View Single Post
Old 01-31-2019, 11:25 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,001
Unconventional battery facts

Originally Posted by Iamnuts View Post
A point I was trying to get across was RTE.
I did this test with lithium ion because it is fairly accurate.
I used 1780 mah from my battery. I then charged my battery with
my IMAX B6. This showed me that it needed 2000 mah. to recharge.
This means that the efficiency was 89%.
100% was coming from the wall and I got back 89% of that from my
Aaron couldn’t seem to grasp this.
From what I get from various sources is that, for lead acid, it is sort of
the 90% mark.
The IMAX manual says it is difficult to determine full charge with la, that’s
why I used li ion.
According to me this is a factor in 3BGS.

I already clarified that I understood that and also that what you claim to be battery science fact applies onto to low quality charging that never hits the topping event. Obviously, batteries will deteriorate over time - unless you hit the topping event as shown in the graph from the "Battery Bible."

For your information, around 2004 when Peter Lindemann worked at John's they did a lot of non-stop charge/discharge tests - that was during the week. The graphs all showed that they were able to discharge more from the battery than what went into them - it was absolutely overunity so your coveted round trip efficiency was over 100% with flooded cell lead acid batteries, indisputably - and it seemed to happen predictably every single time. Then over the weekend, the batteries sat and come Monday, the charge and discharge cycle showed that the overunity disappeared. Just sitting a couple days was enough to nullify whatever conditioning effects were happening in the battery that allowed the gains. That was all solid state, without a wheel spinning and without considering any mechanical work done. Most people will never see this because most people will never do that many consecutive charge and discharge cycles to see it.

"Various sources"?? Why not find out yourself so you can be your own source of information by actually doing the experiments? If I listened to all the various sources out there, I would have never accomplished anything because everything would already have been figured out.

There is no battery capacity analyzer in the world that will give an exact indication of what is in a lead acid battery. I remember John and Peter wrestling with this with all kind of meters they had and none of them were very good. I sort of recall John communicating with B & K to give them feedback on the deficiencies on their expensive battery analyzers. Some are better than others, some are pretty close, but nothing gives a more accurate measurement than charging a battery up and discharging it with a 20 hour rated load to calculate how many Joule seconds you got back. There are obvious situations where it would be good to know what the load-powering capability is without having to drain the battery.

However, if you have the battery full charged by a very specific method to a certain voltage and you do the draw down test - the CBA-IV automates this, you will see exactly what you got out of the battery until it gets down to a certain voltage. That gives you a good benchmark to go by. If you charge the battery up by the same method until it gets to the same voltage, you can be guaranteed that you will be within just a couple percent of your last draw down test. That is valuable information.

That can be done with the 3 Battery method so it does not have to be an issue or factor as you say. If the total work done exceeds what you start with and it is obviously well above a few percent difference, then it is over 1.0 COP, which it is. Instead of focusing on every reason why it can't work - why not focus on how it can be done?

Conceptually, this could work better with LiFePo4 batteries since they have ultra low impedance compared to lead acids. Babcock stair stepped his 24v LiFePo4 bank with his single coil SG up bit by bit and wound up with his battery banks charged up with more voltage and capacity than what they started with. Those batteries aren't supposed to like spikes or cap dumps, but they didn't complain the whole time there were being charged on the single coil SSG with inductive spikes. Long term, I don't know the effects on those batteries, but I saw this happen and I wasn't the only one.

Keep in mind Lithiums are constant voltage batteries and lead acids are constant current - so you are comparing apples to oranges.

There are only two points you have tried to make in this.

1. You get less from the battery than what you put into it - this can be and has been defeated many times. Concepts such as recycling electricity so to speak ought to ring a bell so one would think, "Hmmm, maybe I should actually listen to something that may benefit me!" Others have their ideas why and I have my own ideas, but the bottom line is that it can be defeated.

2. A battery will lose capacity over time and this only happens when the batteries are chronically undercharged. I show you a graph from a 2A12 Bedini charger showing the capacity goes up on each charge and what is your response? To post a charge showing the decrease in battery capacity over time, which is irrelevant if one knows how to charge the battery up to begin with? You're not bringing anything new to the table except for the desire to see the glass half empty. Bring them to a true topping charge and you can increase capacity even above the manufacturers rating and keep it there. If there is something that someone cannot grasp, such as yourself, it is this indisputable fact proven by people all over the world. You seem knowledgeable enough to understand the simple logic behind the Battery Bible chart. Why argue it without testing it out for yourself? Why you cannot admit this is true means you are only trying to maintain a confirmation of what you already believe instead of learning something new.

You admitted yourself you failed in the Bedini experiments so you are the one who was not able to grasp what was taught or did not actually apply what you learned. That is on you and not on anyone that is getting real results.
Aaron Murakami

Last edited by Aaron; 02-02-2019 at 05:49 AM.