Pulse charging Batteries - Conditioning & C.O.P relationship

[jeanna]

I am beginning to see an improvement since I shorted the recovered battery.
It is the 8th day after resuming the procedure.

Also,
I have discovered a way to describe the results in a less subjective way than 'bright, not so bright' etc.
I find that I can measure the distance that the led shoots a good beam, so >18 inches to <1" is useful for describing results.
It would only work with similar leds, so my results will not directly translate to yours, but it is less subjective, so I am happier.


Anyway, after a 12 hour recharge by spikes to 1.33v, I am back to over 2 1/2 hours of work with a >18" beam at the fullest recharge.
The <1" beam happened at 1.14v at 2 1/2 hours, so I stopped it.
Also, the battery returned to 1.32v after a half hour rest today too. this is a half hour after it was exhausted lighting a JTC for 2 1/2 hours. I doubt it would go for much longer, and I won't be testing that today, but I might test that later.


So, this is not much of a report, but things are looking brighter!

jeanna

edit
I should probably add that the spikes were 70v at 45Khz.

[baroutologos]

Regarding the batteries issue,
...
I am gonna perform a simple experiment. i have two identical batteries. One i am gonna pulse charged it with my SSG till full (actually i am cycling it as we speak), and the second being "hot charged" and i am gonna connect it to my PMDC motor freewheeling consuming some 0.8amps (hence inductive load). I am going to notice if there is any appreciable differerence at duration times.

Yesterday I completed one round of an scheduled experiment so as to see if there is any difference between normal charged batteries and those being charged by the inductive collapse mounted on an SSG made more or less by Bedini Specs.

(mine has two transistors and two parallel windings instead one winding the simple SSG has)

In the experiment conducted i used the very same battery. (Yuasha 10 nominal Ah, sealed type)
After conditioing it for 8 cyles non-stop (each cycle is a day of charging accumulating some 3-3.5 aH and each night using a bulb to discharge it -night lamp actually , I hooked up my PMDC motor or the inductive load.

The 1st experiment
...........
begun with a fully charged battery that is has a standing voltage of 14,3 volt sitting on SSG after thoroughly charged.

Start-time: 15:30
end time: 22:30 lasted 7 hours and end voltage was 10.90 volts (empty battery) Motor consumed 0.63 amps at first hours and then dropped 0.61 last hours. Average 0.62 amps.
Calculated 4.34 aH of battery.

The 2nd experiment
............

Begun at cycle n. 15+. I wanted to have fully recovered the battery from the previous experiment. all same conditions were met. (14,2 starting voltage, same cycling method etc)

Two 12volts bulbs were selected and further balanced with two resistors. Anyway consumption was a little hgher than the idling motor.

Start time: 10:45
End time: 18:15 end voltage 10,20 volts

Primary bulb consumption was 0.68 amps first hours and fell to 0.66 later.
I calculate a 7 1/4 aH of battery.

Conclusion
..............

My first coclusion is that there is not any significant difference by pulse charging a battery using the inductive collapse method as it considered this method is suitable for resistive loads, whereas not for inductive loads.

Minor deviations were observed but if we take in mind the cycling (thus super charging it) and voltage not completely identical levels, the above conclusion will be my case and I invalidate any theory regarding hot and cold electricity.

Of course, someone could tell that the DMM records a current going to the motor, yet the motor does not produces same energy as the current going in! Then, in case someone claims that more sophisticated methods of energy metering etc should be enforced.
ANyway, i urge anyone with the tools to conduct similar experiments and report findings in order to clarify those issues once for all.

