Easiest way to get a C.O.P of 1.8

[phishy]

Brilliant, Farmhand!!!

[Farmhand]

G'day Phishy, Thanks, maybe still too early to make any conclusion yet. It does certainly seem as though the power out of the series batteries is more than I thought and may reflect a calculation using 24 volts x amps measured.

The run time one way with this method is shorter than draining two batteries in parallel. Which would agree with the power being more, perhaps double.

Although reality is slightly different to how I first seen it, the effective result is the same as I imagined. So I am very happy so far. Hopefully this can help some people after storms and natural disasters and stuff to exsist a bit more comfortably in tough time's. Especially me.

Still looks good, 14 hours gone and I still have 0.5 or so of a volt to burn maybe a bit less. I think it can do it. I'll wait to do the next side swap then i have to go do some work.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Now the batteries are starting to show some real drain or pain one or the other . I had to do the second swap after only 6 hours a while ago at 8:40 am now it's 10:15am. During the 8:40 am swap the batteries read 12.58v for the one's just charged in parallel and 12.13v for the one's just drained in series.

Minus 2 x 7 minutes for the swaps thats 16 hours 35 minute's so far and quite a while to go yet. I am expecting a rapid decline soon though as that would seem the logical thing to happen sooner or later.

1.8 time's the work may well be the limit with this simple arrangement.

I do think I let it run a bit too long the first time, I fell asleep. My bad. It shouldn't matter too much.

Cheers

[mbrownn]

Keep it going, I think the batteries are on a plateau. When they finally deplete it will happen fairly fast. The total run time is what is important, Is it more power than what was used to charge the first two batteries? I think the answer must be yes.

[wayne.ct]

Speed vs. Time to get results

Hey, I think it is good that the experiment is taking some time. Not everybody has the patience to collect data of this sort. On the other hand,
if you want to speed things up you can increase the load. Light 2 or 3 bulbs instead of just one. It may mean, however, that your COP decreases with the increase in the load. I hope you are able to post your results when you get done. I would like to see how things turn out, good or not-so-good.

[Farmhand]

Hey Guy's, I'll keep going. I realise now though that if I want to get to 12.10 on all 4 batts I will have to pull some batteries way below 12 volts for a fair while. I don't really want to do that. That was the idea behind only going down to 12.10 volts on the control. Maybe I'll have some charge left after 28 hours or "double work".

Anyway i had to do another side swap at 1:20pm and I took it slow to let the batteries rest a few minutes, the voltage's were - the one's just drained 12.13v the one's just charged 12.47v I measured those just before restarting, I restarted the load at 1:40pm, the difference at restart was only 12.80 volts, at the start of the firt run it was 13.20 volts between the two side's.

So I'm not sure if I should be drawing on the batteries for so long with the voltage of the source batts down under 12 volts. Doesn't seem fair. Does it ?
Maybe I should have kept them always above the 12.10v mark.

It feel's a bit like cheating. I'm not happy about doing it.

Any thought's on that ?

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Well Looks like the key is to swap as little as possible the way of use, each time I swap there seems to be a big loss appears very quickly. Make's perfect sense. No resting and not a full charge. I think I chose too small of a bulb for the load aswell. Can I swap to a 75 watt bulb at an appropriate time ?

If I add the swap times and add that to 15 past the next hour, then swap the bulb then, so the time already with the 25 watt bulb is a whole hour figure, for ease. I don't like the idea of changing the load either though really, I'm not a numbers person.

[bugler]

Hi, I have been reading this thread with interest. Good work.

I was thinking that needing batteries is inconvenient. Wouldn't be possible to develop an appliance that uses capacitors (or some form of storing electricity) and is constantely getting electricity from the main supply, feeding the capacitors, switching off from the main supply, using the electricity in the capacitors and so on?

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly. Do you see what I am talking about?

