Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Splitting The Positive

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by yaro1776 View Post
    Mike,

    A quick question for you with respect to the discharge rate of the 3 batteries in parallel at the beginning of your testing and the single battery discharge rate. Were both tests run with the same discharge rate (dc bulb watts) or was the parallel test run with triple the watt rate? There is so much information on this thread that at times us slower pokes become a bit confused.

    Please clarify and continue your good deeds...

    Thanks for your helpful effort,
    Yaro
    I used a resistor with the same loading light bulb to keep
    200ma to 400ma discharge one time. That one test did
    use the light load straight up with no resistor. It drew
    2 amps one time. But the parallel only drew 1.6amp plus
    to start off which is a 550ma drain on each parallel battery.

    I used a 7.5ohm 7watt resistor then 4 resistors in series at
    1.5ohms each so I could keep jumping out resistors to change
    draw. Keeping the draw where I wanted it MOST of the tests.

    For an instance look at this diagram close and you can see
    where I specified a resistor change. I didn't show this in all
    tests.

    All tests gave the same joules out even running light loads.






    Last edited by BroMikey; 07-05-2016, 05:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • yaro1776
    replied
    Mike,

    A quick question for you with respect to the discharge rate of the 3 batteries in parallel at the beginning of your testing and the single battery discharge rate. Were both tests run with the same discharge rate (dc bulb watts) or was the parallel test run with triple the watt rate? There is so much information on this thread that at times us slower pokes become a bit confused.

    Please clarify and continue your good deeds...

    Thanks for your helpful effort,
    Yaro

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnStone
    replied
    Originally posted by SkyWatcher View Post
    ...reversing the diodes, though maybe it requires a certain frequency and voltage to get the diodes to conduct and create ultra fast spikes ....
    Hi Skywatcher,
    I am not deep into magnacoster design but you address a well known parasitic effect that is feared but can be engineered successfully.
    Diodes do not switch just like a mechanical switch. They have a kind of slack between conducting and blocking. This is caused by a capacitance that is being build at P/N junction while conducting. The more current the more charge there.
    At transition from conducting to blocking, this charge needs to be discharged first before the diode can block. Imagine this like a piston with reduced travel or an axle at your car with defective joints. In the end you get a big CLICK or BANG in power train at load changes.
    In times where high end of diodes were those slow 1N4007 this effect was considered just a parasitic loss at higher frequencies. With the arise of faster diodes sudden problems surfaced. The reverse current was switched faster as well in OFF state. In forward direction the current its limits were well calculated. But in many applications the reverse current was neglected. In case the reverse path is not limited, unexpected giant currents can flow for short time and when they are blocked in the end, it is like driving your car with high speed into a concrete wall. This is what you call ultra fast spikes. Sudden change of currents - but it becomes worse.
    Even if you have no explicit inductors in the path you have them there - any wire is an inductor and if you have fast diodes it counts. Hence in case of sudden blocking you get a giant voltage spike for short time. And this is the feared effect that destroys semiconductors (unexpectedly :-( ). In order to deal with this parasitic effect industry developed fast diodes with known and controlled "soft" blocking in order to master those excessive spikes but still perform well in e.g. SMPS devices. (Lets say the piston has some rubber engineered into in order to prevent excessive CLICK or BANG at end of travel).

    If you want to engineer this "parasitic" effect you can buy those ultra fast diodes without the softening property (rubber on piston) and if you apply them along low resistance batteries you switch them to conduct max. rated of current and then you reverse the current. In case you have then a low resistance path available you can cause excessive (I mean EXCESSIVE) back current much higher than rated in forward condition. But as it is short time only it does not hurt (mostly).
    Remember JB saying: "Its's all about impedance ..." You never will experience these engineered goodies if you use those cheap and tiny alligator clip like you see them in many videos. "Its's all about impedance ...".
    Here we can see, that well engineered circuits apparently might have low frequencies but at close look every circuit is HF circuit. The difference is only if it has no negative effect, destructive effect or was engineered. Those facts you never can demonstrate at videos!

