Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1561  
Old 08-02-2009, 04:31 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,992
Hoppy, i guess right now it isnt done to show satisfatory Results, just seems, it only is not that far right now.
Lets see, if we(or Aaron) can find out more about, but it is all first knowing the Circuit better and then do measurements.
I am sure, it wont be any light food Results, what been shown here at last,
more a solid Proof, or even not.
But it takes all time, and Time flys, when you do experiments, as to just waiting for the Results.

Maybe once it is possible, to show a positive Results with a isolated Caps and with Diodes.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #1562  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:01 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
A Man After My Own Heart

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehingle View Post
- - - - - - - - - - -
Rosemary !

Are you kidding ? I just had a pork chop for breakfast !
I'm involved about as much as I am an attorney.

Between the Catholic Church & the Illuminate, Islam & the Jews, attorneys & crooked judges,
Buddhists who use the excuse of "karma" to be apathetic with the disadvantaged,
jealous so-called "scientists" who should have chosen careers as attorneys,
& our government hijacked by special interests, I have been, like many other creators,
imprisoned & monitored in my home & denied the opportunity to have a normal prosperous life,
because the value of my creativity would disturb the Old Thief's market.
Amazingly, all these people believe they are morally right to live this way !

Yes, I too have "models" of high COP magnetic energy generators,
& many other energy conservation & energy production systems,
as well as transportation, health, & clean & clean-up environmental technologies.

You keep asking me what is it I do.
My work is simply described as R&D to do God's will,
i.e. to create a living environment here "on earth as it is in heaven".
& "to keep on seeking that which is well-pleasing in God's eyes"
that will be allowable in His kingdom here on earth.
All else is a bunch of useless, time wasting, "yaba daba doo" (tounges) distructive hogwash.
Many others among us are also realizing that this is their passion & life career.

Cheers !
Mike Hingle
Mike,

I describe my life in these terms, as well. When asked "what do you do for a living" I often reply "Love God with all my heart". Then I ask them if they really meant to ask me "what do you do to make money?"

Thanks for sharing.

Peter
__________________
 
  #1563  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:04 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joit View Post
Hoppy, i guess right now it isnt done to show satisfatory Results, just seems, it only is not that far right now.
Lets see, if we(or Aaron) can find out more about, but it is all first knowing the Circuit better and then do measurements.
I am sure, it wont be any light food Results, what been shown here at last,
more a solid Proof, or even not.
But it takes all time, and Time flys, when you do experiments, as to just waiting for the Results.

Maybe once it is possible, to show a positive Results with a isolated Caps and with Diodes.
Hi Joit

It would be interesting to hear Aarons view on this.

Hoppy
__________________
 
  #1564  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:08 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Root Documents

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehingle View Post
From Rosemary :
My model is somewhere in this thread. Can someone point it out? You're welcome to try and understand it - but if you do, it'll be a first. I think there's a link at the start of this thread. Way way back.
Let me know what you think.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rosemary !
I still haven't seen your 'model'.

Mike Hingle
Mike,

All of Rosemary's published and unpublished works are listed on this page: Free Energy | Rosemary Ainslie which was given at the beginning of this thread. Sorry you missed it.

Peter
__________________
 
  #1565  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:08 PM
thaelin thaelin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 73
setting subscriptions

Just setting up some subscriptions, just ignore

thay
__________________
 
  #1566  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:39 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
EDIT REFERENCE POST 1560 - This thread really moves quick. ( I thought mine would be consecutive)

Actually Hoppy I'm going to try and answer this one.

Firstly - the COP is determined not by battery draw down but by actual measurement of energy delivered compared to dissipated.

Then, if there are those on this forum who need to find some sort of guide - the test proposed with batteries should be more than adequate, provided it is run against a control. Two test repeats are all that is reasonably required. Anything over that is as Jibbguy, I think it was suggested. unreasonable and obstructive. Post 1314 or thereby.

But you know this. Why are you forcing this issue? I sort of understood that you were reasonable. Was I wrong here?
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 08-02-2009 at 06:27 PM. Reason: Amended post number
  #1567  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:40 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Peter, thanks for the link.
__________________
 
  #1568  
Old 08-02-2009, 05:42 PM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 808
I wish that from now on I could see scope waveform pictures taken on this circuit in which the zero voltage line and the Volts/Div in the vertical axis and the time base in milli or microsecond units be clearly included either in the picture or in the caption text. I hope this is not a big wish...