Salutes,

[sucahyo]

I think the experiment must be done using non sealed lead acid.
From renaissance charger RC-2A12 manual:

5) Sealed Lead Acid Batteries (Gel Cells)
Although there batteries have inherent advantages of being unspillable, because the water inside these batteries cannot be replenished, the batteries eventually "dry out". When this happens, the batteries life is over. These batteris are particularly susceptible to being destroyed prematruely by overcharging which cause excessive offgassing (water loss). In many cases, however, there batteries are rendered useless by under-charging, and, in these cases, conventional charging techniques are ineffective in charging them. The RenaissanceTM charger, although not designed for these batteries, can be used to charge them, breaking through the sulfation layers where other chargers cannot, amazingly restoring capacity and extending battery life. Concinued charging, however, with the RenaissanceTM Charger is not recommended for these batteries because of the offgassing that occurs as a side effect of this process. charger is not designed for use with sealed (non refillable) or maintenance free lead-acid batteries. Although it maybe advantageous to use this charger at times on heavily sulfated batteries of this type, consistent charging with this charger may cause excessive venting (offgassing), shortening the life of these batteries.

My sealed lead acid do reduce its life. And I also experience phantom charge:
YouTube - phantom empty

Otherwise it show very high standing voltage but voltage drop significantly while loaded.

[baroutologos]

yea right...

[Allcanadian]

@Baroutologos

I am gonna perform a simple experiment. i have two identical batteries. One i am gonna pulse charged it with my SSG till full (actually i am cycling it as we speak), and the second being "hot charged" and i am gonna connect it to my PMDC motor freewheeling consuming some 0.8amps (hence inductive load). I am going to notice if there is any appreciable differerence at duration times.

My first conclusion is that there is not any significant difference by pulse charging a battery using the inductive collapse method as it considered this method is suitable for resistive loads, whereas not for inductive loads.
Minor deviations were observed but if we take in mind the cycling (thus super charging it) and voltage not completely identical levels, the above conclusion will be my case and I invalidate any theory regarding hot and cold electricity.

I would suggest you study basic electrical theory if you want to understand how and where you have made many basic mistakes. Let's start here---

Copper losses result from Joule heating and so are also referred to as "I squared R losses", in deference to Joule's First Law. This states that the energy lost each second, or power, increases as the square of the current through the windings and in proportion to the electrical resistance of the conductors. Copper Loss = I*2R

Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance. For a given amount of power, a higher voltage reduces the current and thus the resistive losses in the conductor. For example, raising the voltage by a factor of 10 reduces the current by a corresponding factor of 10 and therefore the losses by a factor of 100, provided the same sized conductors are used in both cases.

Here it should be obvious that "Hot" or conventional current will produce large copper losses as heat, which is fine if you want a space heater. Conventional current will always without exception produce a voltage drop when encountering any resistance and degenerate into heat. An Inductive Discharge or cold current on the other hand will always without exception produce a voltage rise when encountering any resistance. Here we can see an inverse relationship, Hot current degenerates into heat and Cold current generates a higher potential to avoid the generation of heat thus the designations "Hot" and "Cold" current.
Next, it should be obvious that your battery is a resistance thus the Inductive Discharge will raise it's voltage to avoid this resistance. What you have failed to understand is that the act of "generation" in the battery or anything else, a charging action, is solely a function of resistance or impedence. If the Inductive Discharge generates a potential to avoid resistance and the degeneration into heat then it has also avoided the resistance of the battery and the generation of power within it. Here we should consider what Tesla has to say in this respect --- "We should consider the properties of the components and the quality of current". You see you have avoided the generation of both heat and power by not matching the qualities of the current with the properties of the battery---impedence matching. The Inductive Discharge current has simply produced surface charges on the battery plates some of which charges the battery and the remainder of the current has discharged into itself or the source. If you actually want to "charge" your battery then current and potential must have qualities which are inducive to charging the battery(s). Let's look at what your experiment has actually proven, you have proven that heat losses in one system can be replaced by electrical losses in another, you have simply proven that you do not understand what is happening in either case.
Regards
AC

[baroutologos]

All Canadian i think you are wrong here.

1)
The pulse-charging involves the heavier losses since losses=I^2*R
and because in the pulse charging system the same transfered charge is happening in a fraction of time hence higher momentary current therefore higher losses.

(because batteries are charged by electron movement assisted by suitable voltage level)

2)
who told you that i measured the efficiency of charging in battery anyway?
I performed my experiment to ascertain whether there is a diffence in nature of stored electricity between "cold" and "hot" that is suggested that are suitable for running resistive and inductive loads respectively.

