living green feed to eat).

I bet people were bringing down trees with resonance many decades before Tesla was even born. Tesla did not "invent" resonance, he does not own it either just like anyone else they cannot own or patent a process of nature itself only the way they induce it.

Certainly no Over Unity happening when I bring down a tree by swaying it, just like no Over Unity if I was to bring down a building with the same principal using a "Tapper", it's nothing more than an accumulation of energy. Power is not energy.

A lot of energy goes into the tree growing and putting up in the air all the mass the tree has up there, without nature ( or men in the case of a building)  having done the work to get the mass up there, not only would it not work as there would be no mass but there would be no point as there would be nothing to "shake", to even begin the experiment a certain amount of work is done and locked up as potential energy in the mass at height, without that there is nothing to work with.

People use resonance quite often and do not even realize it because it is so natural.

I'ts actually quite funny when I bring down trees for goat feed, they hang around the tree but stand back a bit and when they see me start to sway the tree they all get excited and cheer me on, then when the tree hits the ground all I hear is crunch, munch, grunt, gulp x 6. hehehehe. If I do it right the tree regrows from the trunk break and it grows foliage at a height the goats can eat it at will. Win-win-win situation eg., firewood - feed and the tree root system stays intact.

Cheers.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 23, 2013, 09:02:14 AM


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.

Well I think we have an advantage with the table top unit where we can know the resonant freq of the pen before setting the tapper. ;)   Back then, Tesla would have had to get the building moving then somehow measure the freq of the building or the tapper. We have superman tools these days to help us with this task. ;D

Im thinking I need a bigger boat, I mean base.  I loved that from Jaws. I think we need a bigger boat!  ;D   Well, more sold and heavy.    It could be scaled to any size but the base must be solid and stationary.  There is a few things to think about still.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Farmhand on October 23, 2013, 09:22:32 AM
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.

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on October 24, 2013, 12:41:51 AM
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.

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
Hey farmhand

Will make a new thread later this evening. ;)   I cut out parts for a smaller than planned base and resonator. I decided to make this version to get the feel of it first, then figure if I want to go bigger later. But this will do for now.

Will make the thread and post a pic when I get it together. Just some drilling and fastening together.

Maybe an hour or 2. ;)

Thought a lot about it today and Im happy with choosing spring tension instead of just a swinging pen. Will see how it goes. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on June 06, 2016, 11:16:01 AM
An Invitation {of sorts}

Device which runs with gain
 *sample
input 120 watts
Output 800 watts

If you build it they will .......
help

If Not ....something to do with "pounding salt" [  David's associate Mathew Jones is Not a mincer of words]!!

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-32.html

Snip ***

Matt
Quote
 "" So that said let me just go through what we have given you.

People fail to understand the 3 battery setup the way we have laid it out.
You have to batteries in serial (and for simplicity) they equal 24 volt. The third battery at 12 volt is wired parallel. Between the hots is the load.
Now you can be very efficient by running the load and rotating the batteries as John Bedini outlined along time ago, but you can actually start charging the system if you put in a regulator.

A simple or complex boost circuit to maintain a steady voltage at the point of a load. This boost circuit can maintain a 14.5 volt voltage on the load even if the difference between the serial batteries is as low as 7 volt. First you loose nothing from the boost circuit because all switching, that would normally cost you now switched to the 3rd battery which catches everything normally goes to ground. PLUS you get The boost side is now drained into the third battery after the load. Now if the load doesn't knock down the power to much you get another effect, this is the magic. So read closely.

DC is a LOOP!!

Everything that happens on the positive side happens on the negative side in reverse. You charge a battery 2 ways. The charge in the battery is only the voltage difference between the 2 poles, ZERO (gnd) and POSITIVE (12vdc).

So you have load powered at 14.5 vdc. The power coming out of the load is in serial with the charge battery. 12vdc + 14.2vdc (After the load) = 26.2 volt. If the top serial bank is at 24 volt now you a get a 2.2 volt charge on the ground side into the top batteries.

Your not discharging on the ground side so charging and discharging can happen in the same stroke. You have widened the potential on the top bank of batteries momentarily. At the same time you have asked for more power on the positive side.

Now you batteries sit at idle while charging the bottom battery or holding it at 14.5 +-.

Think about for bit. Think about a loop of serial and parallel action that can happen and how to make that happen. Charging on the ground side and discharging on the positive at the same time.

Now we spoke somewhere along the line. This is the only logical way of looking at 3 batteries in this system when they are running loads for long periods of time seemingly not loosing any power. Motors by themselves will not do it. You must use a boost regulator. Your potential between the poles must be higher than the pole on the 3rd battery and the 2 must be higher than the combination of the serial batteries on top.

So I can't remember which thread I put it in maybe this one, definitely links in this one, but I gave a you simple low cost motor.
This motor had NO BEMF, or CEMF. The winding resistance calculated with the voltage gave an amp draw that was with 5% of the math. Thats means nothing could be in the way. The bearings were what kept it at its speed.
This motor accomplished this by shorting out the coil just before load. But that only happens if you use a normal battery or power supply.
On the 3 battery setup every watt that is put in will come out and it come out at pretty high potential. High enough to achieve the above requirements. Self timed as well. No need for switching or lavish timing. SIMPLE!!!

No one put the 2 together though..Your loss.

So now like David always says hook it to a generator and you excess energy. Create a potential difference at some point in the system and you can do more work for even longer.

Want a generator that accelerates use Thane Heinz stuff. Or watch Gotoluc's video on hysteresis and how accelerating coils are waist of time. Well that is if its costing you to turn the gen. Or maybe even hunt down Erfinder and beat him till he gives the info on how to lower the impedance of a generator coil by pulling bigger loads.

Better yet spend a couple of years developing a MASS to IMPEDANCE formula for accelerating coil OF ANY TYPE OR MATERIAL including air, and do it the right way. Reverse lenz's law and have it actually work for you.

I don't care what you do...Just don't ask me for help, unless of course your really trying.

Matt ""
end Snip
---------------------------
respectfully
[and sincerely]

Chet K
PS
To Note
A Zero tolerance policy has been put in Place at The thread there.


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 06, 2016, 12:24:42 PM
The problem with anything you read on energetic,is that the forum is ruled by liars.
There are some brave enough there to speak the truth.


Quote
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.

Who ever you are i-ron,good on you for having the balls to speak the truth.

This is Peter !the hack! Lindermanns response to the truth.

Quote
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!

Lindermanns response is a barrage of outright lie's,as none of the people listed have ever built a self running device--hence the reason they are all still on the forum,trying to make a buck on selling books of secrets.

Lindermann,Arron the rookie,and the mighty Houdini him self-->you lot should be thrown in jail for fraud,as none of anything you sell ,claiming to give a means to build a self running device,is the truth.
You never have,and never will show a self running device,nor one that delivers more energy than in consumes.

These clowns need to be stopped,but as many of us know,you say something these hacks dont want to hear(like the truth),and you are banned from the forum.

Well i expose you for what you are--->frauds.


Brad

AKA--TinMan.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on June 06, 2016, 11:33:49 PM
Brad
Not really speaking of anyone here except David Bowling And Mathew Jones.

And honestly Neither one has ever been anything but strait up Honest about their work.

I don't know if you have ever seen any Of Matts work , [I have not,  prior to today ]

 I must say

I Really like this Fellah !

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-33.html

also to note
member skywatcher has started a replication thread here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20494-split-positive-boost-charger.html

I will ask David if he minds me posting direct youtube links here [perhaps he can ask Matt?]

Respectfully

Chet K


@ Note
Spoke with David ,no problems [he also mentioned Tyson's [skywatcher] thread which is posted above

adding some links from Matts Motor build
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faZIszrlllI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFR-d_oaYsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFPLX9wlBXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-WIrQdlTs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FcM_zlsVTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLygYONVo0

and Link to Matt's Arduino info [mentioned in same post as Motor build info
https://learn.adafruit.com/diy-boost-calc/overview


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 01:02:01 AM
Guys,


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 am not here to provide that data. Probably never will. I am not here to satisfy the naysayers. I am here to simply ask folks to give this stuff try and make up their own minds. The addition of the boost circuit to insure that battery three is charged correctly is an amazing little addition to what we have been doing. I am turning my big generator with a razor scooter motor run on this system, so I know what it is costing me and what I am getting out of it, and that does not include what I am able to recover from the cost of running the motor.


Take a look at Skywatcher's thread about running an inverter between the positives from which you can run some significant loads. The information is all there. You just have to give it a chance. It's up to you and it is your loss if you don't. I;m not here to argue the point. Just to show what I believe is possible.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 07, 2016, 01:15:12 AM
Quote from: DBowling
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

Ignore the naysayers who are unaware of this technique. ::)
Actually, it is quite common in certain esoteric military and
commercial applications.  This technique is routinely covered
in most technical training programs in its basic form and
analyzed in the study of Kirchoff's Theorem. 8)


Before the advent of efficient Buck Converters this technique
was commonly utilized by experimenters in the '40s, '50s and
'60s to provide reduced voltages without the wasteful power
loss of dropping resistors. :)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 07, 2016, 02:49:34 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 07, 2016, 02:53:02 AM
The current flow through the loop of 2 batteries and the inverter input would be clockwise electron flow.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 07, 2016, 03:09:41 AM
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




Just thinking about it more, possibly at idle and no load on the inverter the voltage divisions would be close to 30v Ni pack, 12v car bat and 17v inverter. Now when we load the inverter, its input voltage drop goes down, which is normal. But what happens to the batteries and their drops? This is just me thinking after seeing the circuit.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 07, 2016, 03:37:13 AM
Hi Mags,

I have worked with Matt and Dave on this system for the past couple of years or more.  What will happen when you load the inverter is the 12 volt battery will start charging faster and the 30 volt pack will start to drop in voltage some also.  But the surprising thing is the 12 volt battery will normally charge faster than the other side goes down.  Most of us have not tried this with a 30 volt Ni pack.  So I can't say for sure how they will act.  We normally run this system using three 12 volt batteries all the same size.  This is for the simple circuit to get the idea of how it all works.  You need to read the rest of Dave's info to understand how to use the boost circuit and about letting batteries rest between charging and using and several other tips.  Dave and Matt have spent several years working with this system to learn all they could to make it a practical and useful circuit.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 06:31:38 AM
The important thing about Skywatcher's thread and post that I wanted folks to understand is that you can run an inverter between the positives and NOT just a motor or a light bulb. He put together a system using what he had. IT IS FAR FROM THE BEST that you could put together, but running an inverter in this position is important. WHY? Because it allows you to run AC loads on the potential difference of a DC system. 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?????
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 07, 2016, 08:01:20 AM
Quote from: DBowling
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? ??? ?

Hmmmm.  Not everyone will agree with your statement about "all that energy."

While it is true that the inverter and the lower battery receive the same level
of current flow
each will individually account for some portion of the total energy.
The inverter input plus the lower battery input will in sum equal the total.

In a series circuit each component has its own energy consumption/dissipation.  No?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 10:22:30 AM
If I understand you, you are asking if the energy that "left" the two batteries in series is equal to the energy that went through the inverter PLUS the energy that ended up in the lower battery because the inverter and the lower battery are wired in series. Am I correct that this is your question? If so, the answer is "No". When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free. Here is a video I made to trying show what I am talking about. By the way, the measurements I took on this video were after the batteries had rested for two hours after running them so that voltages could "settle out" . The charged batteries always go DOWN after having rested for a while and the primaries always climb back up a little after resting for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD7a4bPS4o8


Let me be VERY, VERY clear. This circuit is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor run on this circuit is NOT the final solution. Adding the boost circuit is NOT the final solution. You need ALL these things and more.You need the switching to rotate the batteries through the five different positions when battery 3 is charged up. You need five GOOD STRONG fully charged batteries that are not old and worn out. Each one will move through these five positions in this order. 1. Position One (as Battery one of the two in series)2. Position two (as battery 2 of the two in series)3. Resting Because it has been DISCHARGED in BOTH the previous positions)4. Position three (in parallel with one and two, charging)5. RestingYou need a generator run by the motor that can put out power so you can ADD a little power back into the system when it is needed. Nothing lasts forever, and cold and heat are the ENEMIES of batteries. The efficiency on this system will go up and down with the heat and cold. Without a generator to contribute a little extra when you need it, this will eventually come to a screeching halt. Without a generator run by the motor, you have NOTHING here that is going to get you what you want. It is the efficiency of all these things working together that get you the grand slam. But any decent generator is going to give you COP>3 or MORE if all these things are in place. It just IS. I have built it. It works. Getting all of this to work is NOT rocket science. We have provided MORE than enough information. But getting it to work is only the beginning. Then you need to figure out how to apply these principles to the construction of more advanced devices. That's where we are now, and we aren't posting that information. Maybe in a few months. People still won't accept THIS so why on earth would we share MORE.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 07, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
 author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg485910#msg485910 date=1465287750]
 


Quote
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".

