3 Battery Generating System

[FRC]

Matt

Good to see someone with your knowledge and expertise here trying this and getting
similar results to what we have been seeing.

George

[mbrownn]

I put a diode in place of the light, pointing from the negative pole to the positive pole of the battery. Hoping it would relieve the Counter Emf from the motor. And it worked.
The motor increased in RPM and I let it run 8 hours after that. With just the diode.
The next morning after 12 hour rest I remeasure and found I had only lost .05 volt from both batteries.

So the thing works as described and can probably do more. The important thing to remember is how you report your findings and what is required measurement in this system.
If you do not know the state of the dead battery then you will not duplicate it.

Now with that sayed a normal healthy battery did not perform this way. A battery that was intentionally sulfated did not perform this way.

So there is something to look at here.

Matthew Jones

This is the sort of info I am looking for and Matt is right, "How you report your findings".

[plengo]

I would like to share some of my findings.

I left my system (as described on a picture I posted earlier) running for 3 days non stop now.

I left it running with the motor and a load on battery B3 (the bad one). B1 and B2 are the good batteries with B1 sharing the positive with motor and B3 positive and B2 negative connected to B3 negative.

Something very interesting started happening as I left it running. The voltage on all batteries slowly went down as I use the power on the motor and on the load on B3 BUT voltage on B1 reversed into negative while B2 and B3 are relatively same voltage with only a differential of 1 volt or so.

All 3 batteries are 5amp/h small SLAs. I did not expect B1 to reverse in voltage. May be B3 should but never B1.

I have a simple theory. If one study how classical theory explains the CEMF inside the motor (Peter DVD on Motor Secrets goes in detail about that) when connected to a power source one will noticed that the motor works the inverse of a resistor. If I = V/R the motor, as you put a load on it, works more like I = V * R (being R bigger as one add load to the motor). Since as you load the motor the current increases. In effect making this: more load on motor, motor internal resistance R increases causing increase in total current via reversed formula I = V * R (while ohms law is I = V / R).

I would expect that as you increase the load on the motor it should actually reduce the current that pass through it but it is the opposite. SO a motor works more like a sink that allows one to control how much current one can let pass by the circuit by means of the load applied. I think in our case the motor is only necessary as a current controller.

Now, if one understand the a motor works like I = V * R (which is the inverse of Ohms law) how would a dead battery work?

I think the dead battery B3 work similarly to the motor so that when voltage and current is applied to it, it will also create an internal CEMF (counter EMF) just like a motor does BUT we can extract that via a load on B3. So we are in effect not only using the power exported by B1 + B2 via the motor but we also can extract the same CEMF inside B3 at the same time via a load. THis will give us a double power factor while B3 is in a bad state (sulfated).

This little theory would explain why B1 would reverse voltage since my system not being balanced is causing the CEMF of B3 to be so high that its total voltage compared to B1 + B2 is higher causing B1 to reverse.

If my theory is correct, one could add 10 batteries in place of B1 and B2 and while having a bad B3 one would be able to extract power of P = V * I * 2 because of the generated CEMF created internally on the bad battery.

Fausto.

[Turion]

Matt,
Glad to see you here man. And glad you feel like there might be something here worth looking closely at.

Now that you have had the system running, do you notice that every time you turn it on it starts immediately rather than the ten minute wait you had the first time? I have found that even if I discharge battery three by hooking up a load to it, and then hooking up the smallest load I can find to completely drain it, the motor still starts the instant I flip the switch. I have to let battery 3 set for a couple days before it will lose this "memory" it has built up. And then it will take a while to start when you flip the switch. I have stated that I think it's some kind of magnetic memory or polarity shift, because I have found that if I don't drain battery three, but still wait that couple days before turning it on again, that "memory" goes away and it takes time for the motor to switch on. Not the same time as initially, because now the battery has some charge, but still some time.

If any of you make your connections and the motor doesn't start, try spinning the motor by hand and see what happens. I did this one time and the motor just continued to run at the slow speed I was able to spin it at. It gradually sped up until it was running at full speed. This is why I said I thought maybe the motor was acting as a generator. Like crank starting an engine.

I have wondered if the system Tesla had to run his car was some variation of this, with the electronics he built acting as the third battery, and running the auto's motor between the positives or the negatives.

I am in contact with DavidE that posted on this setup here on EF back in the day when I was posting on it over at OU.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...s-charger.html

He felt like his results were so inconsistent that it was impossible to get a handle on anything, and that they varied from day to day. It was very discouraging for him, and I understand that. I have to agree that it has driven me a little crazy to say the least. The one thing I can say for sure is that the closer you get to having a fully sulfated 0 voltage battery (which will still work) the better and more consistent your results will be,

Dave.

[Turion]

Fausto,
Now you are seeing why it is important to balance the load on the motor with the load on battery three. With the load, I think you ARE controlling current flow.

For a simple little setup, there are some interesting reactions taking place here.

Can anyone who has this up and running and has a scope run the tests that mbrownn asked to be run? I'm still a few days away from getting my welding project off my bench, plus will be out of town for a three day weekend, so won't get to those tests until next week sometime.
Dave

[ewizard]

Thats not the facts. I am not sure where you got that from. It says pretty clearly what they tested and that they continuously added energy to the system. I have all the iteration of PK's book over the last 6 years, I cannot find that info in it. Maybe thats after the change you spoke about.
And I can tell ya first hand experience (more than anyone else) this is not even a possibility. Those kinds of expectations of any system like this are just dreams of magic. It does not happen in reality. Stories get told bigger and better every time they get passed on, and people continue to quote it as fact.
Now thats not to say a TS or like system cannot display some very wonderful conservative uses of energy. You can even make them charge themselves over period of time. But your living in pipe dream if you think for one minute 4 starters of any size will run a 30 hp motor under load for any period of time. <snip <
Matthew Jones

Hi Matt, Glad you are looking at this. However I just re-read one of Kelly's books and it says what I just stated. I wish I could copy and paste it but it's not allowing that. It's in Chapter 5 page 8 in the version I'm looking at. I'm not saying that I know it really worked but that's what Kelly reported. I didn't see any reference to them coninuously adding energy into the system. I also mentioned to you about a year ago in the Tesla Switch thread about the discussion I had with Patrick about the diodes being reversed, changed to normal and then changed back in his book after some discussion with him and another person. You even tested what I had mentioned with backward diodes and reported in the Tesla Switch thread. IIRC you thought at first it was doing something but shortly after said it did not work. So I don't know anything compared to you on the Tesla Switch but just have seen enough situations mentioned about backward diodes and some 'unusual' things happening with them. So I just brought this up as an idea to think about and possibly try but it may be all wet. I just don't like to rule out trying even weird things especially if it's a simple test like adding a couple diodes. I've come to the mindset that I think we've tried most of the 'normal' things so maybe it's time to try things that don't sound logical for some experiments.

[citfta]

@ plengo,

Your idea about motors working the opposite of ohms law is incorrect. As you increase resistance the current goes down not up. When you load a motor you are decreasing the BEMF which causes the forward current to go up. So if you substitute BEMF for resistance in the formula you still get I = V/R.

The reason your battery 1 reversed charge was because it had less charge in it to start with than did battery 2. Since you let it run so long you used up all the current in battery 1. Then since the circuit was still running your battery 2 started reverse charging battery 1.

Carroll

[plengo]

Matt,
Glad to see you here man. And glad you feel like there might be something here worth looking closely at.

Now that you have had the system running, do you notice that every time you turn it on it starts immediately rather than the ten minute wait you had the first time? I have found that even if I discharge battery three by hooking up a load to it, and then hooking up the smallest load I can find to completely drain it, the motor still starts the instant I flip the switch. I have to let battery 3 set for a couple days before it will lose this "memory" it has built up. And then it will take a while to start when you flip the switch. I have stated that I think it's some kind of magnetic memory or polarity shift, because I have found that if I don't drain battery three, but still wait that couple days before turning it on again, that "memory" goes away and it takes time for the motor to switch on. Not the same time as initially, because now the battery has some charge, but still some time.

Dave.

I think the motor starts the next time right away is because once you run the system, it will unsufate the bad battery and it will right away allow current to flow.

Letting the battery sit uncharged for a few days does cause it to sulfate and it is a known factor for killing batteries.

I think the secret really lies in the sulfated battery since it is behaving in such a way similar to motors do (inverse Ohm's law). I think the motor and the load one can put on the motor only allows you to control the flow of the current so in effect balancing the internal CEMF of the bad battery and its load extracting that which means current taken out must be in equilibrium with the total power generated and consumed.

IF I am correct, having MANY BAD BATTERIES in parallel should improve the chances of having things working.

Fausto.

[plengo]

@ plengo,

Your idea about motors working the opposite of ohms law is incorrect. As you increase resistance the current goes down not up. When you load a motor you are decreasing the BEMF which causes the forward current to go up. So if you substitute BEMF for resistance in the formula you still get I = V/R.

The reason your battery 1 reversed charge was because it had less charge in it to start with than did battery 2. Since you let it run so long you used up all the current in battery 1. Then since the circuit was still running your battery 2 started reverse charging battery 1.