3) what you say about the inductive collapse voltage rises in order to avoid losses and the reverse- and - voltage drop in the "hot" electricity thus producing losses is pure speculations.

Clearly, upon the inductive collapse, if any resistance is placed withing the circuit, the voltage rises in an effort to support existing current levels yet only so for as much energy is stored in the circuit(which dessipates into the resistance). No surplus energy. (well known fact)

Furthermore, batteries are not charged by impedance or voltage. Batteries are charged by electron movement assisted by suitable voltage.
I know the Bedini theories... Can you prove that the ingoing electrons are less than those the battery is outputing?

My experience says otherwise. I know the 1ohm resistor test to the battery being charged but this geberal error is mostly attributed to the pulse nature of the output machines and meter inefficiencies.

BAR,

[Guruji]

running an SSG

Yesterday I completed one round of an scheduled experiment so as to see if there is any difference between normal charged batteries and those being charged by the inductive collapse mounted on an SSG made more or less by Bedini Specs.

(mine has two transistors and two parallel windings instead one winding the simple SSG has)

In the experiment conducted i used the very same battery. (Yuasha 10 nominal Ah, sealed type)
After conditioing it for 8 cyles non-stop (each cycle is a day of charging accumulating some 3-3.5 aH and each night using a bulb to discharge it -night lamp actually , I hooked up my PMDC motor or the inductive load.

The 1st experiment
...........
begun with a fully charged battery that is has a standing voltage of 14,3 volt sitting on SSG after thoroughly charged.

Start-time: 15:30
end time: 22:30 lasted 7 hours and end voltage was 10.90 volts (empty battery) Motor consumed 0.63 amps at first hours and then dropped 0.61 last hours. Average 0.62 amps.
Calculated 4.34 aH of battery.

The 2nd experiment
............

Begun at cycle n. 15+. I wanted to have fully recovered the battery from the previous experiment. all same conditions were met. (14,2 starting voltage, same cycling method etc)

Two 12volts bulbs were selected and further balanced with two resistors. Anyway consumption was a little hgher than the idling motor.

Start time: 10:45
End time: 18:15 end voltage 10,20 volts

Primary bulb consumption was 0.68 amps first hours and fell to 0.66 later.
I calculate a 7 1/4 aH of battery.

Conclusion
..............

My first coclusion is that there is not any significant difference by pulse charging a battery using the inductive collapse method as it considered this method is suitable for resistive loads, whereas not for inductive loads.

Minor deviations were observed but if we take in mind the cycling (thus super charging it) and voltage not completely identical levels, the above conclusion will be my case and I invalidate any theory regarding hot and cold electricity.

Of course, someone could tell that the DMM records a current going to the motor, yet the motor does not produces same energy as the current going in! Then, in case someone claims that more sophisticated methods of energy metering etc should be enforced.
ANyway, i urge anyone with the tools to conduct similar experiments and report findings in order to clarify those issues once for all.

Salutes,

Hi baroutologos you said you managed to run an SSG energizer from a charged SSG battery? I cannot do this maybe my batteries are really faulty cause they're only holding to 7v even after a long charge.
Thanks

[Schpankme]

Green spark of radiant recovery output

Green Spark (Pacific Blue) indicates, Transverse Wave.



Schpankme

“Inside my empty bottle I was constructing a lighthouse while all the others were making ships”. - Charles Simic

[sucahyo]

Minor deviations were observed but if we take in mind the cycling (thus super charging it) and voltage not completely identical levels, the above conclusion will be my case and I invalidate any theory regarding hot and cold electricity

I never observe COP>1 on my circuit, but I definitely see the difference between heating up charging and never heat up charging in my circuit. I don't have any measurement tool. But, with hand measurement I never detect heat coming out of 1.5V nicad or alkaline connected to my charger for 3 hour when it already full at the first hour. Even if the alkaline pop sometimes because of prolonged charging, it still cold. The longest charging hour I have is 3V zinc carbon for 8 hour, still cold and give some life to it too.