The correct answer is--the energy provided by the two batteries in series,is equal to the energy consumed by both the inverter and the 3rd battery.

 
Quote
When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice.

No,that is incorrect.
If the two batteries in series are outputting say 100 watts,and your inverter is consuming say 60 watts,then the remaining 40 watts is being delivered to the 3rd battery.

Quote
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.

No,as stated above,battery 3 only receives the remaining energy that the inverter did not dissipate.
The load was not run for free.
Your mistake is failing to account for the voltage drop across the inverter,which would be around 12.5 to 13.4 volts. The current flowing through the inverter and battery 3 will be the same,but the voltage across each will be close to half of the supply voltage-->many people make this mistake.

Quote
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.

That is correct,but voltage across a battery is not a measure of the remaining energy capacity of the battery.
This is another mistake people make,when dealing with batteries. The only way to calculate the remaining energy in the batteries,is by way of a pacific gravity test.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qL6HR6vrbY

Before encouraging people to spend there time and money on this project,i would suggest you take the time to make more accurate power measurements,and actual energy consumption values from your series supply batteries,as simply reading the battery voltages before and after a test run,will not tell you how much of the stored energy was used from your supply batteries,nor how much was delivered and stored by your receiving battery.
The Bedini fans fall for this very same mistake-over and over.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 04:34:42 PM
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.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on June 07, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Dave
I know what you are seeing is genuine , having spoken with you and understanding the resources
you have at your disposal as well as your own very capable abilities ..to me it is self evident .
  That being said the real crux has always been "where is the energy coming from" ??

there are few options for energy to enter the system , and this means its really Simple
and That makes it quite exciting indeed .

Now you add Matts Motor to the Mix and His comment on the Benitez [spelling?] patent and its brutal
simplicity ....

Dave I sincerely hope the world brings you much long life and happiness ,and I hope that new little
Granddaughter can have a better life for it .



this is all very very exciting indeed !!

respectfully
Chet K
PS
Carlos Benitez patent attached
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Benitez/Carlos%20Benitez.pdf
PPS
Quite certain Tinman meant Specific gravity ,he's been burning the candle in 4 time zones with all the associated sleeplessness
and slips of mind .
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on June 07, 2016, 07:42:04 PM
Hi Dave,

I've never tested these claims but thought you might find the following interesting and in line with your work.

There is one patent, JP2013-046437, of using one battery, one motor and two generators. His original system was using three batteries in a similar configuration before switching to a mechanical system.

Original battery system:

Quote
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.

Mechanical System:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: bellerian1 on June 07, 2016, 07:51:27 PM
Hello David,

My name is Gene, I know Luther, a fellow whom at one point was working with you on the 3bgs setup.   I'm familiar with what I've come to call the RPS configurations of sources... relative potential sources.   I like that you found you could run the inverter between two +'s so long as the volt offset was retained thru the configuration of the parallel stack against the series stack of batteries.   Did you note you could do the same using the two -'s as well?

Did you know you can use transistors of whatever type with the RPS as a source so long as you maintain the polar bias's properly with relation to the leads on the semiconductor?   I did that with a bedini SG setup, automatically doubles the batteries being charged when theres a parallel stack to recover all the spent energy on the input side... ;)

Anyways keep it up man, no idea if you still work with Luther but he was a good guy.   Hope you guys find some offset like maybe some solar panels to offset the discharge from the series stack and size that properly to keep the series stack being fully charged up during the day and maybe use a second set of solar panels as the series stacks potential during the daylight hours.   Then you'd set the system to run from the series stack at the end of the daylights hours on the solar panels and overnight, then the next day you'd put the series bank back on charge, and use the solar panels output as the series stack for as long as theres daylight, then repeat the cycle...    Might then have a system that works between the two extremes of being charged/discharged on the daily periodicity.   

From my end I've built a 50,000vdc RPS setup... I'm going at it the "sync" route.  Will eventually see if anything pans out...

Take care man,
Gene/Bellerian1


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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 08:04:21 PM
With this circuit, I do not believe there is ANY energy entering the system from the outside. Benitez and Tesla BOTH developed systems based on extracting energy from the transfer of power from a higher potential to a lower potential. It is NOT rocket science. It is very simple and straightforward. The issue with it has ALWAYS been the switching, and its COST (because the batteries MUST move to different positions within the circuit) and controlling the stability of that potential difference which (in this system for example) starts at 12 volts* and goes down as the primaries discharge and the secondary batteries charge up.. The BOOST CIRCUIT is something neither Benitez NOR Tesla had, and it regulates that potential in a way they could only DREAM about.


But despite all our modern advancements, the only way to scale this up to run a house is to purchase a mountain of batteries. Not a happy thought.


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.


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.....!!!




*For purposes of discussion it is assumed that each battery has exactly 12 volts in it. This is not a reality as you all well know.


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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 07, 2016, 08:24:28 PM
Quote from: DBowling
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.

This sort of attitude is problematic.  It is indicative of a
"builder" who does not fully understand what his device
is doing and exhibits excessive emotional attachment to
beliefs which may be in error.

What TinMan explained is truth that is easily verified with
test instruments.  He has explained how your description
of "running for free" is not quite true.

If there is in fact excess energy to be accounted for in your
device then you must be better prepared to explain it in a
technically correct fashion and to verify it with accurate
measurement tools.

Voltage measurements of Lead Acid Batteries can be very
deceptive and never accurately indicate a quantity of stored
energy.

Those who find flaws in your explanations may be speaking
truth.  Pointing those flaws out does not necessarily indicate a
closed mind.  Beginners in Electrical Research often make
that same mistake by emotionally defensive attitudes.

We never like to consider the possibility that our thoughts may
be wrong - but quite often they are.  Then we must choose to
either find truth or continue with false beliefs.  Letting go of
emotional attachments is never easy and can be quite painful.

Do you want a following of ignorant builders who believe your
every utterance; or do you want technically competent observers
to offer constructive criticisms?  Are you really seeking truth or
are you caught up in a fantasy?

Quote from: DBowling
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.....!!!

Now, if true, that is quite an accomplishment.
The challenge is to offer evidence that it is true in
a manner that is persuasive and verifiable.

You've already admitted that you've spent large sums
in support of your research.  How many are prepared
to make the same sort of investment in time and
financial resources?  Without showing a practical
application which could be immediately put to use
in powering a home or reducing reliance upon the
grid?  Can you comprehend why those who have
chosen to replicate are small in number?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 07, 2016, 09:21:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 07, 2016, 10:04:58 PM
Quote from: DBowling
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.

There is a logical explanation why this is so;
that a system which utilizes a portion of the
expended total energy to partially re-charge
the system will exhibit an extended "run
time."  This principle has been known for many
years.

What is wrong about your explanation (or belief)
is that you've not fully evaluated and understood
how the energy is expended and retained as the
discharge/charge takes place simultaneously.

Are you in fact obtaining free energy?

Is this in fact a demonstration of over-unity?

In a word "No."  Not yet.  Perform an exhaustive
and complete analysis of the complete "loop"
and you'll see why.

Or not.  Seeing "why not" may take some time
unless your mind is "open."

Beginners frequently come to erroneous conclusions.

As you acquire experience and comprehension you
will one day discover where you've erred.  If, that
is, you are seriously pursuing truth.

What appears to be "excess energy" in your device
may simply be that Lead Acid Batteries initially
increase in their capacity by up to 30% during their
initial charge/discharge cycling.  This is due to the
physical construction of the cells and the chemical
process of increasing the quantity of active plate
material early in the life of the batteries.

This characteristic is purposely engineered within the
batteries and is desirable in that it extends the useful
life of the battery before it begins its gradual loss of
capacity.

Lead Acid Batteries are remarkable devices themselves.
They seem to have mysterious and almost magical
properties.  They are built that way...
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: nelsonrochaa on June 07, 2016, 11:40:23 PM
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.

Hi Dbowling,


 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".

Good work
 
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on June 07, 2016, 11:44:27 PM
Quote
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.

Bullshit. Let's see your last six months of your home electricity bill.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 01:18:41 AM
 author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg485932#msg485932 date=1465310082]


Quote
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 am here to present the truth,and the way i can do that,is by experimenting with the very same circuit you have presented here--which i have.

Quote
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.

That is where you are wrong-on two accounts.
I have built and tested this very setup years ago,but with a higher degree of energy analysis.
I can assure you that i am far from having a closed mind.

Quote
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.

A potential difference is just that-a difference between two points.
Have i done pacific gravity tests before and after?--yes of course-and more. I also carried out both digital and analog load tests before and after a test.
Why have you got so many dead batteries?.

Quote
Have you actually built this circuit and put a scope on it?

Yes

Quote
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.

As i said,voltage is not power,and some of the spikes from the motor could reach in excess of 100 volts.

Quote
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?

Yes,the more load you place on the generator,the less you recover in the system.

Quote
But you win Brad.
I will go away now
Another victory for those with a closed mind

It is not a matter of winning or loosing,it's a mater of defining fact from fiction.
As i said,i do not have a closed mind-not in the least.
In fact,i am willing to spend the time and money to replicate your circuit,and carry out those accurate measurements if you wish-->i am happy to do so.

Quote
And do you know WHY I am giving in so easy? Because YOU are not important,

To most of the people on this forum,i would say that you are correct.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 08, 2016, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: NelsonRochaa
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".

As a procedure to narrow down the anomalous
"extended run time" this is actually not a bad
idea.

Is it the properties of the Lead Acid Battery which
produce the effect;  or is it something unique to
the circuit?

An excellent example of "scientific thinking" to
help clarify what seems to be a phenomenon.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 01:34:24 AM
 author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg485950#msg485950 date=1465322661]
 



Quote
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


Yes,i did mean specific gravity test.
As you will see,spelling is not my strong point,due to the fact that i am not here to win any spelling bee's. But as you can see,most know what im saying,and that is what is important.

I do ask that you please believe me when i say i am far from having a closed mind.
In fact,i have been,and probably still am,in your position,in that i also have a system which involves an electric motor of sort's,that shows some !odd! P/in P/out measurements which are yet to be solved. So you see,i am much in the same boat as you,but where as i have decided that it's just more trouble than it's worth.
But who know's?,maybe i will !add! it to your setup,and see what happens ;)
I will be buying the needed equipment today,in way of an inverter and 3 new lead acid batteries--damm,there go's another 300. ::)


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
OK,so i have purchased the 3 new batteries and new 500 watt inverter to begin the first series of test with the inverter as the load.
Two batteries in series,and one in parallel,with the inverter in series with the two series batteries,to the parallel battery.The inverter will be run on the potential difference-see schematic below.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 02:09:08 PM
Here is the first video of the series to come.
This one is just a breakdown of what is to come,regarding various tests on this three battery setup.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWxNk5z8UGo


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pomodoro on June 08, 2016, 02:47:14 PM
Crikey mate, those few hundred bucks you spent could have brought you a few cartons.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 02:57:29 PM
Crikey mate, those few hundred bucks you spent could have brought you a few cartons.

Lol-i dont drink.Was $345 in total,but i was buying a small inverter anyway for camping,and batteries always come in handy.
I will actually need a few batteries that size in the future,as i will be building an electric cart with one of those smart drive motors soon enough.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pomodoro on June 08, 2016, 03:45:00 PM
Good to know you have use for them. I thought for a moment you spent all that money to prove it doesn't work! 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 03:54:31 PM
Good to know you have use for them. I thought for a moment you spent all that money to prove it doesn't work!

Well i was not going to purchase the items just yet,but this seemed like a good reason to buy the equipment now lol.