    Back to our circuit: Any foot of wire is an inductor and at these speeds it adds a giant voltage spike if blocked.
    That is the effect you mentioned. Of course, the forward current represents an energy loss but you get what you want to have - the high voltage ultra fast spike that might be much steeper than any other semiconductor can deliver.
    You should understand that many inventors (including JB of course) make use of parasitic effects of semiconductors that are not documented or measured by manufacturers and then high skill is to engineer them at will. Those guys dealing with optical devices like lasers are very well informed about this neglected part o electronics.
    In case of these fast diodes data was observed and rated only when it turned to a general problem in applications.

    An other example is the use of avalanche switching that can cause ultra fast switching in case one can engineer that in a safe way for the semiconductor. Some manufacturers have specially designed semiconductors in their portfolio but few experts understand what they are for.

    An yes, it is possible to get same effects along other measures - as you mentioned above.

    I hope this text gives some light on those ultra fast pulses .... But while explaining this in simple way does not mean it is easy - lots of paramters involved.
    John
    Last edited by JohnStone; 07-01-2016, 09:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkyWatcher
    replied
    Hi folks, Hi turion, thanks for sharing the good information.
    I'm searching my drives for a patrick kelly pdf that has the text about the 3 battery system, though i stumbled across some tesla switch information, about how electrodyne corp. placed their diodes in reverse fashion and somehow the diodes would allow very short spikes through, which gave the system extraordinary results.
    I seem to recall magnacoaster might be using that same method of reversing the diodes, though maybe it requires a certain frequency and voltage to get the diodes to conduct and create ultra fast spikes or the batteries need a certain conditioning.
    i get the feeling, your junkyard batteries might have been simulating that effect.
    Though it also said some were able to get much excess without the reverse diodes as well.
    peace love light

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by SkyWatcher View Post
    Hi mike, thanks for sharing.
    No harm no foul as they say.

    My understanding of your tests is this, correct me if i am wrong.

    The only thing i see missing, if that is the method you used, is that the energy from the single lithium cell was discharged and thrown to ground, instead of being recycled into further cycles by some method of battery rotation.
    peace love light

    Yes that is true for one of the tests and now I just thought
    of something while you were speaking. First of all let me say
    that many people have done endless tests that were never
    shared with the world and these same folks hate to spend time
    on the forums. These same folks go on to great discoveries
    because they spend all of their time studying the experiment.

    At the same time not everyone is like that and I am not going
    to let others to speak ill of me for spending time making sure
    the experiment I tried worked or failed.

    The reason I think it is important to spend time on the web
    sharing is because 10,000 others will try the same failed experiment
    and quite trying. Some will never return as they have felt
    betrayed. The one thing men do best.

    Now back to the comment you made. Thank you for taking
    the time to post any information about your efforts plus
    all ideas, that is what we are here for.

    Yes and no. Here is list of tests made and then I will tell you
    about the thought I had because of your comment.

    1) discharge 3 batteries in parallel to ground (conventional)

    2) Same 3 batteries split positive over charging 'C' wasting
    power from the start and only running split positive runs.

    3) same 3 batteries discharge "C" first (1/3 the storage not good)
    collect the joule data then run split positive to charge "C"
    then discharge "C" AGAIN CONVENTIONALLY collect the joule data
    and repeat but also every instance of recharging "C" the light
    ran also and each time a joule report. Half and half.

    4) this is the final test you see. Discharge 'C; once conventionally
    as you say to ground collect data. Then from now on with 2 fully
    charged serial batteries use the split positive circuit to run
    load and charge "C" this was done to lower resistance so "C"
    would not be in an over charging condition or in a high impedance
    state.

    So you see I tested 4 ways.

    The thought I had was that in the last test I should have only counted
    the joules for 2 fully batteries. Good point SKY as battery "C" was
    thrown out of the equation.

    After running the count of joules on 2 batteries only running split
    positive (no experimental changes) I get the same number.

    The number is roughly 26,500 joules for one battery this is
    what the battery holds. For 3 batteries 80,000 joules.
    If I throw out the conventional run figure i still come
    up with the same identical joule count.

    In other words when using the same number of joule running
    from battery to battery thru a load I get the same number of
    joules as I do when running right to ground. Exactly.