[Farmhand]

Hi Bugler, you are absolutely correct. I think. Batteries are inconvenient for sure but so is not having them. Different people will have different needs and circumstances so many different ways could be thought of to make use of this kind of effect or energy usage. I have no idea if it would work the same without the batteries though. They are like level shifters that slowly change. Kinda.

Anyway I might be able to just make it to 1.8 times the E.W.P of conventional use. I need to end up with all batteries well above 12.10 volts.

If I get 25.2 hours of actual run time that will be 1.8 x. So I will need to deduct all the swap times from the total time to get the Actual work time.

I kept it going the same and didn't change the load or anything. I need 2 more hours actual run time, the last swap took 6 minutes so thats 40 minutes all up. .2 of an hour is 12 minutes I think.

7 oclock Brisbane time. Will be very close. Ill post all the figures after that plus my dinner time haha.

Cheers

[nilrehob]

Maybe there is a thread about this, if not, there should be:

When replacing batteries with capacitors and/or vice versa
just keep in mind they are not the same.
In its basic form caps are plates storing charge and batteries are chemical.
It is my belief that batteries charge from voltage and capacitors from current
so their behavior is quite different and they can not replace each other in every situation and give the expected result.

If it is the case, that batteries charge from voltage and capacitors from current, then, if possible,
caps should be charged in series and batteries in parallel,
which means the TS work well with batteries but not so well with caps.

If it is the case, it also means that the chant
"to prove OU replace the batts with caps or its a hoax"
is just plain stupid (or just a smart way of diversion).

/Hob

[Farmhand]

Test Complete !

Alrighty, all done,

Results: Control test started 5:15 pm 15/5/2011 and finished 7:15am 16/5/2011.

Control test: 25 watt bulb powered from an inverter and two batteries in parallel. About 2.6 amps at 12.3 volts. Typical.

Battery start voltage 12.65
Battery finish voltage 12.10 volts under load
Battery rested voltage 12.25 volts not long rested maybe one hour.

Total work done 14 hours.

Test Run 1: Two batteries in series at 12.65 volts, negative connected to two batteries in parallel at 12.10 volts. Control load powered between series positive and parallel positive and the arrangement run and reversed manually untill approx. 1.8 times control work done.

5 side swaps taking 7 mins, 7mins, 20mins, 6mins, 5mins, total 45 mins.

Start: 5:15pm 16/5/2011 finish 7:05pm 17/5/2011.

Battery resting voltage's
1.12.21v
2.12.21v
3.12.17v
4.12.17v

Total time: 25 hours 50 minute's.
Less Swaps 45 minute's

Actual run time 25 hours and 5 minutes.
Divided by control time 14 hours

Equals EWP "effective work produced" ratio of 1.7916 to 1 compared to the control. Or almost 80% more work than conventional and with what appears to be less battery charge used.

I must say that actually doing this was quite strange, almost surreal.

Anyway there it is.

Both me and my batteries need a good rest and recharge. We're almost spent.

I satisfied though, that is an amazing effect. Very usefull.

Cheers

[boguslaw]

Well,if batteries are charged from voltage and at the same time are sources of big current though low voltage then maybe we could mix two processes : draining battery using load at high current low volts and charging battery using high voltage high frequency ? If part of load is generator of high voltage and high frequency that may work (if battery not explode of course).
Maybe it is the secret of "zero amps" technology ? In fact lead acid battery looks like a capacitor also with fairy huge metal plates.

[nilrehob]

Well,if batteries are charged from voltage and at the same time are sources of big current though low voltage then maybe we could mix two processes : draining battery using load at high current low volts and charging battery using high voltage high frequency ? If part of load is generator of high voltage and high frequency that may work (if battery not explode of course).
Maybe it is the secret of "zero amps" technology ? In fact lead acid battery looks like a capacitor also with fairy huge metal plates.

I made a new thread for this: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post140918

/Hob

[mbrownn]

I think the real point of this experiment is this.

Our load is powered by the voltage differential between the two batteries x amps giving watts consumed. So if the power was truly consumed by the load then the second bank of batteries would not charge but it does.