Lets see where it go's before we make any claim's,although i think most of us know what the outcome will be,as i have been down this road before,many years ago.
But David has an extra in there,by way of the boost converter--hopefully David will post the best model he has,in the way of the boost converter.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 08, 2016, 04:47:45 PM
Thought i would throw this into the mix while i was at it.
This is the setup where you have the two 12 volt batteries in series(24 volt battery),from the positive of the 24 volt battery,through the positive of a dead 12 volt battery,through a DC motor,then to the negative of the 24 volt battery. The motor will not rotate to start with,and as the dead battery begins to take charge,the internal resistance drops,and more current flows through the circuit. This allows the motor to start turning--this is normal.
But this time,i decided to use an AGM battery(absorbent glass mat),and to my surprise ,we had sharp current spikes shooting through the circuit. I am not sure what is happening inside this AGM battery,but i have not seen this happen with flooded lead acid batteries.

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7N6SxsLVRA


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 08, 2016, 05:33:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 01:34:14 AM
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.

Hi David
To quote your post 390

Quote
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.

This is what i will be looking at first--this !running! the load for free.
You need to understand that i am quite well versed in this type of experimenting,and will be able to provide accurate P/in and P/out,with an accountability of all dissipated and consumed power.

As far as the inverter go's,it is very close to being a pure sine anyway,and would not impact on the results what so ever. The newer modified sine wave inverters are fairly clean,but if needed,i can clean the wave form up quite easily,as we are using resistive loads on the inverter.
I also see on the other forum!!buy now-get nothing later!!,that most of the guys are using modified sine wave inverters anyway,and they seem to get the results you speak of,so lets wait and see what happens.

Maintaining a fixed voltage on battery 3 is also not a problem,so no need to worry about battery 3 rising to high. I will also be keeping well below the C20 rate of the batteries,so no damage will take place within the batteries.

But first,lets see if the load is really been run for free as you state.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 02:18:59 AM
@ David

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.

If you are not happy with the wave form across the input side of the inverter,i can clean that up to be a pure DC current,without the spike seen in the scope shot-->but i believe that these spikes are part of the !claimed! effect. All the spikes below the 0 volt line,is energy being returned to the supply battery,and if i clean up those spikes,there will be no energy returned back to the supply battery,but at the same time,the peak input current draw value will also drop.

So if you could post a scope shot of the current wave form on the input side of your inverter,we will know how i need to shape the wave form on mine,so as it matches yours,and we will then be working with the very same wave form the supply and receiving batteries are seeing.


Brad
Perhaps you could throw your scope across a CVR,and show us the wave form on the input side of your inverter?.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 09, 2016, 02:49:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 05:23:57 AM
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.

Ok,so where off to the right start.

I am uploading a video now--will take a while,and will post it here when done.

As expected,battery 3(the charge battery) rose in voltage quite fast,and the potential difference dropped of quickly. this caused the low voltage alarm to come on in the inverter. But regardless of that,i was able to obtain some !ball park! power measurements. I then ran a quick test on the inverters efficiency in standard mode,where i use just one 12 volt battery to run the inverter,and did an efficiency calculation of the inverter.

Oddly enough,the efficiency of the system is some 15% !odd! higher with the 3 battery system,than it  is running the inverter off one battery alone :o. I must admit,i was not expecting this at all,and this has come as some what of a shock to me.

The test in the video was very quick and dirty,and with the low voltage alarm going off,well there could have been an error somewhere?. But i dont believe that to be the case,as the efficiency gap is too large for such an error to exist,so unless i screwed something up badly,then they are what they are.

I am in the process of building a much more stable system,where i can maintain a set voltage across the inverter. I have also carried out accurate inverter efficiency tests,and have an accurate efficiency value for the inverter--which is still way below what it was in the 3 battery system--but i dont know why yet.

I will post the video as soon as it is uploaded.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 09, 2016, 07:42:08 AM
TinMan,
Thanks for taking a look at this. You are probably one of the only skeptics who has actually taken the time to actually build this and test it, and I appreciate that. As I said on the other thread, every single component we are using is designed to do something specific to create a working system. I know you are only testing the basic setup now, so I am looking forward to seeing your results when all the pieces are put together. And I DO realize that your current test does not support my claim that "hardly any energy gets used as it moves through the inverter" but I still believe you are in for more surprises when you get the system to run as a stable system by adding the boost module to the mix, and see what happens when you rotate and rest batteries.


I have found that as I rotate the batteries through the system over the long haul, my results get better and better as the batteries expand their capacity, begin to charge faster, and hold charge longer. But if you continue to be interested in this long enough to do the long term testing I have done, I believe you will see everything I have seen. I hope so.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 10:08:12 AM
TinMan,
Thanks for taking a look at this. You are probably one of the only skeptics who has actually taken the time to actually build this and test it, and I appreciate that. As I said on the other thread, every single component we are using is designed to do something specific to create a working system. I know you are only testing the basic setup now, so I am looking forward to seeing your results when all the pieces are put together. And I DO realize that your current test does not support my claim that "hardly any energy gets used as it moves through the inverter" but I still believe you are in for more surprises when you get the system to run as a stable system by adding the boost module to the mix, and see what happens when you rotate and rest batteries.


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

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

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

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

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


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

You cant work these easily because the voltages across both devices change with time, as the battery charges. and you also need to measure how much of the energy into the battery actually got stored by the battery.  Its much more than a multimeter job.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 12:03:59 PM
Brad, I've only looked at the video for a short while but it looks to me that you are taking the average of two efficiencies for the first calc. (Inverter efficiency + the charging efficiency of the battery)/2. This gives you the 80%.  The separate charger efficiency is the 60% one.   The charging efficiency could be in the 90s, thus the average is higher than that of the charger alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 12:11:20 PM


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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pomodoro on June 09, 2016, 12:54:07 PM
In the 3 battery system Work out the power used by the inverter by measuring the potential across its input terminals  and the amps! I don't see this voltage in your 3 battery test.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 01:47:14 PM
In the 3 battery system Work out the power used by the inverter by measuring the potential across its input terminals  and the amps! I don't see this voltage in your 3 battery test.

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

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


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

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

All of a sudden the calcs show 96% efficiency.   The average is not 96% either, looks like it has to be a weighted average instead, since the input power is not equally shared, but in your case it will be when the battery is fully charged, 12V across battery and inverter.
The volts across the battery being charged times the current give you the power going into it, but how much is actually charging the battery, and how much is heating it, how much is electrolyzing the acid into hydrogen and oxygen? The efficiency seems to be taken as 100% in your calcs, hence the overall efficiency of the whole system goes up, like in the picture.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
Looks like a problem with the calcs to me. Have a look at the picture , which has some easy numbers. There is 1000W flowing and the top device is 60% efficient, the bottom 100%. The top uses 10Vx10A = 100W but being only 60% efficient we get 60W out. This symbolizes your inverter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 09, 2016, 04:20:30 PM
Here is the third video and test done on the 3 battery system.
This time we have made the voltage more stable,to allow for more accurate measurements to be taken.

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: minoly on June 09, 2016, 07:19:27 PM
Here is the third video and test done on the 3 battery system.
This time we have made the voltage more stable,to allow for more accurate measurements to be taken.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4URpy_aQA8 (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....
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 10, 2016, 01:33:54 AM

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


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


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




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

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

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 10, 2016, 03:16:24 AM
TinMan,

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

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

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

Once again, excellent work!

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

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

Let us hope that you are able to observe such an event as you
proceed with your tests and evaluation.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: minoly on June 10, 2016, 06:31:00 AM

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

If I understand you, you are asking if the energy that "left" the two batteries in series is equal to the energy that went through the inverter PLUS the energy that ended up in the lower battery because the inverter and the lower battery are wired in series. Am I correct that this is your question? If so, the answer is "No". When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free. Here is a video I made to trying show what I am talking about. By the way, the measurements I took on this video were after the batteries had rested for two hours after running them so that voltages could "settle out" . The charged batteries always go DOWN after having rested for a while and the primaries always climb back up a little after resting for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD7a4bPS4o8 (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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 10, 2016, 08:19:53 AM
Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 10, 2016, 12:38:23 PM
Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags

Hi Mags,

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

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

Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 10, 2016, 12:47:40 PM
Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 10, 2016, 01:07:46 PM
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

Quote
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.

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

Hope that makes sense.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: minoly on June 10, 2016, 05:02:31 PM
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


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?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 10, 2016, 07:00:02 PM
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

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 10, 2016, 07:16:13 PM
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

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. 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.  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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 10, 2016, 07:18:15 PM
See, I think there is something wrong with some of the electrical laws. And some of what Im saying is part of that theory.  Will see. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 11, 2016, 02:14:31 AM

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?

What two battery measurements?
In one test i use only one battery and the inverter,and in the other test,i use the 3 battery configuration.
In both tests,the inverter dissipates the same amount of power +/- .9%
So our error margin is under 1%--i think that is pretty close.



Brad

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pomodoro on June 11, 2016, 03:35:30 AM
The inverter takes place of what would normally be a resistor, which would completely waste the IxR. 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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 11, 2016, 05:34:16 AM
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.

Quote
The inverter takes place of what would normally be a resistor, which would completely waste the IxR.

Not quite.
The inverter is quite reactive--see scope shot below across CVR to inverter input.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: pomodoro on June 11, 2016, 08:17:57 AM
The witchcraft has already begun!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 12, 2016, 01:46:39 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 12, 2016, 05:15:00 AM
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

" 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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 12, 2016, 05:23:44 AM
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

Quote
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.

I have been watching that thread,and have been thinking about the above,and that seems to match my theory. The fact that the resistance could be 0-no resistance,but still end in both caps combined only retaining half the starting stored energy amount,means that the half that is lost,cannot be due to resistive heat losses. We also know that if an inductive transfer system is used,then we loose less than half the starting energy. This is because the electrons are accelerated to a higher speed(higher voltage)by the induction method,and so impact the capacitor plates with at a higher energy state. The same fits for the 3 battery system,where although the amount of electrons flowing is the same,the speed/force at which there flowing is halved,and so only have half the impact energy on the third battery.

So i think the lost energy in the cap to cap transfer system,is due to the reduced speed/pressure of the flowing electrons,resulting in a lower impact energy delivered to the plates of the receiving cap when transferring through a resistor. But as we know,if we use an inductive transfer system,where the voltage(pressure/speed) is increased,and those electrons are accelerated to a higher speed/pressure,then they impact the receiving caps plate with a higher velocity,and so ,cause a higher impact energy upon the plates.

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Magluvin on June 12, 2016, 05:30:01 AM
Sorry. 2 batteries and 1 rev.  Same situation with inverter.

Mags
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 12, 2016, 12:19:43 PM
" 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

After reading again what I posted and your reply I realize I didn't communicate well what I was trying to say.  When I said the series battery connected to the load I meant only the battery connected to the load.  The series battery connected to the negative side of the circuit does NOT loose charge as fast as the other series battery.  They both don't go down the same.  And the explanation of the same amount of electrons going through all the batteries would seem to indicate that BOTH series batteries should go down at the same rate.  BUT they don't.  I have tested this several times and Dave has tested it hundreds of times.

Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 12, 2016, 12:32:27 PM


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

Hi Brad,
Here is a simple circuit that swaps the energy from one battery to another.  You should be able to substitute a couple of super caps for the batteries to test the transfer efficiency.

http://overunity.com/16326/thats-not-a-knife-this-is-a-knife-er-ou-flashlight/

Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on June 13, 2016, 08:05:18 PM
I feel the need to make a short post here on the history of this heretofore Urban legend of David Bowling's continuous charging device

back when this all started we did not know Dave,  and some made assumptions of wrong measurements or inexperience with battery systems and their true potential etc etc.
and when he showed up here it seemed the original device had stopped working.

it is the original device which I feel the need to clarify ,
David had three  7AH batteries being switched as outlined in the thread thru a 350 watt inverter and nothing else ,

regardless of the load or motor.. I mean to clarify Nothing else ,

 no connection to the mains or ancillary charging systems.

nothing but three batteries and a load and a 350 watt inverter

this system ran constant loads ...serious loads such as shop vacs Drills etc 24/7 for one month with absolutely no mains or outside power source.

will three 7ah batteries make 100,000 watts [100KWH] [modest load.. not a drill or shop vac which would be much more]

??

once disassembled to take to a patent attorney .....upon arriving to demonstrate ...
it did not work..
and that is pretty much where this thread started and David's obvious obsession began.

and it is quite understandable indeed [his obsession ]

respectfully
Chet K

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 13, 2016, 08:41:29 PM
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]
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: seychelles on June 14, 2016, 08:00:11 PM
So what is the exact circuit that you use  please..
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: dieter on June 14, 2016, 08:41:29 PM
Maybe tk,mh & co naysaid it to death. In a metaphysical way...