    So there is absolutely no benefit in using this circuit as it
    stands by itself. As Turion has pointed out that his tests
    show only pulsing a split positive circuit adds energy if tuned
    right.

    I am beginning to see now that the circuit of splitting the positives
    is a piece of the puzzle that will allow the experimenter to run power
    and charge the source at the same time if done right.

    We have all been told time and time again that we can't take power
    from the batteries at the same time the energy is returned. But the
    split positive is arranged so we can.

    That is what the SSG is......... it is a split positive system. This is
    just another way of using the same idea without building an energizer.

    Does that sound right?
    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-30-2016, 10:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkyWatcher
    replied
    Hi mike, thanks for sharing.
    No harm no foul as they say.
    I have yet to do as thorough of tests as you have done without pulsing.
    Though i did get around 96 percent of my energy back when pulsing a transformer through the inverter in just one charge/discharge phase.
    If i made that test with the 3 batteries i have now, i could have rotated them and split the positive again.
    My understanding of your tests is this, correct me if i am wrong.
    You started with 2 charged primary lithium cells in series and then placed a bulb splitting the positive with a single discharged lithium cell.
    Then you discharged that single lithium cell, calculated joules, then repeated that cycle X amount of times until the primaries were discharged.
    The only thing i see missing, if that is the method you used, is that the energy from the single lithium cell was discharged and thrown to ground, instead of being recycled into further cycles by some method of battery rotation.
    peace love light

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by Turion
    BroMikey,
    I have only ever run the three battery setup with a motor, an inverter or a transformer. I have NEVER run it with just the three batteries and a light as the load.

    The things I added to the mix were there for a reason. They PULSE the charging battery where a light as a load will not. Even when I used the transformer, it was with a pulsing circuit.

    Dave
    Okay fair enough, my mistake in thinking that the split positive
    circuit at the ICEHOUSE website was a complete idea.

    Now then.

    I will pulse the batteries. So now with a converter that pulses
    the split positive battery bank will also provide extra energy
    to a load if tuned right.

    So I have learned that the split positive diagram does not
    bring in any extra energy by itself. Many circuits use the split
    positive or branching stagey to operate at a differential and
    these circuits do pulse the tiny caps.

    Batteries don't pulse.

    Now that I understand that the ICEHOUSE diagram is incomplete
    and yet Bedini has come out (And Peter L.) and endorsed you and
    Matt to lead the way tells me something.

    The first thing it tells me is that Bedini uses this idea with his
    energizers. An energizer is a pulse converter the wheel is
    not needed, John Bedini said this himself.

    Okay now, converters go 90% efficient and the SSSG is over
    100% when connected to lead/acid and especially lead/Alum.

    What more can I add? That is what I do know, not a lot.

    I will be moving to balance Matt's Magic Motor (3M)

    Thanks for letting me know that the only split positive work
    you have ever had any worth while experience with must be
    more than the ICEHOUSE diagram. That it MUST include energy
    pumping circuitry.

    So I must tell everyone who was like me thinking that the
    ICEHOUSE diagram might be the root effect or is a working
    principle to endless energy that the answer is no.

    The ICEHOUSE diagram is all over the world on the world wide
    web and everywhere are calling this circuit a free energy producing
    circuit. But the truth is that this circuit was never put out as an
    endless source of limitless joules.

    I was fooled into thinking that because it is on John Bedini's
    website that it must be a free energy design when that experiment
    never claimed that we could run loads for free.

    So I fooled myself thinking that the split positive system works
    a little bit without outside circuits. I should have known better
    than that because John Bedini has always stated that energy
    pumping is required.

    SHAME ON ME FOR JUMPING TO THAT CONCLUSION.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnStone View Post
    Bromikey, thanks for your thorough investigation. Some hint to lithium batteries:
    1.
    Chinese manufacturers tend to exaggerate the capacity. If you get the capacity that is printed on them you are lucky. So do not calculate that value but measure!

    2. Different from LA batteries lithiums die on voltage. Voltage is essentially poison to them and a quite safe area is from 3.5V to 4.15V. You can go further and get much more capacity but on the expense of life time. You can use less range and increase life time.
    Maybe Chinese manufacturers measure the capacity from 4.5 V down to 0V.
    So overcharging is heading for battery death! You should drain current in your setup early enough or stop charging.
    At same time take care that primaries do not drop below min. voltage.

    3. Because of voltage sensitivity you should not pulse it deliberately. There is no experience available how severe voltage peaks a battery can stand and how much of it arrives at the chemistry in the end. Best is to measure and I would define for myself a value of pulse voltage to not exceed. If you have non cylindrical cells please open the adhesive tape on them and measure at the very entry to the chemistry. Else the wires will cheat you. Such pulses cause excessive amperage and any cm of wire is loss and cheat. Stay away from those cheap alligator clips. They are good for some mA only or short verification test where you know the impact of their high resistance.


    Measure light intensity and wattageof bulbs:
    Commonly unknown is that a solar cell has a quite linear graph between light intensity and short circuit current. So get a small solar cell from a scavenged calculator and connect it to the A range of your multimeter - you're done. It is no absolute reading but you can compare the initial A reading with current one and can determine end of run at certain reading.

    In order to calibrate your setup:
    - Mount your measuring bulb in a can in order to eliminate environmental light.
    - Make the can high enough as to prevent heating of the cell else it will give false readings. You might find a smart way of ventilation while preventing environmental light to enter.
    - Cut a hole in the can and glue the cell there to.
    - Connect the setup to a variable PSU and take a series readings of various bulb amperage and A from solar cell, add watt calculations to the graph.
    - If the bulb is broken you need to calibrate the replacement again.
    - Works with LED as well.

    If you read later on A with your brand new precision meter you know exactly how many mA and Watt you deal with just now.

    I hope it helps for more ease when experimenting.
    John

    Hi John

    I remember this setup by others but had forgotten that. You are
    good at explaining. A bulb inside a shiny coffee can with a tiny
    solar collector. Great great. I love it.

    The thing that puzzles me is that I can get 3-4X the light
    over the hours and hours of testing the split pos.......
    but that is the way it is, joules can be spread out over a
    longer period to fool me.

    What you said about Litium ion batteries is the most powerfully
    in my book. What do I think of Lithium ion batteries? You don't
    want to know. These batteries work or they don't, they can
    appear new and fail in the next breath never to be recovered.

    Lithium ion batteries are built to abuse, unless you beat
    them, burn them cycle after cycle with raw hot current they
    wig out. I heard what you reported on voltage and being
    very careful about pulse (High surging pulses) charging.

    While the manufacture uses tiny warm pulses to charge
    with at 100khz just fine. Lithium ion batteries are so far
    unpredictable in my research. One charge will not equal the
    next charge.

    I must be missing something. I need to understand this
    simple split positive setup using 3 batteries and a single
    load. I know how to do the math.

    I will haul off and get my big daddy batteries out here in a
    minute and run a couple amp load thru them. These ALUM
    batteries are well tested, I have run test before, I know
    what they hold.

    If you or anyone else has any input on why Lithium batteries
    don't work in a split positive setup let us all know. That way
    when I get it working with lead/acid I can decide where this
    effect is coming from.

    See what I mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnStone
    replied
    Bromikey, thanks for your thorough investigation. Some hint to lithium batteries:
    1.
    Chinese manufacturers tend to exaggerate the capacity. If you get the capacity that is printed on them you are lucky. So do not calculate that value but measure!

    2. Different from LA batteries lithiums die on voltage. Voltage is essentially poison to them and a quite safe area is from 3.5V to 4.15V. You can go further and get much more capacity but on the expense of life time. You can use less range and increase life time.
    Maybe Chinese manufacturers measure the capacity from 4.5 V down to 0V.
    So overcharging is heading for battery death! You should drain current in your setup early enough or stop charging.
    At same time take care that primaries do not drop below min. voltage.

    3. Because of voltage sensitivity you should not pulse it deliberately. There is no experience available how severe voltage peaks a battery can stand and how much of it arrives at the chemistry in the end. Best is to measure and I would define for myself a value of pulse voltage to not exceed. If you have non cylindrical cells please open the adhesive tape on them and measure at the very entry to the chemistry. Else the wires will cheat you. Such pulses cause excessive amperage and any cm of wire is loss and cheat. Stay away from those cheap alligator clips. They are good for some mA only or short verification test where you know the impact of their high resistance.