Our control experiment would be to wire the same experiment with no load and compare the charge, the difference being the true amount consumed by the load and losses.

If we ran this experiment without an inverter, only using a 12v bulb, it would make things simpler.

We need to compare a direct charge using this method with a charge using a load, I suspect there will be a small difference, the difference being the true amount of power consumed by the load.

Moving forward.

Now if we apply this theory to all loads we can see that most of the power consumed is only destroying the source or in our case charging the second bank. So my conclusion is we have been taught to throw away the supplied energy.

If our load was an SSG energizer, we could charge another two batteries at the same time giving us an excess of electrical power, not only that but our SSG gives us mechanical power too. This setup is truly overunity no matter which way you look at it.

Now we have a truly overunity generator we need to calculate the cost per kwh of excess energy. Which is given by the total excess energy supplied during the life of the machine and batteries, divided by cost of the batteries plus the cost of the energizer. The cost per kwh will only become low enough when done on a large scale or when the generators are mass produced.

If we can get this information out into the real world, we end the debate and make a paradigm shift in the world.

Education.

This is the key to success. We can teach this in schools and universities using the Imhotep/Bedini fan and small batteries at minimal cost. Once this becomes common knowledge in the new generation, It is “they” who will force the establishment universities to accept it.

I for one will be taking steps to teach this to the young. “Free Energy” is a fact and can no longer be denied. Credit where credit is due, thanks to Nicola Tesla and John Bedini also to Peter Lindemann for helping me understand that the energy is not consumed in a motor.

[Farmhand]

I think the real point of this experiment is this.

Our load is powered by the voltage differential between the two batteries x amps giving watts consumed. So if the power was truly consumed by the load then the second bank of batteries would not charge but it does.

Our control experiment would be to wire the same experiment with no load and compare the charge, the difference being the true amount consumed by the load and losses.

If we ran this experiment without an inverter, only using a 12v bulb, it would make things simpler.

We need to compare a direct charge using this method with a charge using a load, I suspect there will be a small difference, the difference being the true amount of power consumed by the load.

Moving forward.

Now if we apply this theory to all loads we can see that most of the power consumed is only destroying the source or in our case charging the second bank. So my conclusion is we have been taught to throw away the supplied energy.

If our load was an SSG energizer, we could charge another two batteries at the same time giving us an excess of electrical power, not only that but our SSG gives us mechanical power too. This setup is truly overunity no matter which way you look at it.

Now we have a truly overunity generator we need to calculate the cost per kwh of excess energy. Which is given by the total excess energy supplied during the life of the machine and batteries, divided by cost of the batteries plus the cost of the energizer. The cost per kwh will only become low enough when done on a large scale or when the generators are mass produced.

If we can get this information out into the real world, we end the debate and make a paradigm shift in the world.

Education.

This is the key to success. We can teach this in schools and universities using the Imhotep/Bedini fan and small batteries at minimal cost. Once this becomes common knowledge in the new generation, It is “they” who will force the establishment universities to accept it.

I for one will be taking steps to teach this to the young. “Free Energy” is a fact and can no longer be denied. Credit where credit is due, thanks to Nicola Tesla and John Bedini also to Peter Lindemann for helping me understand that the energy is not consumed in a motor.

Umm, I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you just said. If it wasn't for the Imhotep Fan Guide, and Johns SSG I would be still struggling to understand how to wire up my solar panels effectively. Thats where I was about two years ago or less. They definately taught me a lot.

I think it would be hard for me to take any credit for anything because with all the reading and inspiration I get from these forums and the people posting on them I would be hard pressed to say anything I come up with is not just a combination everybodies idea's anyway. Seems like it is all a collective effort to me. There is a little bit of Nikola in all of us and there was a bit of all of Nikola's predecessors in him. It is evolution. And it cannot be stopped.

Time is a funny thing, I think there is only real time as it progresses as seen by the observer there is no way to measure it and compare it to "other" time. And there is no way to alter it, it just is.

Cheers