Maybe there was some resonance, only with very specific cable properties? Some resonant pickup of your floormates 1'000'000 kW Radio transmitter? Or of some subway power lines?

Maybe the battery was accidently tritium doted and lead oxide acts as a direct beta decay converter? Or any other radioisotope BTW. , actually you could measure that, unless halflife was short.

Actually, uranium contamination of lead ore doesn't sound too unrealistic to me, and by heating uranium, tritium is released, with 12 years halflife IIRC. Maybe this happened before? Esp. when it happens only very few times, it may slip trough modern battery production methods.

Then again, those beta converters are rather weak.

I feel sorry for you dude. Karma can be nasty.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on June 14, 2016, 09:55:20 PM
Dieter,

You raise some very interesting possibilities. ;)

Your thought processes are intriguing. 8)

There is an answer to the question of mysterious
"free energy."  Few have found it. :o

It is not where it is thought to be... ::)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 01:40:20 AM
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.
We can do !on the fly! measurements with some degree of accuracy,but it is not going to be 100%.

I have carried out 4 test run's now,and used different measuring methods for each,and in all test,the inverter consumes and dissipates the same amount of energy,and the remainder of that supplied by the 24volt bank,is returned into the 3rd 12 volt battery-->no free lunch found yet.

In saying that,battery 2(the one connected in series with battery 1,but in parallel with battery 3)dose retain a higher voltage than battery 1(the lead battery in the series connection).So there is obviously energy also being returned to battery 2-along with battery 3,and i suspect it is because of the reason i gave some posts back. But even so,this energy is accounted for,when we are using the series voltage of battery 1 and 2 to make our input power calculations.

I have however,found the exact reactions to that of Davids original circuit he took to the patents office,in that i found a battery for the battery 3 position,that resulted in explosions of current being sent through the circuit--as seen in second video i posted here on the subject. I am not sure why this happens,but i suspect some sort of instantaneous chemical reactions taking place within the dead battery-->i will look further into this.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2016, 06:13:53 AM
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 a 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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 06:56:27 AM
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

I see you have decided to follow me to this thread-just to post more dribble.
It would seem that you are once again making idiotic comments based around assumptions.
No,the CVR is not inductive,nor do i think you have taken the time to look at the circuit to see as to how the spikes you see actually form. Perhaps you missed the constant current draw seen on the scope trace as well.
Do you even know how this inverter opperates?-my guess is no.

So please stop posting dribble on something you know nothing about.

You running rings around me on the bench is laughable,as you wont even answer my challenge on a JT build off,because you know i would wipe the floor with you.

If you want to join in,then dust off that bench,and start experimenting.  If your not prepared  to do that,then run along,as your words carry no weight around here anymore,and you are no help in finding the answers David and the rest of us here seek.


Brad.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2016, 08:13:47 AM
Brad:

These are your initial comments about the current waveform:

Quote
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.

You also said this about the waveform:

Quote
The inverter is quite reactive--see scope shot below across CVR to inverter input.

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" 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. 

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.  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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 12:49:18 PM
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

Quote
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.

And what is wrong with what i stated above?

Quote
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.

looks to me that you have put your foot in your mouth again,and made some more incorrect assumptions ;).

Quote
That's why you are saying "quite reactive"

Reactive-->showing a response to a stimulus.
-->acting in response to a situation rather than creating or controlling it.

Quote
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.

Then you obviously did not get the message ::)
I did not wish to respond to your comment--i told you i was done with you and your stupidity.
But now--now you come here to start your shit all over again-->please go away-you have no reason at all to be on this thread.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hoptoad on June 15, 2016, 01:33:45 PM
snip...
Then you obviously did not get the message ::)
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".  :)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Brad:

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: hoptoad on June 15, 2016, 01:57:42 PM
snip...
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2016, 02:22:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 02:26:30 PM
Brad:

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

MileHigh

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

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

Quote
You are an amateur comic

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on June 15, 2016, 02:28:20 PM
MileHigh,

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: 3Kelvin on June 15, 2016, 02:32:40 PM
Hello together,
sorry for my bad English.
schwore, try to become better.

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

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

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

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

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

Love and Peace
3K



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 02:36:58 PM
A bold claim that will never be proven by you without visible evidence of bench activity to back it up.

Not only that,but also the below

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

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

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


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

Try taking a leaf out of Tinsel's style, backing up your knowledge and claims of bench skill with presentable activity. Or else refrain from making claims that you refuse to back up.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 02:42:42 PM
MileHigh,

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Carroll

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



Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2016, 02:42:42 PM
Brad:  Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.  Spinning and saying it was just "to show spikes" is a joke.  You are just playing the "I can't be wrong because my brain would fry" game.

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

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

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 15, 2016, 02:57:06 PM




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bye ;)


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: webby1 on June 15, 2016, 02:57:34 PM
MileHigh,

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

Please keep your word.

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

I am sure there will be those that will follow and engage in your own thread.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 16, 2016, 05:25:01 AM
Brad did propper current measurements--thats my point--see screen shot from video below.

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on June 16, 2016, 12:08:19 PM
Yes Miles Your acting like a doting Den Mother , give the fellows some air...

Go make us some cookies ...

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 16, 2016, 12:38:20 PM
I have already explained as to why battery A discharges  more than battery B in the two series batteries.
If you take the time to look at the circuit,you will also see why.

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

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

Here is what Carroll said:

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

Here is your explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I missing something?

MileHigh
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 16, 2016, 03:26:53 PM
.









Am I missing something?

MileHigh
[/quote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 16, 2016, 06:06:27 PM
Brad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 16, 2016, 06:28:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 17, 2016, 06:47:24 AM
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.

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.

The LED is 12volts,and it is also not polarity conscious.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on June 17, 2016, 09:22:27 AM
Quote
The LED is 12volts,and it is also not polarity conscious.

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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: minnie on June 17, 2016, 09:37:05 AM



   I can't ever say that I understand what Johan is on about.
   One thing he came up with, the quote about a fool and a
   fanatic certainly hit the nail on the head!
         John.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 17, 2016, 10:37:42 AM
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

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 17, 2016, 11:02:54 AM
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.

Sorry,looking at the LED closely,it is actually 24 volt rated--no other information about it on the can. I would say that there is Some sort of circuitry in the can,but it would have to be small.
They are close to the ones in the link below,but have the small bayonet type base. Sizes are about the same.

http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/109/MDEL586Q001-31687.pdf


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 17, 2016, 11:05:23 AM
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

Well you have had your say,and we'll all keep that in mind.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: a.king21 on June 18, 2016, 01:01:49 AM
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]


Why is the original setup not being discussed???

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: A_Giggle_For_Chaos on June 18, 2016, 02:10:56 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: MileHigh on June 19, 2016, 10:12:46 PM
I offer up a possible explanation for the mystery of why battery A discharges before battery B, something that I think some of you have been puzzling over for years.

And nobody has anything to say?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on June 20, 2016, 06:57:58 AM
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

Im still working on the system-long runs now.
I will not be joining anyone at energetic,as i wish to have nothing to do with the fraudsters that run the forum--thieving  money from those that know no better.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: A_Giggle_For_Chaos on June 20, 2016, 09:32:30 PM
Can't hold that one against ya. Just wanted to make sure to reach out so at least anybody over here actually working on something knows we are working over there too.

Good luck and thanks for the in depth study.

Matt
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 22, 2016, 06:51:31 AM
I am going to throw out what Matt and I believe is happening, based on what we have seen running this setup for over eight years, which includes countless measurements with scopes and meters. There is a REASON battery 2 discharges more than battery 1, and understanding that reason is the KEY to tuning this thing so that it is a self running system. Now, whether it can be a self runner with only the 3 batteries remains to be seen, but we already know that LARGER systems with more batteries CAN be self runners, and it is our belief that the boost module will allow it to happen with a small system. We see evidence of that is in many of the runs we have been doing. None of those has been in excess of six months like runs with larger systems, so we have NO experience to support that yet.


Batteries one and two are in series. So you can add their voltage together and when you put that voltage in PARALLEL with battery 3, the combined voltage of the two in series is higher than the voltage in battery 3, so it charges. Can we all agree on that??


When you add a motor, an inverter (which has a transformer in it) or a transformer into the mix between battery 2 and battery 3, you have placed it IN SERIES WITH battery 3. When the voltage that comes out of the motor, transformer or inverter (it is a PULSED voltage so it CAN be added to the voltage in battery three) You now have a voltage that is higher than the total voltage that is in the two primaries. This higher voltage is now in parallel with the two primary batteries and tries to charge them just like THEY tried to charge battery three, except down the NEGATIVE side. THAT is why battery one stays up longer. It is getting some CHARGE down the negative side. What supports this belief???


The BOOST circuit allows for proper adjustment of this voltage so that the voltage of battery 3 PLUS the boost circuit is higher, and is above the combined voltage of the primaries by the PROPER amount. BOTH batteries one and two charge. Without that proper voltage, only the battery closest to the negative side gets the charge, or at least it gets it FIRST.


I hope that makes sense.


If you are watching what is happening on the other forum, you are seeing that folks who have tuned the system correctly get both primaries to maintain charge or charge, and battery 3 to charge or maintain charge, and are still able to run small loads. I have several folks I am in communication with by email who are having these positive results. I have had the same results. It is not rocket science.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on June 28, 2016, 03:35:49 PM
Latest and most stable circuit.
Bob French has explained how to tune this so that you can run it for a very long time with no loss in the batteries.


His comments:
The Boost Module pots are not sensitive enough for fine adjustment...that's a problem. I had to run a 2nd Boost Module because the charge battery rose so fast that the main Boost Module (splitting the positives and powering the motor) would drop out because of low potential difference. I finally devised tuning for the 2nd Boost Module like this: I would turn both Boost Modules up to get everything running, then I would turn the 2nd Boost Module down until the main Boost Module dropped out (motor slows), then back up until the main Boot Module cuts back in (motor speeds up). This is the lowest draw on the charge battery. Now you're ready to set the main Boost Module were you want it.[/size]I also found that if the charge battery was still not charging, then turn the main Boost Module up (motor speeds up) and voila! more charging.


OK, good luck. This works. I hope that we can build larger systems that will yield usable power soon. The principle is here...what do we need to do to really capitalize on it. As you can see, everything I used was simple and of reasonable cost, BUT it was NOT just a random smattering of whatever I had laying around from failed experiments of two years ago. Use identical batteries. Don't waste you time and get frustrated.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 28, 2016, 11:09:08 PM
David and Matt and friends have made huge strides in the last year,
David has an approx. 2000 watt unit running on about 120 watts
Continuously
the feeling is that there will eventually be no limit to the COP

repost below from here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-53.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David

Quote
 

 
Info


Just so you guys know, we have had this little generator running for a while now Matt sent me a prototype, and I built it. I have it here, and I have video of it running with inputs and outputs, but unfortunately, I have all that on my computer that is in my garage and NOT connected to the internet so it cannot be hacked. And I am out of town for a week to ten days. I have a video of it assembled and connected to the razor scooter motor here that is on my phone and I can share:

Little Gen 0001 - YouTube   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjGhXBT-6Zg

and I have another video of it running. That one is on my phone too, and I can post it if you are interested, but it has no input and output numbers.

What you need to understand is the progression that happened here. Matt built a SIMPLE two coil prototype that output over TWICE the power that it took the motor to run it, and we could recover better than 80% of the power the motor was using by running it on the 3 battery system. DEFINITELY COP>2

I replicated that small prototype and saw what Matt saw. Then I built my BIG GENERATOR. It puts out about 1,800 to 2,000 watts depending on speed. So I have to have everything nice and tight and adjusted to get the higher output.