    Measure light intensity and wattageof bulbs:
    Commonly unknown is that a solar cell has a quite linear graph between light intensity and short circuit current. So get a small solar cell from a scavenged calculator and connect it to the A range of your multimeter - you're done. It is no absolute reading but you can compare the initial A reading with current one and can determine end of run at certain reading.

    In order to calibrate your setup:
    - Mount your measuring bulb in a can in order to eliminate environmental light.
    - Make the can high enough as to prevent heating of the cell else it will give false readings. You might find a smart way of ventilation while preventing environmental light to enter.
    - Cut a hole in the can and glue the cell there to.
    - Connect the setup to a variable PSU and take a series readings of various bulb amperage and A from solar cell, add watt calculations to the graph.
    - If the bulb is broken you need to calibrate the replacement again.
    - Works with LED as well.

    If you read later on A with your brand new precision meter you know exactly how many mA and Watt you deal with just now.

    I hope it helps for more ease when experimenting.
    John
    Last edited by JohnStone; 06-29-2016, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    A careful count of Joules

    Within the margin of error I have repeatedly found that
    the split positive diagram offers the same amount of
    joules in these batteries. The claim was that the joules
    in 3 batteries in parallel burning energy to ground could
    be better spent by arranging batteries so that only
    positive terminals should power the loads.

    This permits 2 series batteries to run a higher potential
    against a single battery "Recirculating" and charging it at
    the same time. This charging claim is all true.

    The system does circulate energy differently than a
    standard design. After rigorous data collection using
    new batteries tested at their baseline I can only get
    the same amount of energy out of these batteries as is
    in them regardless of how loads are connected.

    Others have claims of an endless supply of energy where
    loads are all powered for free using the split positive system.

    In my quest to verify this recirculating principle I have posted
    5 charts. When comparing amounts I find that conventional
    discharging of these three lithium batteries at around 80,000 Joules
    and Split positive is also around 80,000 joules, within the margin
    for error.

    I have studied my batteries now for 2 weeks along with making
    graphs of the amounts recirculated.

    I am not calling anyone a liar here because others may have
    this split positive working as shown at THE ICEHOUSE website
    all I am saying is that it doesn't work for me with this build.

    I like the idea of recharging a battery while running a load so maybe
    I will run heavy loads instead of light ones or try something else
    without adding motors or inverters.

    I would like to try other loads that might act as a receiver such as
    a gas filled bulb and then the idea of connecting the circuit to an
    earth ground to introduce outside energy.

    The original experiment used a filament type bulb and not LED's.

    No where else on the web can I find any detailed graphs like
    I have made showing an accurate collection to address the
    claim that split positive battery connections offer extra energy
    by re-circulation.

    Lithium ion batteries like many other types just may not work.
    In the ICEHOUSE example dry cell batteries were used and it has
    been suggested that those types of batteries act as capacitors
    at the same time as they are batteries. These drycell batteries
    can be restimulated many times and new stores of chemical power are uncovered, fooling the investigator into to thinking he has struck gold

    This keeps us experimenting and is a great way to recruit talent.

    Have fun and keep following your dreams.



    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-29-2016, 11:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Hard data collection PAGE 2

    Here is the on going run. Data shows less
    energy available than conventional or near the same due
    to losses during swapping

    This is a lot of work to find out that this circuit does not
    recirculate energy in a manner that runs loads free. So in my
    circuit unless I am missing something big, my circuit using
    Lithium ion batteries in a split positive diagram saves me nothing.

    Maybe i am not counting right, I sure got a lot of light for a
    much longer period. Let me think. Something is wrong.