Thanks, Gyula
__________________
 
  #1569  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:06 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Another note for TK

The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery? edit. And the voltage across the shunt averaged at one value then - for some reason doubled? And no-one pointing this out? And no zoom in to show the actual voltage levels. And then the scope showing a wattage as a waveform? What was that about? And the apparent recharge that might not be a recharge? Just look at the waveform across a battery when it's being recharged. The same thing TK - unless a recharge from an actual recharger also means it's not being recharged. What nonsense you talk.

It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't got a license to drive.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 08-02-2009 at 07:59 PM.
  #1570  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:12 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Another note for TK

The function that is down on the LeCroy is the DC off set by your own admission. How then can you average the energy delivered and returned to the battery?

It's not so much driving to the grocery with a flat in the boot. It's more like leading us up the garden path because you haven't a license to drive.
Sorry for butting in here, but in TK's defense, I think it's only fair to point something out that evidently has been missed:

I think it was only channel 2 that was on the blink, and TK has not been using this channel. In one video he was showing 4 wave forms with integration etc. These were all stored wave forms and were acquired from channel 1 only.

I am fairly certain that TK is not using any faulty channels on that scope to acquire critical data, if at all.

.99
__________________
 
  #1571  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:18 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Poynt99. I have really bad eyesight. My hearing is good. TK is on record as saying that the DC off set is not working. What should one make of this? That it doesn't matter? How odd.

Since you're a member of both forums could I impose on you to take my post across? Aaron's not around at the moment.

edit - Have just rerun the entire video. I assure you the comment is that the DC off set is not working. That does not apply to a single channel. That's the whole thing.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 08-02-2009 at 06:54 PM.
  #1572  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:32 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Poynt99. I have really bad eyesight. My hearing is good. TK is on record as saying that the DC off set is not working. What should one make of this? That it doesn't matter? How odd.

Since you're a member of both forums could I impose on you to take my post across? Aaron's not around at the moment.
As I said, TK has been using channel 1 of the Lecroy scope, and it is channel 2 that has the DC offset problem.

Channel 1 is fully functional and has been the only channel used. Sorry if I did not make that clear in my post, but I thought it was.

Here is the video where you can hear TK say it himself. It's right at the beginning, so you don't have to watch the whole thing:

http://www.youtube.com/my_subscripti...Zg&masthead=1#

.99
__________________
 
  #1573  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:33 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
EDIT REFERENCE POST 213 - This thread really moves quick. ( I thought mine would be consecutive)

Actually Hoppy I'm going to try and answer this one.

Firstly - the COP is determined not by battery draw down but by actual measurement of energy delivered compared to dissipated.

Then, if there are those on this forum who need to find some sort of guide - the test proposed with batteries should be more than adequate, provided it is run against a control. Two test repeats are all that is reasonably required. Anything over that is as Jibbguy, I think it was suggested. unreasonable and obstructive. Post 1314 or thereby.

But you know this. Why are you forcing this issue? I sort of understood that you were reasonable. Was I wrong here?
Rosemary,

Simply because I think it important enough to push this issue. I see nothing unreasonable about this. Now that you have responded to my comment, (thank you), unless Aaron has anything further to add, then this matter is closed. I'm not attacking you Rosemary, just because I have pushed this issue with your test plan. You really do not need to be so defensive with me. I'm not a sinister MIB or a nasty attorney, just someone like you that wants the world's population to benefit from more freely available and inexpensive energy.

Hoppy
__________________
 
  #1574  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:37 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Not defensive Hoppy - just trying to appeal to reason. Thanks for letting go here. Just edit the post number. I got it wrong.
EDIT - I'm answering here because there are way too many posts happening. We definitely reason differently. But that's a good thing. Else life would be really boring.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 08-02-2009 at 06:59 PM.
  #1575  
Old 08-02-2009, 06:54 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Not defensive Hoppy - just trying to appeal to reason. Thanks for letting go here. Just edit the post number. I got it wrong.
We reason differently Rosemary. Don't worry about the post number.

EDIT - Agreed.

Hoppy
__________________
 

Last edited by Hoppy; 08-02-2009 at 07:11 PM.
  #1576  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:18 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
Aaron, Assuming you are saying that the gain will be shown in the battery, exactly how do you intend measuring a gain in your test battery?
Extended TIME for equivalent watt hours. I'll post this basic test first.

