Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device  (Read 272107 times)

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #525 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. 

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #526 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #527 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #528 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #529 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

Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #530 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #531 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #532 on: November 03, 2017, 03:35:20 PM »
 8)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 06:41:22 PM by tinman »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #533 on: November 03, 2017, 04:51:03 PM »

Well said, Brad!


Offline citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #534 on: November 03, 2017, 06:08:19 PM »
deleted because comments no longer apply.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 11:11:09 PM by citfta »

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7510
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #535 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




Offline DrJones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #536 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)

Offline Dbowling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #537 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


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.

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #538 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

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5237
Re: David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device
« Reply #539 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


 


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  ;)