I don't care if I don't have COP>1 charger when I already have near new battery:
Electricity needed to charge battery = 0.75A x 12V x 8 hours = 0.072kwh
cost of electricity of 0.072kwh = $.00144 ($0.02 per kwh.)
cost of new battery = $0.5

According to this I have Coefficient of Price = 350000% .

If your circuit can not do cold charging, then your circuit have dirty output or an unpure radiant. If you only use 2N3055 or alike with optocoupler or other weak switching mechanism. If you want more bang, switch your transistor with mechanical switch in series with resistor, sharp switching with no spark.

Green Spark (Pacific Blue) indicates, Transverse Wave.

But it can also be the color of copper burning.

[Schpankme]

But it can also be the color of copper burning

You are correct, note how the flame and the electron impart similar characteristics upon the copper.



Schpankme

“People's minds are changed through observation and not through argument” - Will Rogers

[Aaron]

@Baroutologos

I know the Bedini theories... Can you prove that the ingoing electrons are less than those the battery is outputing?

If you ask that question, then you're telling us that you really don't
understand any of the Bedini or Bearden theories. If you understand that the
battery is a dipole, then it is not being filled up with electrons like a tank of
gas and that it does not give up those electrons when powering a load.
When the battery gets "depleted", it didn't run out of gas, the internally
organized/polarized charges have simply become disorganized, meaning that
the voltage potential difference at the terminals has become reduced,
which means that it is not as strong of a dipole any more.

Supplying potential to a battery can result in the battery converting that
to its own internal charging current.

[sucahyo]

You are correct, note how the flame and the electron impart similar characteristics upon the copper.

Nice picture .

Could it be nitrogen too?
atomic_suicide on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


but
Diamonds May Be The Ultimate MRI Probe, Say Quantum Physicists

[baroutologos]

If you ask that question, then you're telling us that you really don't
understand any of the Bedini or Bearden theories. If you understand that the
battery is a dipole, then it is not being filled up with electrons like a tank of
gas and that it does not give up those electrons when powering a load.
When the battery gets "depleted", it didn't run out of gas, the internally
organized/polarized charges have simply become disorganized, meaning that
the voltage potential difference at the terminals has become reduced,
which means that it is not as strong of a dipole any more.

Supplying potential to a battery can result in the battery converting that
to its own internal charging current.

I have some partial studies as a Chemical engineer Aaron and i know basic electrochemical effects.
We wish the reality to be like you say, only it IS NOT.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong, and widely replicated. (not by me)

..
By the way, the battery is not "filled" by electrons. For each electron going in there is one going out (same balance but diffent arrangement).
And i think is proven beyond doubt that by solo application of pressure(voltage) batteries are not charged. They need electron volume movement plus energy.

[Aaron]

1 electron in to 1 electron out? or less with losses of course??

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong

Famous last words, but that is besides the point.

#1 show me an electron

#2 in your own words in maybe one short paragraph, could you spell
out a summary of your interpretation of this fellow chemists speech
and paper? You seem to be hung on on 1 electron in 1 electron out
and if you could really give a concise analysis of the point to this paper,
I'd appreciate it because it will show me your real frame of reference.
I'm not saying it is accurate or not, just that I really have no way of
knowing what it is at this point...

Ilya Prigogine - Nobel Lecture

Direct link to paper:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...ne-lecture.pdf
PDF format

[baroutologos]

Baroutologos Speaking

I cannot show you an electron, but electron micro-scopes work on them.

Assuming that can be a fallacy too, I am way too pleased the conventional science explains the real effects i observe (even thought exists the possibility of being mistaken) rather the conflicting theories of Bedini/Bearden that have NO real application and mostly contradict each other.

Nothing more to say actually. Hey, you can believe whatever you want thought. In case those theories act as inspiration its ok also, i guess. But everyone must be warned and proceed with caution and critical judgement before exploring those technologies.

Personally, i take the risk of being wrong and rediculed but I can say that no useful applience could come out of these theories (exept battery desulphation)
Reality is our judge here.

ps: By the way, i say what i say based on experiments i do (even rough though) and i do not speak hearsay or depict mine theories.