When we saw THAT would work, Matt wanted to put out something that all of YOU could replicate that didn't cost you an arm and a leg to build. My big generator was over $700.00 just for the WIRE. That's why I have NEVER released all the details on it on this forum. It's just too expensive to build unless you BELIEVE what we are telling you and have seen it happen for yourself on your bench measured with YOUR meters.

But here is a video of the big generator running off a larger modified razor scooter motor. This video was taken by the son of my machinist and my machinist is in the video. I am not. I asked him to video it for me, since at the time, the generator was at his shop where he was doing modifications to mount the bigger razor scooter motor. Some of the coils are hooked up to run some lights, so he could show me the output. This machine was DESIGNED to put out between 120-130 volts per coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fwUI8FcWVY     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fwUI8FcWVY

So it isn't that we have built this thing and are still experimenting with what it can do. I have had my big generator running for over a year now. From time to time. It has ALWAYS had problems, and I have had to rebuild it several times to address each problem as it came up. In the video I am showing HERE, it only has ONE rotor between two sets of coils. That was a test setup. The final version has THREE rotors with two sets of coils. Greater output.

BUT, I have solved ALL those problems, and have a design that is not only pretty much bullet proof, but is FAR less expensive than what I started out with and will be cheaper for others to replicate once they see what is possible with the small prototype. Unfortunately, wire, magnets, bearings and shaft are NOT things I can save you money on, so a bigger version is still going to have a hefty price tag. I am putting the new prototype together right now. Unfortunately, the holiday cut into the middle of that, and I won't be home for a week or so. Once the new machine is up and running, I will shoot some video of inputs and outputs so you can see what it can do.

What you people have to remember is that running on the three battery system, the motor that is turning this generator is running almost for FREE between the positives. If we use just a LITTLE of the generated power to keep the primaries topped off, everything else is USABLE ENERGY.

There are 3 things that make this work.

First is the circuit we have been trying to get people to pay attention to for EIGHT YEARS now.
Second is coils on the generator that allow the motor to speed up when the generator is under load.
Third is a generator configuration where the magnetic attraction of the magnets to the coil cores doesn't put extreme stress on the motor.

I am STILL experimenting with a flywheel, but the flywheel action of the three big rotors I have seems to be enough for now.

If you look at the video of the little gen I posted, you will see a stack of wire spools sitting on my bench. That is the wire to wind the coils for the new generator. I am building it from scratch, and I actually need one more spool of wire than what is shown there. I am leaving my existing version as is, so that I can continue to experiment with it while I build the new one. The current prototype needs CONSTANT adjustment, which is why I have scrapped MOST of that design.

Dave
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditPinterestLinkedIn__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda 


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-53.html

end quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all respectful comments welcome
the fellows have this sorted and Matt will be doing an open source  info release shortly

Chet K
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on November 30, 2016, 06:48:47 AM

Where on Earth are Miles Higher and the
Tinselized Koala?  They are sorely needed
to continue their critiquing of this topic!

Has anyone either seen or heard from them?


 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: FatBird on December 02, 2016, 09:44:52 PM
Please explain what's inside those Boost Boxes.  The rest of it is self explanatory.

Thanks.
                                                                                                                                                                .
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on December 02, 2016, 10:48:17 PM
Those boxes are boost converters.  You can buy them on Ebay for around 12 to 15 bucks.  They are discussed pretty thoroughly on the Energetic Forum in the Basic Free Energy Device thread.  You will have to go back several pages from the last page to find that information.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on September 01, 2017, 11:45:49 AM
If you want to know how to make a generator that speeds up under load and reduces the current draw under load take a look at this thread.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20486-splitting-positive-17.html

In the last several pages of that thread David Bowling explains how to wind a coil that will speed up under load.  He gives several explanations and answers questions about that kind of coil.  You will probably learn more if you ignore all the ramblings by Bro Mikey but David's info is very helpful.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Erfinder on September 01, 2017, 06:13:52 PM
.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Paul-R on September 03, 2017, 04:43:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on September 03, 2017, 06:21:31 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on September 04, 2017, 04:06:11 PM
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

Hard to find that info with the infestation of Bro-Mikey.

I see there all still lost in what there trying to show,and still do not understand the effects of eddy current core drag,and how that is relieved by the induced magnetic field of the loaded coils.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on September 04, 2017, 04:42:47 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on September 06, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
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 Carroll

Hard to know without seeing the test carried out.

Perhaps by adding coils,he reduced the wind drag of the rotor?

Like i said--hard to know without seeing it.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on September 06, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
"Like i said--hard to know without seeing it"

So true
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on September 06, 2017, 03:37:59 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on September 08, 2017, 05:17:38 PM
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

Sounds good--nothing like seeing it first hand.

Let us know how it go's.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: antimony on September 14, 2017, 03:06:34 PM
I tried this a couple of months ago, without success.
What i wanted to ask was if any others that tried this system out, found that their bad battery turned good again, and then really bad (dead)?

That was the only thing that I found that was interesting with this system, that I found.
I am not saying that there is not anything there.

What have others found, or even successfully replicated the system?
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on September 14, 2017, 03:46:33 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: antimony on September 14, 2017, 04:18:14 PM
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

Oh yeah, I didnt realize that. Then i will have to check it out then. :)

I used a regular brushed dc motor, but at the time I  thought about using a Bedini motor instead so I could charge batteries at the same time.
I know Turion is a fan of the Bedini tech, if I dont think of some other guy with a similar name.

I am going to check out the threads, and thanks to you for always taking your time to enlighten a dumb Joe like me. :)

And it is Nice to hear such positive things from you that i think of someone who doesn't just fall for claims people make like many others do.
People want to see "free energy " so bad that they are willing to believe whatever.
I am a little bit like that, but in the end you just have to take a unbiased look at it all, and then it more often then not turn out to be inflated.
You know what I mean? :)


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 27, 2017, 11:35:38 PM
Luc has put up an interesting video to show how he has
measured the Voltage/Cuirrent/Power distribution in the
three battery setup with a motor as the load. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdScxKbiW4)  He's using
some innovative meters to perform the measurements
which adds much clarity to the loop.

Matt has critiqued the video (http://www.energeticforum.com/305557-post1774.html) by suggesting that Luc's
procedure is wrong and that his meters are lying.

Very strange critique.  I find nothing wrong at all with
Luc's measurement technique and his conclusions.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 28, 2017, 11:29:12 PM
To follow the discussion (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-60.html#post305557) which has become quite interesting.

Jettis has voiced an observation (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19774-basic-free-energy-device-post305609.html#post305609) which is technically sound.

But whether the inclusion of "make and break" devices or
pulsing devices into the loop makes it an "open loop" is
subject to verification.  Does, in fact, any anomalous or
excess energy manifest with that type of circuit?

With pulsing it is possible to recover some of what would
otherwise be "wasted energy" in the form of inductive
spikes from the motor load and divert them to a desired
storage device.  This will result in an increased efficiency
of the system which in the long term will extend "run times,"
but in itself would not be true "excess energy."  In time, the
system will discharge to such an extent that external energy
will be required to re-energize the batteries.

Never-the-less, it is an instructive exercise in maximizing circuit
efficiency.
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on October 31, 2017, 05:01:54 PM
"In
time, the
system will discharge to such an extent that external
energy
will be required to re-energize the batteries."

You bet.the key word for today is deliquent deliquestent
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: profitis on October 31, 2017, 05:05:42 PM
Or deliquent deliquestion
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 02, 2017, 05:10:23 AM
Guys,
If I take a motor and connect it to a motor that is exactly the same and use it as a generator, the generator will put out voltage because the shaft is being turned, but not as much as it took to run the motor. Can we agree on that? 


In a motor that is being used as a motor, there is ALSO "generated" energy because the shaft is turning. Can we agree on that? Will it put out just as much as when it is used as a generator? A STOCK motor will not, as they take great pains to lose that voltage in whatever windings aren't being used at the moment. Perhaps a pulse motor connected differently is capable of utilizing this generated voltage.


In a pulse motor there is a coil collapse that puts out a spike. Can we agree on that?


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.


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.


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.


Luc stated: (the bold is my addition)


"If battery 1 & 2 are connected in series and are 12 volts each = 24 volts and the current is measured at 1 amp = 24 watts entering the motor and if battery 3 is at 12 volts and the current entering it is measured at 1 amp = 12 watts entering battery 3. 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."


My response:
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.



Luc again:


"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."


My response:
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.


Dave
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 02, 2017, 01:42:15 PM
Dave
your support in all of this is Priceless , Luc has always agreed to test the setup as advertised [working on getting him all the bits and pieces].

He has his own methods too , and it seems that there will be much to see here as this moves forward.

nothing but gratitude here !!

respectfully
Chet K

PS
and just for clarity
Dave has even offered to assemble the motor to send to Luc for testing.



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Cadman on November 02, 2017, 02:12:18 PM
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

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 02, 2017, 02:49:52 PM
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 .

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 02, 2017, 03:09:47 PM
 author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg512583#msg512583 date=1509595823]



[/quote]

Quote
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.

After spending a lot of money on this DUT,buying new automotive size batteries(all same brand and size),a new motor,and then a new inverter to replace the motor,and spending many hours/days on this system,i would think i qualify to add my input into this.

The answer to the above is no-not all the energy leaving the 24 volt bank is consumed by the motor. I would say closer to half.

Quote
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.

After viewing Luc's video a few time's,and going on what i measured during my tests,i believe Luc's meters are telling the truth.

Luc's statement
Quote: "If battery 1 & 2 are connected in series and are 12 volts each = 24 volts and the current is measured at 1 amp = 24 watts entering the motor and if battery 3 is at 12 volts and the current entering it is measured at 1 amp = 12 watts entering battery 3. 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."

Dave's response 

Quote
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.

Dave,this is exactly what Luc is showing.
Lets look at his numbers from his video in the screen shot below.

As you can see,the current value remains the same throughout the entire system,which is .44 amps.

Now,lets take the voltages from the meter reading the 24 volt battery bank(batteries 1&2),and from that we will subtract the voltage from battery 3.
So,the voltage across the motor is 25.46v - 12.53v = 12.93v
So the calculated power consumed by the motor is 12.93 x .44A =5.6 watts.

As Lucs meters only go to 1 decimal place on the voltage,we will do the same.

So Lucs meters are telling us that the motor is using 5.6 watts--and we have done this the way you asked,by subtracting battery 3 voltage from batteries 1&2 voltage.

So,as the total output from batteries 1&2 is 25.46@.44A=11.2 watts,and  if the calculation of the motors consumption is correct,then the power(in watts) going into battery 3 should be as follows (11.2 watts - 5.6 watts)= 5.6 watts.

If we look at the screen shot--what do we see? ;)

Quote
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.

When did things change Dave,as this was the very system you had me build some time ago,and then the motor was replaced with an inverter. Back then,with the system Luc has,you said worked as claimed,but now it seems that the system is wrong to show the results you claim.

Even when we subtract the voltage from battery 3 from batteries 1&2 as you claim has to be done to get the consumption of the motor,the readings on Luc's meters are accurate and correct--there is no error there at all.

Perhaps it is not us guys that dont know how to take accurate power measurements of this system?. ::)

This is you claim at post 263
Quote: The longest run I have done so far is ten hours, but I have done long runs three days in a row without drawing down on my primaries. The load I am running on the system is twofold. First there is the inverter, which is only running 18 1/2 watts, which is what I need to run off the inverter to balance with the load I am running off the other half of the circuit, which is the motor. It is running another motor as generator and is pulling 11 amps at 12 volts per hour.
So if someone has an answer for how I can pull just over a hundred amp hours a day for three days in a row out of two 18 amp hour batteries and still have a full charge on my primaries, I would love to hear it. Otherwise I would submit that I am NOT full of crap and this is a working system. :

Well,it was after that comment that i went and spent all that cash on the things you said i needed,and i built the systems to your specifications at the time-->and got the same results Luc is showing.

But you claim to have pulled 100 amp hours from two 18 amp hour batteries,and still have full charge on your primary batteries after the 100 amp hours was drawn from them.

Now,i still have all that gear on the shelf,and even better,i now have far more accurate power measuring equipment.

So,what are the chances of getting this !updated! version of the system,as it seems that all my money was spent on building !a now! outdated system,that did not seem to work as claimed.