    Page 2
    next day
    start here
    resistor change
    4:00oc 3.61v at 350ma
    5:00oc 3.32v at 250ma
    battery rotate/change
    5:00oc 3.71v at 400ma
    6:00oc 3.40v at 280ma A= 3.62v B=3.51v C=3.71v
    battery rotate/change
    6:00oc 3.67v at 380ma A= 3.60v B=3.65v C=3.60v
    7:00oc 3.43v at 280ma A= 3.55v B=3.58v C=3.68v
    battery rotate/change
    7:00oc 3.56v at 350ma
    8:00oc 3.31v at 240ma A= 3.52v B=3.50v C=3.69v
    battery rotate/change
    8:00oc 3.57 at 350ma
    9:00oc 3.31v at 240ma A= 3.40v B=3.56v C=3.65v
    battery rotate/change
    9:00oc 3.64v at 360ma
    10:00oc 3.31v at 240ma A= 3.48v B=3.44v C=3.62v




    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-29-2016, 07:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Searching For Jewels

    1st run three 2200mah batteries Split Positive Diagram.




    Here are all of the figures thus far.


    11:30oc 5.05v at 280ma
    12:45oc 4.43v at 210ma
    1:00oc 4.20 at 200ma
    stopped
    start
    2:30oc same 4.22 at 200ma
    3:00oc 4.13v at 180ma
    resistor change
    3:00oc 4.10v at 260ma
    3:30oc 3.99v at 240ma A= 3.83v B=3.82v C=3.65v
    4:00oc 3.88v at 220ma
    resistor change
    4:00oc 3.85v at 280ma
    4:30oc 3.71v at 250ma
    5:00oc 3.60v at 220ma A= 3.66v B=3.67v C=3.73v
    5:30oc 3.49v at 200ma


    Each battery has 26,590 Joules in it and so far using the split
    positive system I have circulated at least 15,818 Joules by running
    my light and charging up battery C.


    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Final Report on 1st Single Battery Capacity.

    This is the final baseline for my brand new batteries of
    2200mah at 3.7v Lithium ion. The numbers show a theoretical
    value and I show the actual. At the C-7 rate actual = 90%

    This means that the most this 2200mah battery can produce
    or hold under constant charging conditions is 1980mah.

    Everything is here.

    From here I will begin charging this same discharged battery
    in the split positive diagram setup and will continue rotating
    til the energy in A & B & C has dropped to 3.20v as I run the
    light counting joules.


    Single 2200mah discharging curve


    5:00oc 4.15v at 310ma -
    5:30oc 4.03v at 300ma
    6:00oc 4.01v at 300ma -
    6.30oc 3.93v at 275ma

    next day begin
    4:00oc 3.94v at 280ma
    4:30oc 3.88v at 260ma
    5:00oc 3.84v at 255ma
    6:00oc 3.72v at 210ma
    resistor change
    6:00oc 3.70v at 370ma
    6:30oc 3.66v at 350ma
    7:00oc 3.60v at 340ma
    8:00oc 3.51v at 300ma
    9:00oc 3.41v at 260ma
    9:30oc 3.20v at 180ma




    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-28-2016, 04:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Collecting the hard Data

    Today I will show battery capacity.

    a single 2200amh battery is dead at 3.2v and full at 4.2v
    this is an average of 3.7v. 2200mah or 2.2a X 3.7v X3600sec.

    That is the answer of the theoretical capacity.

    again 3.7v X 2.2A X 3600sec = 87,900 joules.

    I the real world my last run was a C6 and came to 81,700 J.

    So 87,900 rating and actual is 93% of this figure at 81,700 J

    Not bad, i hope to improve that but who knows.

    In any case this should alleviate all of the disgruntle naysayers
    who feel that human error will prevail in these experiments.

    I have a calculator here that gives me a different answer
    every time I run the same figure thru it, so you tell me.

    Check this diagram thru the day it is being plotted.

    -------------------------------------------
    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-27-2016, 09:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroMikey
    replied
    Controlled Discharging

    After close evaluation of this experiment it becomes clear
    that the split positive diagram sets the perimeters for ALL
    charging AND discharging rates or "C" rates such as C5 or C6
    rates.

    A Target range is based on the average of the uncontrolled
    discharge curve of approx. 300ma per 2200ma X 90+% Lithium
    battery.

    It is in this controlled discharge that I will be able to decide
    just how much these batteries are holding per charge. Each
    charge is done exactly the same running a 300ma charge rate
    til 12.7v is reached.

    The discharge in the controlled setting will not take that much
    longer. Resistors will be installed and removed as needed.


    .................................................. .....




    Last edited by BroMikey; 06-27-2016, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X