Carroll

If you add load to a motor, in actuality you have more current going out of the power source. That is counter intuitive. Adding "resistance" to the motor via a load should actually reduce the amount of power the source should output, intuitively speaking but in actuality what happens is the opposite: more load, more power is outputted by the source power.

So again, what I am saying is that increasing R (load on the motor) causes an increase in I for constant V. Since Ohm's law is I = V / R, adding resistance should decrease the current.

I understand you explaining the classical view that adding load is reducing the BEMF or CEMF of the motor which in the end causes the same effect, BUT this is also a theory that proposes the same output result.

In my theory, I did not explain WHY it happens (like you did) only that it "seams" to be the reverse of Ohm's law in effect. Which indeed is.

The fact one explains it via whatever explanation does not make the "effect" (increase resistance/load = increased current) invalid.

Get it?

What i think is really strange and many are missing is this: What makes the power source "think" it needs to output more power to the motor when the motor is doing more work? How the power source really knows that the motor "needs" more power? Please, open the mind and think differently, because the conventional way will only lead you into thinking in ways that will have no extra power anywhere.

Why the CEMF in the motor? really? why reducing the shaft rotation speed by force is making the CEMF reduce (accordingly to conventional theory)? Why when the motor is freely spinning it has more resistance to the FEMF to start with? It is very un-intuitive.


Fausto.

[Matthew Jones]

Hi Matt, Glad you are looking at this. However I just re-read one of Kelly's books and it says what I just stated. I wish I could copy and paste it but it's not allowing that. It's in Chapter 5 page 8 in the version I'm looking at. I'm not saying that I know it really worked but that's what Kelly reported. I didn't see any reference to them coninuously adding energy into the system. I also mentioned to you about a year ago in the Tesla Switch thread about the discussion I had with Patrick about the diodes being reversed, changed to normal and then changed back in his book after some discussion with him and another person. You even tested what I had mentioned with backward diodes and reported in the Tesla Switch thread. IIRC you thought at first it was doing something but shortly after said it did not work. So I don't know anything compared to you on the Tesla Switch but just have seen enough situations mentioned about backward diodes and some 'unusual' things happening with them. So I just brought this up as an idea to think about and possibly try but it may be all wet. I just don't like to rule out trying even weird things especially if it's a simple test like adding a couple diodes. I've come to the mindset that I think we've tried most of the 'normal' things so maybe it's time to try things that don't sound logical for some experiments.

I Stand Corrected. It is there. Its still BS though. I have never seen behavior even close to that. Even with alot of batteries the best your gonna hope for is sustained behavior. And that in itself is amazing enough.

Matt

[FRC]

bad batteries

I would just like to mention that all three bad batteries I have that are working
with this, have all had radiant charging on them about a year ago. I used the
Imhotep relay charger to do this. Whether this a factor or not I do not know.
Also, I decided to top up my battery ! and 2 with a conventional charger
before the next run. Since I had some losses trying the different configurations prior to the last two runs. It appears that my battery 2, which I thought was marginally good is better taking a higher charge now. Is this supposed to happen ? That the good batteries get better ?

George

[Turion]

George,
The good batteries do seem to increase capacity with continued running of the system. I have notice that, but forgot to mention it. Especially when you can get one working that will raise their voltage, which I have only had one time. That's why with the one run I had with heavy loads, the two primaries got up over 18 volts and scared me so bad.

David

[citfta]

Success?

Ok I think I have it working now. When I added one load the motor sped up some. I waited a while and added more load to batt 3. The motor sped up some more. I waited and then all of a sudden the motor took and sped up a lot more without me doing anything else. I also saw that the voltage on batt 3 was going down some more. I let it run for about 1/2 hour like this with no changes. Batt 3 continued to drop down to about 5 1/2 volts before I turned it off. Batts 1 and 2 seemed to be holding very steady and would occasionally show a sudden jump in voltage and then drop back to where they were. I am now letting the system rest and batts 1 and 2 are showing good signs of recovering all the way. My batt 3 is actually 2 batts in parallel. One of them is a small lawn and garden type that is so badly sulfated it will not ever let the motor start up. The other one is a 600 cca batt that will let the motor start after a few minutes of waiting. I just decided to try the Ossie Callahan idea since the one battery seemed to be completely sulfated. The next time I have it running I will try and get some scope shots if I can get the camera to work with my old analogue scope.

Later,
Carroll

[Turion]

Carroll,
That second speed up SHOULD mean that the loads are balanced and you can really pull some power out of the system. I have talked about this before, but you are the first one so far that has mentioned seeing it happen on their system.. Now comes the adding loads to both battery three and to the motor, making sure not to knock it out of that zone.

Can't wait to see your scope shots of what you see going on.

David.

[FRC]

Turion

Dave I also had the motors speed up a couple times on my last run. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this ?

George