Quote
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.

OK,so ten years ago you had a working system. So,in that case,the system you had me build should have worked as claimed ?  ???

This is all so confusing.

First the 3 battery and motor system was good,then it was no good,but then good 10 years ago,but then we had to swap out the motor for an inverter  :o
I built it as you stated,and i listened,but got negative results.
I then swapped out the motor for an inverter as you asked,but still the results were negative.

Now Luc is showing the very same results,on the very same system you had me build,and now he is measuring it wrong,and the system is also wrong  ???

Now we need a pulse motor?  ???


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 02, 2017, 03:22:34 PM
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

There is no coil shorting by the commutator in a multipole PM DC motor as used in Daves DUTs.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 02, 2017, 03:27:20 PM
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 .

Ok,so when i spent all that cash on what Dave said i needed,it was an ordinary PM DC motor that was needed,then an inverter,then a combo of the two-->and now,now we need a !!MATT!! motor  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9AZAIRQlU
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 02, 2017, 03:49:19 PM
I think we need a bit more Patience

Luc is moving step by step and Dave and Carroll are helping too.
the good news is your Money will be well spent at the end of all this.

Hope things are goin well in Oz !!
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: gotoluc on November 02, 2017, 04:28:17 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 02, 2017, 06:42:05 PM
Brad,
We started with 3 batteries and a stock motor. It was hit and miss. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Some people NEVER got positive results. Some people got them some days and not others. But we could see from REPEATED testing that there were possibilities. We have since come to understand some of the factors that influenced our successes: Size of batteries and condition of batteries. Rotation of batteries was and is essential with the basic system.


When we replaced the stock motor with the Matt motor, the results became MUCH more consistent. I was getting positive results on nearly every run. Others were still hit and miss, but still getting better results, even with smaller or poor condition batteries, but very LITTLE luck with batteries that were BOTH poor and small. If you go back and look on the forum, there were VERY FEW people who even BOTHERED to build the Matt motor.


Then I asked Matt if there was a way to increase the voltage to the motor to increase the RPM, and he came up with the circuit for the addition of the boost module. At THAT point my results became positive every time. The system flat worked.


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. Too much of a hassle, so we abandoned it.


There were lots of other folks who contributed ideas that made the system more stable and all of those were "part of the system" at one time or another, so depending on when I was posting, the "system" was different. Now it is pretty much stabilized. For a while anyway.


I can understand your frustration, but I have little empathy. How do you think I feel when I have had to argue with folks like YOU for TEN YEARS that this thing works when I have had working systems on my bench running my generator?


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.




Luc did a series of videos debunking this system, and I have not been kind to him because I felt he gave the attempt at replication NO chance at success. The use of small batteries and an off the shelf motor is NOT a recipe for CERTAIN success, and failure would only reinforce his opinion that his doesn't work. I didn/t want THAT! But at least he is rotating the batteries. I expect he will see extended runs, but not not very long at all. I would say I hope it is enough for him to explore this further, but I already know he is going to test it with larger batteries and a pulse motor. If he adds the boost converter I have every confidence he will see the results I would like him to see.


It is not worth continuing the argument about how Luc is measuring the system. You have your opinion based on what you know. I have my opinion based on what I know. All that REALLY matters is results. Let's wait and see what THOSE are. If I am right about THAT, perhaps I am also right about the measurements and my understanding of how this system works as opposed to what other people have to say.


Attached is the data from Luc's testing as of today, and he is not finished yet. He began with two charged batteries and a discharged batteries so about 120 watt hours of available power to run the  motor according to his statement. He has currently shown 160 watt hours of work performed and is not done yet. I will be interested to see what conclusions he draws at the end of his testing and what results he gets with a setup that has large batteries, a pulse motor and a boost module.


Dave


Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 02, 2017, 07:32:35 PM
Carroll has shipped the Matt Motor to Luc ,and Luc is out trying to find the proper batteries in stock somewhere [his walmart is out of stock and for some reason the online option for others stores which have them isn't telling him ]?

just a note

a few members are contributing to the battery purchase.

@Dave
Nice Chart

it would seem  additional resting has shown benefit between charge ? not referring to Luc's present run ,this was from conversations with Carroll ...let them sit a bit before starting the charge cycle [a more recent observation]?

maybe a forth battery is a good idea ?[More??]
these are the batteries which are being purchased

https://www.walmart.com/ip/EverStart-Lawn-and-Garden-Battery-Group-Size-U1-7/21984263

these less expensive Batteries were reccomended to help keep costs low for other replicators ?

I believe they are 7AH
 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on November 02, 2017, 08:03:39 PM
Slight correction to Chet's post.  The U1 batteries are rated at 32 AH.  7 AH are too small for the Matt modified motor.

Carroll
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 03, 2017, 12:19:37 AM
For quite a while we have been saying that when you put a battery in a charge OR a discharge situation you get the ions moving in a specific direction. Then it COSTS YOU in energy to slow that down, stop it, and reverse it. The system will always work better if you move battery to a rest position before REVERSING the direction of energy flow. Battery one and two are interchangeable, since both are discharging. But if you are going to move a battery from one OR two to position three, it should rest first. And when you move one from position three to either of the other positions it should rest first. So it takes FIVE batteries for the perfect conditions. Two batteries always resting.
If one OR two move, they go to rest and the resting battery moves to three
If three moves, it goes to rest and the rest battery goes to one or two. 
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on November 03, 2017, 12:52:18 AM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 01:02:01 AM
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

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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 01:04:41 AM
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

Luc

I was only agreeing with what you were showing--nothing more.

Enjoy.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 01:34:02 AM
 author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg512611#msg512611 date=1509644525]
Brad,
We started with 3 batteries and a stock motor. It was hit and miss. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Some people NEVER got positive results. Some people got them some days and not others. But we could see from REPEATED testing that there were possibilities. We have since come to understand some of the factors that influenced our successes: Size of batteries and condition of batteries. Rotation of batteries was and is essential with the basic system.


When we replaced the stock motor with the Matt motor, the results became MUCH more consistent. I was getting positive results on nearly every run. Others were still hit and miss, but still getting better results, even with smaller or poor condition batteries, but very LITTLE luck with batteries that were BOTH poor and small. If you go back and look on the forum, there were VERY FEW people who even BOTHERED to build the Matt motor.


Then I asked Matt if there was a way to increase the voltage to the motor to increase the RPM, and he came up with the circuit for the addition of the boost module. At THAT point my results became positive every time. The system flat worked.


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. Too much of a hassle, so we abandoned it.


There were lots of other folks who contributed ideas that made the system more stable and all of those were "part of the system" at one time or another, so depending on when I was posting, the "system" was different. Now it is pretty much stabilized. For a while anyway.


I can understand your frustration, but I have little empathy. How do you think I feel when I have had to argue with folks like YOU for TEN YEARS that this thing works when I have had working systems on my bench running my generator?


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.




Luc did a series of videos debunking this system, and I have not been kind to him because I felt he gave the attempt at replication NO chance at success. The use of small batteries and an off the shelf motor is NOT a recipe for CERTAIN success, and failure would only reinforce his opinion that his doesn't work. I didn/t want THAT! But at least he is rotating the batteries. I expect he will see extended runs, but not not very long at all. I would say I hope it is enough for him to explore this further, but I already know he is going to test it with larger batteries and a pulse motor. If he adds the boost converter I have every confidence he will see the results I would like him to see.


It is not worth continuing the argument about how Luc is measuring the system. You have your opinion based on what you know. I have my opinion based on what I know. All that REALLY matters is results. Let's wait and see what THOSE are. If I am right about THAT, perhaps I am also right about the measurements and my understanding of how this system works as opposed to what other people have to say.


Attached is the data from Luc's testing as of today, and he is not finished yet. He began with two charged batteries and a discharged batteries so about 120 watt hours of available power to run the  motor according to his statement. He has currently shown 160 watt hours of work performed and is not done yet. I will be interested to see what conclusions he draws at the end of his testing and what results he gets with a setup that has large batteries, a pulse motor and a boost module.


Dave
[/quote]

Quote
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.

Perhaps include a voltage regulator into the boost converter circuit--or after it.

Quote
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.

Yes,i still have all the gear from the last tests.
The batteries are(from memory) 360CCA,and 52A/h.

I also now have my own version of a high powered pulse motor.
The scope shot below shows the resulting wave form.

I started this project to prove you right Dave--not wrong.
It's just that all my numbers turned up negative.

I still am wishing you the best on this,and if anything is there,i have faith that Luc will find it.
As for me,well i am about to embark on an !already proven to work! large project with Russ Gries,who has just popped up showing a system that i built and tested many years ago--so i will leave you guys in peace-so to speak.

Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on November 03, 2017, 12:01:00 PM
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
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 12:56:04 PM
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

Hi Carroll

We are talking very slight temperature changes here,and there will be some heating of the Elite when a current is flowing through a battery.

All batteries change in temperature when charged,and need time to cool and settle to reach there float voltage.

Here is one great link,filled with good information.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery

A quote from that link : Observe the storage temperature when measuring the open circuit voltage. A cool battery lowers the voltage slightly and a warm one increases it.

I bet you a beer that if you go and sit your battery in the sun for half an hour,the voltage will go up.

A 1*C change in temperature,can alter the open voltage of a battery by .3 volts.
If you can detect a 1*C change in temperature by your hand--your doing good  ;D

Quote
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.

Indeed it is--it is the acid cooling and becoming more conductive.
There is also a secondary situation happening at the same time,which also decreases voltage,and increases CCA value,and that is--all the bubbles that formed on the plates during charging,will dissipate over time,and then your acid to plate contact increases.

Hope that helps out.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 03:35:20 PM
 8)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on November 03, 2017, 04:51:03 PM

Well said, Brad!

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: citfta on November 03, 2017, 06:08:19 PM
deleted because comments no longer apply.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 03, 2017, 06:22:09 PM
Carroll
I could not remember who had the frosty battery

Thanks.

I too feel that this is all going the way it should and will eventually be understood.
unfortunately I feel responsible for some of the confusion here ,I had asked Dave to help with some replications
last year
{Brad started one]
and then My eye surgeries started and I could not even Move my eyes for almost 8 months to read or anything else.

 


Just an update
the batteries are hopefully being picked up today [thanks to member PhysicsProf and others  ]

I hope we can just slow down here a bit and let Luc move along with out making him feel the need to
Rush.
it will be good to finally understand what is happening here.

Please ??

respectfully
Chet K



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: DrJones on November 03, 2017, 08:26:27 PM
  Thanks for the work you're doing, Chet, and yes, I'll be glad to help out wherever I can.
  Glad to see some progress!     (aka physicsProf)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 03, 2017, 10:47:22 PM
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)


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.


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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 11:20:26 PM
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

Quote
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.

I in no way belittled Luc--in fact i did the very opposite,so why that statement Carroll?

If you want to look at some one belittling Luc,then what about this guy.

Quote Matt:No both measurements aren't correct unless you apply the math. The only number that matters is the difference between the 2 poles. LUC knows this but because of his ego he does not want YOU to believe it. Thats why we get no TEXTBOOK reference for measuring a battery or battery system HIS way.
When measuring a battery you cannot crack the case open and measure in the middle somewhere of your choosing and avoid all other sense of reason.

Attached are the 4 Benitez patents that explicitly layout how he measured his system and came to terms with his results. LUC will avoid at all cost trying to share any reference to his very unique measuring system because it is BS. He is not here to learn he is here to ensure your failure. For what reason I cannot comprehend.

Did you tell Matt off Carroll ?.

Quote
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!

And that was the exact system where Matt and Dave said Luc was measuring it wrong--which he was not--and the same applies if it were a dead battery in position 3.

Power consumed by battery 3 that is used to charge battery 3,is the voltage drop across the battery x the current through the battery--regardless of what is on either side of the battery.
You just dont get to make new shit up to suit your needs.

So,both Matt and Dave paid out on Luc,saying his batteries are too small,and he is measuring it wrong,and will never see any positive result's.

But now have a look at Daves last post here,where he thinks Luc is getting positive result's--best friends now--Luc is a good bloke.

I removed my last post,but now realized i should have left it.
Thankfully TK read it before i removed it,and he will see that in no way did i belittle Luc.

Im done with walking on egg shells--after this much time,we should have advanced from the well know tricks batteries play on us.

To answer all your other comments on this post--icing batteries,battery voltages going up after hours of work--i guess you have all the video proof of this?.

I thought you were better than this Carroll.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: webby1 on November 03, 2017, 11:24:14 PM
I have kept the data from the numerous test results he has posted on a Mac spreadsheet that has an xlsx extension,


Simply rename the file extension to .xls and you can post it
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 03, 2017, 11:34:21 PM
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.

And how did you arrive at the 60 watt hour capacity of each battery Dave?.
Did you just go 5A/hr X 12 = 60?.

Quote
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.

Lucky you just cant lock this thread when things arnt going your way  ;)
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 03, 2017, 11:47:05 PM
Quick note to Dr.Jones

The selfless men here and elsewhere who share their hard work and spend  their hard earned money  need the most thanks ,
and they do this at no charge to the community , their reward is the hope for a better planet.

and just a note to one of those men
Brad
Carroll was most likely rushing when he read your post, he has had unbelievable stress and personal issues in his life the last year or more ,and still keeps trying to help out here, including sending a Motor to Luc for testing.

he was traveling thru most of the recent issues at the other forum

I know he just got back from a 1600 mile road trip a cpl days ago and is turning around to leave again tomorrow AM to do it all over again.[due to a family crisis ]

Carroll is a wonderful fellow too...

this will all work out for the good

please try to understand ,

respectfully
Chet K

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2017, 12:35:10 AM
web 1
I had already thought of that and tried it, but it didn't post and everything locked up. Will try it once more.


Brad,
How did I get to the 60 watt hours per battery? I went by the load test LUC did on those batteries prior to beginning this test, which he talks about in his first video. Those are HIS numbers not mine. Two were at 60 and one at 53 BEFORE he drained it for testing.


I ABSOLUTELY objected to the test that Luc is running. I was VERY, VERY upset. He did two videos  a year ago, debunking this system  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s)  (watch from about 8 minutes in as he reports results)
NOT using the right size batteries and NOT using the right kind of motor and NOT rotating the batteries. The only change he made is that in THIS test he rotated the batteries. I felt that by NOT replicating the system the way it works ALL the time, he ran a risk of testing a system that WOULD NOT WORK and sharing results that did NOTHING but reinforce the people who have said this is crap for the last ten years. I figured the odds of THAT system working were no better than 50/50, and it pissed me off that ONCE AGAIN I was about to be debunked by someone who wouldn't DO what we have been telling people to do. So YES my tune changed when I could see that it was going to give the results I know it has the potential to give. But what if it hadn't? Would I once again be trying to defend myself from a bunch of people who claim I am WRONG because "THEY KNOW" from their "GREAT EXPERIENCE" that this won't work? You BET I would. And I believe I have the absolute RIGHT to be upset when someone leaves out MOST of the things you know make a system work, and then claims that they are replicating what you have done. That has happened to me over and over and over to the point I have little to NO patience with folks anymore. I am WAY beyond this little 3 Battery setup in my experiments, and ready to bring some things to market. It is several steps backward to even MESS with this, and I don't have the time. But I DO care about folks out there and I honestly believe that this will set people on a path to some of the things I have seen.


Yes, I locked the thread on Energetic forum, have pretty much said goodbye on Luc's thread, and am about done here as well. I have an opportunity to make some money off the things I have learned so that my wife can retire, and I intend to take advantage of it. I have made commitments to some folks I will honor, but I do not have the time to spend on the forums. I had minor surgery on my foot, so I have been laying around for about a week or I wouldn't be here NOW.
[size=78%]
[/size]
    I HAVE attempted to share this information with folks on other forums, and here is my latest response:[/font]     
I prefer to stick with those boring old laws of thermodynamics, somewhat supported by the fact that no over unity device has ever made it into common usage, something that would certainly have happened if they actually worked. There is no suppressed knowledge, there are more than enough independent millionaires to bring this stuff out if it were ever possible. I am also reasonably confident that electricity works pretty much exactly as we think it does. A heat pump is not an 'over unity' device, it relies on the fact that wherever there is a usuable energy gradient, some power can be extracted in a usable form. A typical heat gradient device might be a Stirling cycle engine.[/size]

[/size]
    I hope folks will follow what Luc has done and will do, and that it convinces a few to follow in his footsteps. He is a better man than I. I would not waste the days it took to do the testing. I believe folks have the responsibility to do it on their own. Or they get what they deserve. I've gotten real cranky in my old age.[/font]

[/size]


   
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: gotoluc on November 04, 2017, 03:37:23 AM
The only change he made is that in THIS test he rotated the batteries.

Hi Dave

I made more changes to my new test then just rotating the batteries.

1. Used two new fully charged batteries on the input
2. Load tested each battery several time to know their watt/hr capacity
3. Made sure the motor I selected would not exceed the battery C/20 rating which is 0.25 Amps. The motor used even less (0.15 Amp average)
4. Yes, I also rotated the batteries


I agree that the test I did last year which BTW was not intended as direct replication of your work, did not use a good combination of components to prove what I'm now seeing since I tried to do it in a short video which now I can see is not possible.
Once all the tests are done and all is confirmed I intend to delete those two video I made last year and make a new video with all the new test data at high speed so you see it in 5 minute or so.

Things look to only be getting better.

Regards

Luc
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2017, 06:15:46 AM
Luc,
I appreciate that you are getting good results and are publishing the data for everyone to see, and I am feeling vindicated by the whole process. However, I would still encourage anybody building this to do it with bigger batteries and a pulse motor. I would hate to see it NOT WORK and have people think this is not for real. THAT is my biggest concern.


Brad,
Here is the statement Luc made that Matt and I took exception to, and now that I am a little calmer about this, maybe I can get across to you WHY we did not agree with what Luc said. It concerns the statement he made about measurements, which YOU defended. You guys have to realize you are dealing with something a little different here and standard measurement methods can be deceiving. His statement is below. The part that most concerned us of Luc's, i put in bold. The statements in CAPS are mine


     If battery 1 & 2 are connected in series and are 12 volts each = 24 volts and the current is measured at 1 amp = 24 watts entering the motor and if battery 3 is at 12 volts and the current entering it is measured at 1 amp = 12 watts entering battery 3.[/font]
 
 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.

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. 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????



NO MORE CAPS
Nobody on these forums has spent the time that Matt and I have spent with this system since I first brought it to this forum many moons ago. Matt has analyzed the batteries with a pretty expensive battery analyzer. I did the same at the university, but then settled for a much less expensive battery analyzer that I got from Harbor Freight. It measures the things I NEED to know to keep me from ruining any more batteries. We know what we are talking about. We have measured this thing upside down and sideways THOUSANDS of times. I hope my explanations here made sense. If not, you can continue to believe what you want to believe. It's your life. 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.
 

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on November 04, 2017, 06:21:36 AM
The "Three Battery System" is actually quite simple.

Two batteries are series connected to deliver power
to a "load" motor which is series connected with the
third battery whose polarity is configured within the
loop such that it receives "charge" from the "load"
current.  Its polarity opposes the source pair polarity
within the series circuit loop.

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.

As the lead acid battery gains capacity during use it
may appear to the inexperienced that some mysterious
"overunity" has come into the picture.  In reality, it is a
completely "normal" event.

Solar Photo-Voltaic Panels have become quite inexpensive
and are truly devices which are capable of producing nearly
free "overunity" electrical energy.  Lead Acid Batteries are
still excellent storage devices to capture the Sun provided
electrical energy for use later when the Sun is out of view.

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.

Quote from: Dbowling
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.

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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2017, 06:32:48 AM
SeaMonkey,
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. 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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: SeaMonkey on November 04, 2017, 07:09:14 AM
I suppose it should be mentioned that a
discharged lead acid battery does have an
almost magical ability to "bounce back."

The Lead Acid Battery is truly a marvelous
device.  Simple in structure but very complex
in its task of storing and then delivering electrical
energy by chemical reaction activity.  FarmHand
and I have had some interesting discussions
regarding the uniqueness of this over 100 year
old proven technology.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 04, 2017, 03:04:20 PM
author=Dbowling link=topic=4612.msg512697#msg512697 date=1509772546]

Brad,


Quote
24 WATTS IS GOING INTO THE MOTOR AND IT IS CONSUMING 12. REALLY? I DON'T THINK SO

Why do you find this hard to believe,when the motor is one part of a two part series load on the 24 volt battery(the two 12 volt batteries hooked in series).

If we take a 1 volt battery,and series connect 2x 1 ohm resistors,how much power dose each resistor dissipate?
Using your analogy,all the power must go !through! the first resistor--which it dose not.

Quote
HARDLY ANYTHING IS CONSUMED BY THE MOTOR.

The exact amount of power can be accurately calculated in this system.

First you have to understand that battery 3 is not series connected to batteries 1 and 2.
Battery 3 is 1 part of a two part load placed on batteries 1 and 2

To work out what is being consumed by the motor and battery 3 is very simple.
The current flowing through the system will remain a constant-same for all components.
So to measure the power consumed by the motor,we multiply the voltage drop across the motor,by the current flowing through the system--the same applies for battery 3.

Quote
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.

There is no power coming out of battery 3.
If the power was coming out of battery 3,then the battery would be drained-not charged.
As battery 3 is being charged,then it is consuming power to do so.

Quote
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?

The motor is running on 12 watts

Quote
  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.

And this is why i believe you and Matt need assistance with power calculation.
This is standard stuff,and you have it wrong.
As i stated before,the motor is 1 part of a two part !series! connected load.
If the motor was hooked to the source(the two batteries)in parallel,then yes,it would consume all of what is going into it. But it is not a parallel connection-->it is 1/2 of a series connected load.
So,as i said,the motors consumption is calculated by the value of the voltage drop across it X's the current flowing through it--standard electrical engineering.

Quote
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?

And this is where you are making your mistake.
Battery 3 is not hooked in series with batteries 1&2.
Battery 3 is hooked in parallel with batteries 1&2,with a second series connected load between the negatives.
You can measure the voltage drop across each battery individually by placing a voltage measuring  device across the two posts of the battery.

Quote
THE SAME WAY, RIGHT? IT IS THE SAME WITH THE THREE BATTERIES THAT ARE IN SERIES HERE, EVEN IF ONE IS IN SERIES BACKWARDS.

There is no such thing as a series connection backwards.

 
Quote
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.

No,there will be a 12 volt drop across the motor.

Quote
WE SAY 12 WATTS. YOU SAID 24 WATTS. WHO IS CORRECT?

No,i said the supply batteries(1&2) were delivering 11.2 watts to the system,and said that the motor was consuming 5.6 watts--which is correct.
Please go back and read my post again.

 
Quote
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]

What Luc said those numbers were showing,is correct.

Quote
ONLY 12 WATTS IS AVAILABLE TO THE MOTOR. PERIOD.

If we are still referring to Lucs first video,then only 5.6 watts was being consumed by the motor,as battery 3 was consuming the other 5.6 watts.

To say only 12 watts is available to the motor is also incorrect,as what is available to the motor is what batteries 1&2 can deliver,minus what battery 3 will consume when the motor is placed under load.

Quote
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.

Luc's numbers and measurements were correct on his video.

If battery 1 & 2 are connected in series and are 12 volts each = 24 volts and the current is measured at 1 amp = 24 watts entering the motor and if battery 3 is at 12 volts and the current entering it is measured at 1 amp = 12 watts entering battery 3.[/font]

From these numbers we can conclude that the motor is consuming 12 watts,and battery 3 also 12 watts.

Quote
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????

This is incorrect.
The motor is consuming 12 watts unloaded.
As soon as a load(E.G-generator) is placed on the motor,the motor will draw more current,and thus more power.
The charge battery will also receive the same current flow increase,and thus charge faster when a load is placed on the motor.
Luc also showed this in his first video.

Quote
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.

This statement is correct.

Quote
I hope my explanations here made sense.

I could understand what you are saying,but you are incorrect.

Quote
You guys have to realize you are dealing with something a little different here and standard measurement methods can be deceiving.

There is nothing about this system that is a little different,or in any way -hard to take accurate power measurements from.

Quote
We know what we are talking about.