And I do not recognize ANY authority whatsoever in this matter that I
need to convince. There is no such thing.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 08-02-2009 at 07:24 PM.
  #1577  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:29 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
basic test

Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Firstly - the COP is determined not by battery draw down but by actual measurement of energy delivered compared to dissipated.
Exactly!

The steady DC supply clearly shows what it is "supposed" to take according to basic math in terms of wattage to have the resistor at a certain temp.

We run your circuit to make equivalent heat for however long on the batt to drop it to x volts.

Then we charge batts and put resistor + extra resistance to match the wattage that the dc supply shown is necessary. Then we time it until it gets to the x voltage like in the experiment circuit.

The second will drop the battery much faster but the rate of how much faster is irrelevant. ANY extended run whatsoever is over 1.0 COP.

I'll post this whole method that anyone can use without a scope.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #1578  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:43 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
@ Aaron
1.
Consider placing a Schmitt Trigger buffer between the 555 output and the gate. There are some very fast devices like the 74F14 inverter with switching times of less than 12 nanoseconds (yep nano, not micro). You can put two of those gates in series to get the buffer you need, but mind the supply voltage and HEXFET gate requirements. It doesn't look like the IRFPG50 really turns on until it reaches 8V and the 74F14 is a 5V device - look around, you may find a 40Fxx CMOS (higher operating voltage) that has the same characteristics. If not, let me know and I will try and squeeze that in.

2.
The Bat-Cap is in the order 10x Farads, like 30F IIRC. The tests I have seen have been using capacitor values a thousand times less, as in 33,000uF. Much more energy storage, and better defined for scientific reasons.
__________________
 
  #1579  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:44 PM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Will Be Back Later.
__________________
 
  #1580  
Old 08-02-2009, 08:16 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Exactly!

The steady DC supply clearly shows what it is "supposed" to take according to basic math in terms of wattage to have the resistor at a certain temp.

We run your circuit to make equivalent heat for however long on the batt to drop it to x volts.

Then we charge batts and put resistor + extra resistance to match the wattage that the dc supply shown is necessary. Then we time it until it gets to the x voltage like in the experiment circuit.

The second will drop the battery much faster but the rate of how much faster is irrelevant. ANY extended run whatsoever is over 1.0 COP.

I'll post this whole method that anyone can use without a scope.
Then we charge batts and put resistor + extra resistance to match the wattage that the dc supply shown is necessary. Then we time it until it gets to the x voltage like in the experiment circuit.

Whenever a battery low termination voltage 'x' (LTP) as a reference, then every time you repeat the same test, assuming you have re-charged the battery with exactly the same energy each cycle (not at all easy because of varying SOC), then your calculated COP based on the energy used to reach the LTP will drop until it stabilises. The test battery must be cycle conditioned to a point where their internal resistance stabilises before a final COP is taken. This is why so many people who use this LTP voltage reference level of testing end up with misleading high COP results. Twice is not enough, unless the batteries have been pre-conditioned adequately to stabilise internal resistance.

You say: "The second will drop the battery much faster but the rate of how much faster is irrelevant. ANY extended run whatsoever is over 1.0 COP." I agree, the rate of drop is irrelevant but the overall time to reach the 'x' reference voltage certainly is relevant and if I understand you correctly this is what you are measuring in time to calculate your energy in Joules? If this is the case, then your method is flawed unless the batteries are conditioned as explained above.

Hoppy
__________________
 

Last edited by Hoppy; 08-02-2009 at 08:30 PM.
  #1581  
Old 08-02-2009, 09:39 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
time test

The battery stabilizes fine after a while running at stabilized temp. I know this because when stable and battery stays at exact voltage (exact up to the hundredth of a volt for many hours, I can turn it off and the battery might climb a few hundredths of a volt meaning it is really running where the battery is at.

My batteries are thoroughly conditioned. They are very consistent.

Testing time is testing time of draw and calculating joules is irrelevant. It is testing TIME.

If Rosemary's circuit with certain settings gets the resistor to say 120F and is stable for hours and hours...that is the temp to use with a control supply.

Hook up supply to resistor to see exactly the wattage necessary to get to same temp. that watts is what the math says is absolutely necessary to get the resistor to x temp.

so if the circuit makes that temp and it takes 24 hours to bring the batteries down to 23 volts....that is the time we get with Rosemary's producing equal heat.