After reading all your claims in this post,and others--it is clear that you and Matt do not know how to measure or make power correct calculations--and this is where the problem lies.

Quote
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.

I do understand very well what is going on,and have no problem at all with taking accurate power calculations from this simple device.

You are in the same boat UFOpolotics was in some years back,where he two screamed OU galore.

After spending around $180.00 on part's,i had to show him how to do a prony brake test correctly.
Once again,it was a case of some one not knowing how to take correct power measurements of there own machine-as is clearly the case here.

Quote
If not, you can continue to believe what you want to believe.

I will continue to make !correct! power measurements.

Dave
I know you may not like what i have said,but it is correct,and you will not find an EE here that will say i am wrong.

You just cant go making up your own type of power measurements to suit your need--to make your DUT work as you claim.

As far as Luc's test showing or exceeding the watt hour rating of the batteries--do not make the mistake that thinking this is something special =-as it is nothing out of the ordinary.

The watt hour rating of a battery is a safety margin ratting only,and the battery could very well put out double the watt hour ratting ,when subject to a deep discharge rate.
It will also kill your batteries much faster.

Battery voltage also has nothing at all to do with the health of the battery,or it's state of charge.


As i said,i still have all my gear i bought for this DUT,and will be happy to shoot a video showing the correct power measurements for each component in the DUT.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 04, 2017, 04:11:55 PM
 author=SeaMonkey link=topic=4612.msg512698#msg512698 date=1509772896]
The "Three Battery System" is actually quite simple.



Quote
The Load will have applied to it the Voltage Difference
between the Source Pair of Batteries and the Opposing
Battery No. 3.

Correct

Quote
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.

Correct

Quote
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.

As i did in my tests.

Quote
Is there actually any "overunity" or any other kind of
"magic" going on with this circuit?  No.

Correct

Quote
Is energy that might otherwise be "wasted" being
recovered and applied to the "charging" battery
No. 3?  Yes.

Energy would be wasted where,if battery 3 was removed?.

Quote
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.

Yes,but in order for there to be extra energy stored in the battery,
You do actually have to supply that energy--it dosnt just appear out of no where.


Quote
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.

Apparently most are lost,and do not fully understand batteries,or how/what there watt hour ratting means.

Quote
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.

One would hope so.



Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: minnie on November 04, 2017, 04:20:03 PM



   Ever heard of "Flogging a dead horse?"  David Bowling.
   Move on with your life,
              John.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 04, 2017, 04:26:41 PM
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.

Quote
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.

This is the one claim i am interested in
Quote post 141 in this thread-->If you read my description of my first experiment again, you will see that when I first flipped the switch, NOTHING happened. The motor did not run. I sat around for 15 or 20 minutes talking to a friend, and suddenly the motor started. It ran until all three batteries were fully charged, and then it SHUT ITSELF OFF.

This is the original setup-correct Dave?
This is the one i would like to get up and running--runs until all 3 batteries are fully charged.

As the circuit was very simple,and provided by your self Dave--how and why exactly did the motor shut it self off,once the batteries were fully charged?,as there would have been a 12 volt potential across the motor,if we assume that each battery voltage value is 12 volts.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: Dbowling on November 04, 2017, 05:27:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: TinselKoala on November 04, 2017, 07:25:57 PM
...

The exact amount of power can be accurately calculated in this system.

...
Brad

Well said, Brad ! (And I hope your post doesn't disappear this time....    ;)    )
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 04, 2017, 07:40:07 PM
Good to read Farmhand is still about.[even better to See Minnie around ]

To those not building here who are just watching and  concerned?
please don't be.
its not your time its not your money ..[obviously not talking to Brad the builder here] .if you don't like what you see
change the channel.

there is absolutely NOTHING that will stop these investigations .

Luc received Carroll's hand wound Matt motor today and Slyder will be running thru the Arduino code and circuits so-as to automate and data log all the important data ..[everything will be shared at the forums when the vetting is done.

the real tests are about to begin...
and Luc is having a good time .

also a side note, Duncan is traveling next week but when he gets back ,he is going to see if he can repeat his battery Frost event for the camera.

all good stuff IMO

Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: webby1 on November 04, 2017, 08:49:03 PM
If the stored energy in the 2 fully charged series connected batteries is known as well as the stored energy in the 3rd partially charged battery, then if the 3 were connected as outlined with no other load would the ending energy stored within all 3 batteries be less than at the start?


Thinking kind of like the cap to cap dump.


If that is the case then the path, or resistance offered, would not consume ANY extra energy  FROM the batteries,,  How could it?  if that energy is lost without anything there then something there is only using what would normally be lost,,,


To me then, to say it is "burned up" in the motor is wrong,, if it is "burned up" without the motor anyway.


If on the other hand the energy within the 3 batteries is the same,,, I am not sure of what that would mean.


Other than that, the only way the 3rd battery can get charged is going to make the motor run and the only way the motor can run will make the 3rd battery get charged,, the time to charge changes with the increase in resistance of the motor, the speed of the motor decreases with the increase in charge of the 3rd battery.
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 05, 2017, 03:46:49 AM
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.

Ah,ok.

Well there are a few things that can cause this effect.

As your battery kept suddenly falling back to a non charged state,i would think that the battery had a bad/broken cell.
When it started taking a charge,lead oxide could have bridged the gap in the broken cell for a short period. Once the battery started taking a charge,the internal resistance of the battery would have started to drop,and at a certain value,the motor would have started to run.
As the charge state of the battery increased,the internal resistance of the battery decreased,and the motor would speed up.
At one point,the current flow through the battery would have gotten to a point where it simply burnt the lead oxide bridge between the broken cell's--like a fuse going pop when too much current is sent through it.
Once the bridge is broken,the motor would have stopped,and the battery would once again appear to be totally discharged.

Once the fluid in the battery settled,the lead oxide would once again form a bridge across the broken cell,and the process would start all over again.

The reason this would work with very few batteries,is because it would be like a 1 in 100 chance of finding a battery with a broken cell,where the break was such that the lead oxide could bridge it in such a way.

If you have such a battery,that wont take a charge,raise it a foot or so above solid ground,and drop it on the ground.
Once again,put your battery charger on it,and see if it takes a charge.

This is just a simple test to see if you do have a broken cell.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: itsu on November 05, 2017, 02:13:07 PM

I happen to have a depleted, broken or otherwise defective 12V / 7Ah battery which only holds about 7.2V.
I have used the above mentioned setup (2x 12V / 7Ah batteries in series, across the depleted battery in series with a 12V dc motor) in trying to revive this battery.

It takes a while (10 minutes) before the motor starts turning and keeps on increasing in speed (voltage/current) while the depleted battery voltage keeps decreasing
from 24V to 14V  when i stopped this run due to bedtime.

Overnight this battery hold its voltage to 8.16V, so it looks in a somewhat better shape. 
Guess i can repeat this test with a longer duration to see if i can fully restore this battery this way.
Temperature measurements did not show any in - or decrease during the half an hour test.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Yu3uk85Ko

Itsu




Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: itsu on November 06, 2017, 01:10:02 AM
I made a longer 3.5 hour run today in trying to revive my depleted / no charge holding battery.
I think i gained another volt as it settled down after a few hours resting on 9.78V which is still a far cry from the 12.5V this battery should be able to hold,
but 2.5 volts better then with what i started with (7.2V).

One thing i again (after yesterdays run) noticed is that when taking temperature readings of the + and - leads of the battery, there seems to be a difference of max. 0.7°C
especially during the start / middle period when the voltage and currents are fluctuating heavily.

Lateron it settles down again till about 0.1°C difference which i think falls within the specs of the used temp meters.
I used a laser temp. meter and lateron backed it up with a fixed temp. probe on a multimeter.

Here the table of todays run:

time into the run         + lead temp. °C     - lead temp. °C       Delta °C

00:00                         20.1                     20.5                       0.4
00:20                         19.9                     20.5                       0.6
00:40                         19.7                     20.4                       0.7    <<<<< max.
01:00                         19.1                     19.7                       0.6
01:30                         20.3                     20.7                       0.4
02:00                         20.4                     20.8                       0.4
02:30                         21                       21.1                        0.1
03:00                         20.8                    20.9                        0.1
03:30                         21.2                    21.3                        0.1

Video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcgXGp9q6gU   


I guess i have to confirm in a better way that there is a temp. difference (cooling effect?) during loading of a battery or more specific, of such a depleted / no charge holding battery.


Itsu
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 06, 2017, 01:39:22 AM
Well
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.



Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 06, 2017, 04:47:57 AM
Well
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.
[/glow]


Indeed.



Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: itsu on November 06, 2017, 10:27:53 AM
Chet,

yes, that comment from Duncan and others about freezing up etc. triggered me to do these temp. checks.
This morning my depleted battery has settled down to 9.3V, so 2V gain, but nowhere near topcondition  :)

Itsu
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 06, 2017, 01:01:31 PM
itsu
Regarding your battery
yes looking into temperature claims seems interesting indeed.
also
I suppose it would be a good one to test some other methods for restoration, I know Brad and others have ideas on how to do this.
some are pretty radical and perhaps dangerous,[maybe to do inside on the bench ?]

This testing Luc is doing is taking up too much time this way [his valuable bench time]
and needs to be automated so he can just set it to run and do other things.
Also
some very interesting investigations/claims coming down the path...

Honestly ,we do have to sort the funding out here...a method to  get parts and funds to the builders so they can get projects done

This resource [you builders here and elsewhere ] is priceless and really needs to be nurtured not abused ..too many good builders get burned out with the extra burden to their life [poverty from spending ]

will talk to Stefan again about this ,he mentioned some other method, but it was more commercial stuff not funding, maybe a donate button like Peter did for builders at his forum?

we are trying to Budget the parts for these upcoming projects ! and right now we need to get all the bits to automate Luc's testing and data collection.


some VERY cool projects on the path ,one which has been around a very long time and never been publicly tested.
and some new insight into the Benitez claim ,and then there is the all soo tempting "water work " sonoluminescence etc...

 To be clear
all these projects will be done in a manner which can be replicated on the average builders bench.

**well one long standing claim will have a "fixture" which is not readily available ,but if the gain is found it will be reproducible on the average guys bench.

the tools we have available today , technology and support systems to monitor , adjust and regulate experiments on the average bench...is mind boggling,  add the support we have from the scientific community to that recipe !! :o

we need to sort funding and equipment donations and.......

lots to do ,  we need people help too

Chet





Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: itsu on November 06, 2017, 05:19:57 PM

Chet,

i think i tried every trick in the book to revive this battery which was a gift from a neighbour.
He had it standing unused on the shelf for more then 10 years so this gel battery was dryed out.
I tried to charge it, but it was unable to hold more then 4V, so i added some distilled water to the cells
which brought it back to about 8V.

After that i tried severall things like desulfate it, pulse it, nanopulse it, short it, boost it, rock it, drop it etc.,
but still it only holds about 7 - 9V.

I think its a dead end, so i tried it for this 3 battery test without good results as it now is back to 8.2V.


Thanks for the info on what your are doing in the background, its of great importance, we cannot thank you enough for doing all this
under the circumstances you have to operate under at the moment.
Its much appreciated!

Itsu
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 06, 2017, 07:23:41 PM
itsu
Thanks, although nothing could happen in the background without the  work of fellows here and elsewhere .

an amazing pool of talent !


Chet
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 09, 2017, 04:53:08 AM
In light of Luc's testing and scope shot's of the !Matt! motor,it would appear to me that there measurement error has been found.

It would seem to me,that the power being sent back to the source,is being counted as power dissipated by the motor--when in fact,it is power stored in the motor,being returned to the source.

As the current has an AC component to it,a power factor correction would have to be made,in order to calculate the correct power dissipated by the motor.

This power factor correction would be the total power - the power returned back to the source.

Looking at the below scope shot,i have marked two red lines showing the portion of power being returned to the source--a PS in this case.


Brad
Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: ramset on November 09, 2017, 09:02:56 AM
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.

Title: Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
Post by: tinman on November 09, 2017, 11:04:51 AM
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.

Oh let me guess--BroMonkey is on the loose again.

Quote
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.

Cool
And then it's on to that other one you were talking about Chet?,---Thats the one im waiting for.
Might even build me one of them  ;)


Brad