Then whatever control wattage says is necessary, we add that much resistance to the batteries after recharged and let it go, the temp of that resistor is irrelevant since we already know that wattage is what was required to make that heat.

and if it drops the battery to 23 volts in 12 hours, then Rosemary's produced heat for twice as long compared to what it should have.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #1582  
Old 08-02-2009, 10:36 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Aaron wrote: -

"My batteries are thoroughly conditioned. They are very consistent."

That's good but you clearly don't understand my point about the importance of doing cyclic conditioning directly before or preferably as part of the test procedure itself. Lets drop this now and I'll not bother you any further on this issue.

Hoppy
__________________
 
  #1583  
Old 08-03-2009, 12:25 AM
EgmQC EgmQC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 178
I dont realy understand why there a focus on the batterie discharge rate in this experiment. We are not talking about a 10%-20% over unity here , the claim is "COP 17", its 1700% OU. Even if is its not all fine tune , you should be able to see a 50% OU from time to time when you experiment with the circuit, there no mysterious part or complexe assembly to make this realy simplistic circuit.

A realy simple way to get result is to use the SAME input for all experiment, for ex: 24v 0.5A, so the discharge rate is locked , when you begin so see some excess heat who is REALY unexplainable , well now will be the time to look deeply on the input side, but dont forget the base reference for the heat, its the ambient temperature, both must be monitored, the claim is about excess heat.

Best whish for you all,
EgmQC

EDIT: Forgot to add, apply the same wattage to your resistor than the circuit will use, let it run for 1 hour, nothing connected to it , just the input source, that will show you what is the maximum heat your resistor should have after 1 hour for a X ambient temperature. Or better, use 2 input source, the first one run the circuit and the second input source only run a IDENTICAL resistor(voltage ajusted for same wattage as the first input source ). You will have the best setup to identify excess heat.
__________________
 

Last edited by EgmQC; 08-03-2009 at 01:14 AM.
  #1584  
Old 08-03-2009, 06:01 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Sorry guys - yet another note for TK.

Have read up and am amazed at the sampling ability of the LeCroy. My concern is that you're applying your own computations to that data. Especially as it relates to the DC average.

I can live with the fact that readings aren't simultaneous. I now understand that point. Thank you.

Now TK. We will need to see the actual software relating to your computations - if you don't mind. Alternatively just hook the FLUKE 123 probes across the shunt and SHOW US the DC average. The sample range is not as broad but it has the real advantage of giving an IMMEDIATE voltage value. (emphasis is not shouting - just intended for emphasis) within a reasonable level of margin for error.

The logic applied for the computation of energy delivered is definitely a 'nested if'. If below zero - subtract - from previous'. You get the picture? Again - back to the Fluke. It has the advantage of being able to deduct the one voltage from the other and give the difference. We can then apply our own math. So. My question. Why are you ignoring the use of that little instrument? I cannot understand it.

And please attend to OC's PM on your youtube. If it's what I suspect - it may be that you have to adjust the conclusions from that sad display of mental arthimetic.

And could you please address the fact that the 'recharge' may, indeed, be a recharge cycle. The more so as it self-evidently IS. Comments such as 'doesn't mean it is recharging - mind' - could otherwise indicate a preference and a bias.

It's really hard to keep up with your duplicity TK - the more so as I'm constrained by that stupidity and lack of technical know how which you gratuitiously bring to everyone's attention.
__________________
 
  #1585  
Old 08-03-2009, 06:24 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
gate pot

Just a quick note on my circuit. It is still running like a champ. However, remember when MH recommended making resistor connection to gate very short?

Well, that specifically helps to PREVENT oscillation. Look it up!

I thought it was a good idea because I usually do hyper short connections between everything. I even tried soldering the inductive resistor straight to the battery terminal!

Anyway, keep the 1k pot or whatever value you use 8 inches or so away from the gate and long curly wires are fine for that!

The evidence mounts that each recommendation from the skeptics so far has done nothing more than down-tune the circuit from what it is supposed to do.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #1586  
Old 08-03-2009, 06:31 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
Mh's quote

In Poynt's inductance thread, MH says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
This is why just measuring the temp of the coil-resistor body under controlled conditions is such an accurate way of comparing the running circuit power and the pure-DC-equivalent power. Even if the thermal resistance is likely somewhat non-linerar with respect to temperature, you are still left with the fact that the energy in must equal the energy out.
I just wanted to post that because I'll remember he said that.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 08-03-2009 at 07:43 AM.
  #1587  
Old 08-03-2009, 08:46 AM
sucahyo's Avatar
sucahyo sucahyo is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,073
Winding?

Messy winding heat up faster. Have the best coil winding for heater been discussed before?

Which is better, a cross 90 degree winding or 180 degree opposite winding? or maybe 45 degree?
__________________
 
  #1588  
Old 08-03-2009, 08:56 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
TK - I'm hoping I can bend your mind around this problem.

The battery recharges, power through, voltage first drops - then a spike to, what was it - say 50 volts or thereby? At that same moment the value across the shunt say 0.4volts positive drops to about 1.2volts negative, (aproximate because I couldn't see the actual value) . Then how do you work out the product of the energy available at that moment? In my reckoning it is 1.2/0.25 = plus/minus 4.8 amps. So. I need to be reasonably certain that the actual energy calculated at that moment as v*i = 240 watts BACK TO THE SYSTEM. (Again not shouting. Just emphasis)

Now. If you do not do the integration simultaneously how is this advantage or gain made evident? And more alarmingly, if you simply do the product of both values and add it to the general loss - then your methodology is wrong.

If, as you say the LeCroy is doing the math - then I'm afraid I need to see it. I'm still concerned that it is not capable of doing that DC offset. To my primitive way of thinking this means that it cannot gauge zero in order to make a comparison as to where the waveform was found in relation to zero.

Please explain this. Sorry to impose.

You are right. Its's the best I can do to explain my concern. I use primative example and analogy. But it serves its purpose.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 08-03-2009 at 08:59 AM.
  #1589  
Old 08-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
In Poynt's inductance thread, MH says:



I just wanted to post that because I'll remember he said that.

HH is right but now I've had time to think in more depth about the proposed test procedure, lets look more closely at this. Rosemary says: -

OK this is how I would suggest the test be conducted if there are no storage scope meters available.

Set the duty cycle and check the temperature of the resistor when it's
stable.


I assume this is done using the test battery?


Then apply the same resistor to a variable power supply and adjust the voltage until the same temperature is found and stable over the same resistor

Then do a v^2/r analysis to determine the wattage dissipated at the start of the experiment.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'control' is actually based on the stable temperature of a resistor originally heated by a battery that will be used in future stages of the test and therefore very likely to have a different capacity and condition as the test progresses. If this is the case, then how can this be considered a control?

Then record the start time to run the experiment until the battery is depleted to say, 11 volts from a 12volt supply or 22 volts from a 24 volt supply.

Don't you mean total run time?

I assume to do this stage of the test, the battery used to establish the control dissipation wattage must be re-charged. How does the test procedure ensure that the energy placed into the battery during recharge does not alter the total energy contained in the battery prior to the control wattage being established? I mean, how do you know when to stop charging given that a battery requires considerably more charging energy to replace that taken on discharge?

Then recharge the batteries and apply a resistor in series with them to draw down the same amperage as recorded at the start of the experimental test.

The same amperage? Don't you mean battery terminal voltage as this is all I read above as being recorded as a reference point?

As above, how does the test procedure ensure that the energy placed into the battery during recharge does not alter the total energy contained in the battery, this time prior to the first experiment being run?

Then recharge the batteries and apply a resistor in series with them to draw down the same amperage as recorded at the start of the experimental test.

As above, how does the test procedure ensure that the energy placed into the battery during recharge does not alter the total energy contained in the battery, this time prior to when the series resistor was applied?


Then rerun both tests.

Does this include doing a new v^2/r calculation?

If you've got two sets of batteries - run them concurrently until one or other hits that critical voltage level. Then recharge both and swap them, control to experiment and vice versa.

How does the test procedure ensure that a second set of batteries would have produced the same v^2/r control result as the first set of batteries?

Please note that of the above questions don't even address the battery conditioning issue which I've now dropped.

Hoppy
__________________
 

Last edited by Hoppy; 08-03-2009 at 10:24 AM.
  #1590  
Old 08-03-2009, 10:44 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hoppy - please be proactive here. Just detail the test protocol required to determine the test without the use of storage meters? Would you mind? I'd be much obliged.
__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers