Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 06-26-2016, 08:15 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Aaron to answer you

the curve you see me using is way to high of a discharge rate.
I am doing that to save alittle time. Under normal conditions
packs for laptops are ganged together in sets of 3's. If you load
these batteries properly where they are designed the curve
flattens out more instead of a downward crashing.

I am seeing the cool thing about these batteries it wherever
you load them you get the same amount out.

Each 2200mah battery should not be loaded beyond a C3 rate
maximum and a C4 rate would be best, I am runing a C1.5

At one point in the split pos. graph it draws 2.2amps crazy to much.

Updating curve now BRB
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 06-26-2016 at 08:19 AM.
Reply With Quote

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

  #92  
Old 06-26-2016, 10:01 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Updated Chart and a tally of Joules

So far 72,050 Joules has been run thru the light using the
same 3 batteries as was used to run the light conventionally.

Conventional running shows that no more than 85,590 Joules
are all that is made available to run the light using these
same batteries in parallel. See the chart above that says
Conventional Discharge and there you will see the value of
28,530 Joules for a single battery.

The goal in this experiment is to see if I can run the light and
use the energy to charge battery C at the same time. This test
still throws away energy when I discharge battery C normally
without collecting thru the use of the split positive diagram.

Many other possibilities may exist to increase recovery of
energy beyond this test. In this test I am throwing away
half of the available energy to be captured.

--------------------------


__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 06-26-2016 at 10:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-26-2016, 09:17 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,820
discharge curve

Ok, so you're just overdoing the load.

But the graph I quoted shows a 2.2ah battery but at the bottom you show 3ah / 5 hours = 600ma draw, which should be 440ma for the 2.2ah for a 5 hour discharge. Or is the 3ah reference unrelated to that graph?

Sorry, trying to keep up with what you're doing.

At a 4 hour discharge, would be interesting to see the difference in the discharge curve.

What you really need is a CBA-IV computerized battery analyzer. You can apply a constant current load and it will give you exactly what the battery gives you at the designated cut off voltage. It will automate most of what you're doing, give you graphs, etc... but they are about $200. Well worth it though - has saved me countless hours on recording both charge and discharge graphs.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-27-2016, 02:15 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Ok, so you're just overdoing the load.

Yes overloading destructive crash and burn to make ready
for the right tests such as this one. This one is borderline
at 550ma per battery a C3 rate is abusive not what we were
taught by John Bedini
The way it should work is that you must give time for nature
to work providing a need when conditions are setup and calling.
Other longer duration tests have shown better results.

More fun later. Here is what it should be, well not exactly
but a whole lot closer, next time I will go down to the 200-300ma
range. I will be thorough in my testing.

This test is 3 batteries in parallel 2200ma each. I take that back
on the C3 rate it is a C7 ? let's see. 2200 X 3 = 6600ma x .7 =
4620 or we say 5000ma which would mean at 500ma we could
run for 10 hrs, I doubt it but maybe. C10 rate is more like it.


I pulled 2.2amps off the split positive setup and wasted the energy
going to the charge battery. For a single battery not 3 in parallel.


__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 07-07-2016 at 08:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-27-2016, 03:33 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Sorry, trying to keep up with what you're doing.
I completely understand, I am still getting it together.

I think putting a resistor in line till amp level drop at midway
will give the charge battery time to take on energy, like I said
running 1.6 amp or 2.2amps into a single battery is wasteful.

The laptop battery monitors look cool.

That way you can walk away and when you come back the
numbers are all crunch in for you. I think sound cards use to
be something people had software written for back 20years.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-27-2016, 06:16 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
I completely understand, I am still getting it together.

I think putting a resistor in line till amp level drop at midway
will give the charge battery time to take on energy, like I said
running 1.6 amp or 2.2amps into a single battery is wasteful.

The laptop battery monitors look cool.

That way you can walk away and when you come back the
numbers are all crunch in for you. I think sound cards use to
be something people had software written for back 20years.
Okay there it is a half decent done job with no missing details.

3 batteries at 2200ma each X 3 = 6600ma X 70% =4620 so say
500ma capacity, we will look at and see what the actual is.

More coming. This is just the start.


CONVENTIONAL DISCHARGE CURVE BASELINE C5-C10 rate?

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-27-2016, 09:00 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
It was originally fictitiously calculated to be a figure of
85,700 J but that figure was off. I ran 1 battery and then
multiplied by 3 batteries so it is important to do the actual
testing.

The real figure comes to 81,715 Joules.

These values listed on the diagram are based of the data
collected each hour and an average is arived upon for each
hour plus joule count for each hour. A small price to pay to
find out if extra energy real does exist using a split positive
diagram verses the conventional.


Contentional Disharge baseline 3 parallel 2200ma batteries.
7:00oc 4.10v at 1600ma
8:00oc 3.88v at 1400ma
9:00oc 3.72v at 1150ma
10:00oc 3.61 at 1000
11:00oc 3.53v at 850ma
12:00oc 3.44v at 750ma
1:00oc 3.09v at 375ma


This diagram establishes a base line for 3 lithium batteries
that are rated at 2200mah for a combined rating of 6600mah

Also I am now getting to the process of the actual C rating
for each run. Since this run took 6 hours, you tell me.

I will also continue to draw to your attention as instructed
by John Bedini concerning nature and how nature can fight
you when you go against what should be done.

As a for instance it should be noted that the normal destructive
discharges like in this diagram care only slightly with lithium
batteries when it comes to discharging them at a C2 or C3 or C5
because they are designed so that very little resistance is offered
regardless.

While I am sure energy can be saved at a slower discharge we
might say that the saving would be considered negligible. However
when charging these same batteries another set of rules exist.

We have become so use to forcibly discharging batteries and the
same for charging and wonder why the batteries must be put
in the trash in less than a year.

It takes time to charge a battery properly and like you posted
Aaron there is an 80% or 70% figure with speed charging which
means as batteries are forced to charge in 2 hrs they never really
reach their Max values plus huge amounts of wasted energy in
the process.

The goal here is to eliminate the resistance as much as possible
and give our time to the process at hand. Therefore we must
take a look at this discharge.

A C6 rate in which an unbridled startup avalanche of runaway
energy that is clearly not a controlled run. Huge amounts of power
to start then ever diminishing. There is nothing constant here.

This destructive discharge is the normal.

At startup each battery is hurled into a C2.5 rate I say 2.5 for this
reason. Each battery will only give 70% of the full max rating
so 2200mah x by .7 = 1540mah actual . On startup the pack is
demanded to produce 1800ma that quickly goes away with in a
few minutes and settles at around 1600ma.

That power to me is wasted. Each battery 1540mah actual is
demanded to give 600ma each. If I charge these same batteries
with spike mode low and long hours I can get them to pull nearly
2000ma. That power lasts for several minutes, one time almost
15 minutes.

So because there is no limiting factor in my circuit energy will be
thrown out wildly. Now on to the next thought.

The next consideration after having concluded that the tests
might turn out better results with limits what values do I choose?

The answer comes based on the split positive diagram. This circuit
only uses a single battery (Not 3 totally 6600mah) rated at the
actual value of 1540mah. All series connected batteries are rated at
1540mah two are run batteries and "C" battery charges.

The "C-10" rate would come to 150ma draw and by the way laptops
use 3 of these batteries in parallel and normally run a C3 rate and
a charging adapter around 1.5amps average with the max only
occurring for a few minutes. Think it over and buy more batteries next
year because they are always hot.


__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-27-2016, 11:39 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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 at 11:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-27-2016, 09:27 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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 at 09:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-28-2016, 04:04 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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 at 04:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 06-28-2016, 10:53 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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.


__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-29-2016, 06:37 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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 at 07:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-29-2016, 10:45 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
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 at 11:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-29-2016, 01:13 PM
JohnStone's Avatar
JohnStone JohnStone is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Global Village
Posts: 1,092
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
__________________
Experts spend hours a day in order to question their doing while others stopped thinking feeling they were professionals.

Last edited by JohnStone; 06-29-2016 at 01:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-29-2016, 04:43 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,588
Research

We each have to do our own research and be satisfied with our own results.
I would suggest that your test setup is just too small to see what can actually happen, but again, if you are satisfied that's all that matters.

I have tested much larger setups with far different results using much larger loads, so my perspective is different. That's why we do research, to see what happens when changes are made and how those changes impact results.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-29-2016, 10:25 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
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?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-29-2016, 11:09 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,588
Results

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
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-30-2016, 05:36 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-30-2016, 06:16 AM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,250
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-30-2016, 07:29 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
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 at 10:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-30-2016, 02:32 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,588
Your results.

BroMikey,

Your results are your results, and I wouldn't dismiss them. I don't have experience with just running a light with three batteries, so all I can do is pay attention to what you have shown us, and I appreciate the time and effort that goes into that. I KNOW how much work that was. When I first began experimenting with this system, all I had for a load was a DC motor. And my results were so dramatic the I never dreamed of going back and using a simple light bulb. I still have that same DC motor, although it has been on the shelf for years.

I DO believe that John B said that if the 3 batteries are rotated the light will light up far longer than with a conventional system, but I also believe he was talking about using far LARGER batteries than what YOU are using, and batteries of a different kind with different properties. There is an advantage to using the larger batteries which your experiment may NOT have been able to take advantage of, and that is batteries have a natural tendency to RECOVER some of the energy that has gone out of them ON THEIR OWN.

When you have the right size load in relation to the size of the batteries, you switch batteries, and you take advantage of the battery's natural ability to recover, the results may be far different than what you saw. I am not saying that they ARE, because I have not done the experimenting, but there is TEXT that goes along with John B first publishing the diagram you are speaking about where he describes INDEPENDENT testing done at a lab using that circuit, a load, and nothing but battery rotation using FLOODED LEAD ACID BATTERIES, and the system ran for a very long time. I am not sure where that text is located, but I know that over the years I have read it more than once. It MIGHT have even been included in one of the earlier additions of PJ Kelly's book, but I am not sure. With that in mind, it is hard for me to dismiss the simple circuit on the basis of testing with small batteries that were NOT lead acid.

I am in no way trying to diminish what you have shown, because it proves to the careful observer that it certainly WON'T work with the size and type of batteries you used. But to dismiss the circuit based on a small sample test result is not at all scientific. At least not in my mind. It does show me and others what will NOT work.

I guess it boils down to you believe John B when he says it will work with the right load and Flooded Lead Acid Batteries, or you don't. The test you did with MUCH smaller and different kind of batteries doesn't disprove John's statements as far as I can see.

One other thing I will add here. I have worked with lead acid batteries for eight years now, charging and discharging them with various kinds of charging devices, some I built and some I bought. I have seen batteries that were consistently charged in specific ways CHARGE THEMSELVES while disconnected from any charging device, so I know some interesting things can happen when you induce specific states in lead acid batteries.

Now having said all that, here is the one point I feel is most important. At BEST, this circuit is going to maintain while running a very, very small load. If that's all you are looking for, I believe a lot more research is needed to verify or disprove John's claims. If you want to run larger loads, there MUST be additions to this circuit. What it DOES prove to any reasonable person is that you can move energy between potentials and do work with that energy on the way. And THAT is the only "fact" that matters.

Dave
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda

Last edited by Turion; 06-30-2016 at 02:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-30-2016, 08:53 PM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,250
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-01-2016, 08:42 AM
JohnStone's Avatar
JohnStone JohnStone is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Global Village
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
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
__________________
Experts spend hours a day in order to question their doing while others stopped thinking feeling they were professionals.

Last edited by JohnStone; 07-01-2016 at 09:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-03-2016, 11:27 PM
yaro1776 yaro1776 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 38
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-04-2016, 02:09 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
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 at 05:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-05-2016, 12:00 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
This thread
will be different in that members can post multiple pictures or thoughts
and be welcome in doing so.

I have been trying to understand the SPLIT POSITIVE systems for
a time and will answer any or all questions to the best of my ability.

In this thread I go out of my way to share the foundation of each idea
that is experimented with including detailed graphs or data measurements
that show joule counts. Battery monitors are not an absolute when
you understand these simple joule calculations.

Calculations must be made and are a long, tedious effort that is part
of the reason posts can be lengthy. True research shows the beginning
or the basic idea and then thoroughly documents. Understand that
DOCUMENTS take huge amounts of time and posting that in the end
reveal the machines ability to perform.

The energy is there but just how much is found by data.

The bottom line is that this information is lacking in almost every thread
that makes the boast of "FREE ENERGY" mostly the idea an after that
each is on his own.

This is due to the loss of time involved to create comprehensive information
streams all done voluntarily, giving of one's time and money to further
any field.






Good work all. I made a tiny bit of progress toward the
balancing of my rotor. The idea Matt had to put more
wire on in the spots you need is a good one because
remember when the rotor spins up high RPM's that
your balancing material can fly off.

This rotor runs smooth and never rotates backward to find
the heavy side. All sides are equal. What it look like ain't
what it is. The sound of an imbalanced motor is short
lived.

This way i could epoxy these counter weight bands on
and did so. Everything will be hard tomorrow, I put the
coating on last night.





Here is the beginning of my research with "SPLIT POSITIVE PUMPED"
systems that will be complete with testing results such as the number
of joule spent and the number of joules collected.


Okay I finished the rotor and popped it all together, here
she is. I put tape on the motor shaft so you guys can see
the motor is running at the 1 amp value.

1 amp and 22.9v running on these batteries that are to small.
But it really kicked butt on battery "C" It drove
the charge battery up fast. I didn't have these batteries charged
all of the way up.

I put the system together on a big setup also, can't show you
all that right now but I will soon enough. On the larger system
the motor runs at 1.6 amps after start up. At start up the amp
draw is 2 amps then 1.75 amps with in 10 seconds.

All of this WITHOUT the booster. Coming soon.

Thanks to the guys who lead the way.









Hi guys I been sittin up partyin with my new setup. This is
so much fun, I am really tickled with this setup. After
running those lithium batteries all by their lonesome I just
don't know how to act with two energy pumps running at
the same time. This is so cool Matt thanks-a-million for the
special treat.

The meter fluctuates from the pulsing action is pretty cool, I
read 24.80volts and 25.90volts and back and forth on the run
series batteries. Same for the charge battery, it goes up and
down a little on the volt meter while running.
13.02v and then 14.75v wow what a ride.

Here is the deal guys. Put an amp meter across the ground
for tuning if you wish as shown then when you are sure on
what your voltages are going to be remove it. I didn't do this
on purpose, it was handy and I just stuck an amp meter in
the line like I always do and I saw right away when you adjust
the boost converter just right the meter goes in the opposite
direction, backwards.

Get rid of that stupid pot and put a 10 turn on it or buy this
one with a keypad.

I didn't want to ruin my analog amp meter so quick like a birdy
I lowered the voltage on the booster going back to the run
batteries in series. As you will see in the diagram it is a very fine
line. We are talkin just a few decimal points one way or the other
and your system is out of balance.

It was so fun to run I have been rejoicing and rehearsing what my
next test will be. I am still working on getting these batteries up to
snuff then I noticed that all of this pumping action was really good
for my batteries right on top of running power.

This is great, running power all aound, pumping and pumping where
the voltage stays stable and the balance is kept all the while my
batteries are being conditioned getting better and better.

What a terrific invention

I also have a few inverters staring me in the face and some UPS
boxes and who knows what over here.

This is really to much fun.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 07-07-2016 at 11:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-07-2016, 08:53 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
THE MODIFIED MOTOR AND UPS CIRCUIT.

I ran the little motor converted Energizer for a couple of days
along with the booster so I could maintain a balanced set
of batteries, pretty simple. No change in batteries after running
the motor two days after work. Each day I ran the unit 3-4hrs
til it stunk up the room with that God awful electrical smell.

It is getting better on the smell as I run it.

The batteries seem to stay the same and if you remember the
amp draw was around 1.75amps till I hooked up the booster to
recirculate power back to the series run batteries. Without the
booster returning power back I would need to switch the batteries
every couple of minutes or so being they are all fully charged.

With that in mind this is running now and it is very slowly discharging.
very very slowly. I think it moved .02 points in 2 hours. Not bad
for an 1100ma battery draw that is redistributed around the batteries
so I don't have to disconnect all of the time.

I have also added one 10,000uF capacitor across the series run
batteries thinking any switching energy from the booster might
equalized into the batteries.

Let me remind everyone who has not understood the FLOODED ALUM
battery setting voltage of 11.70volts. It means that John Bedini gets
an AAA+++ for his genius, Oops I better be careful about about
building up John or I'll have jealous insiders chiming in taking
shoots at me from here til Xmas. Come and get yours.

Anyway these ALUM batteries are the kitty cats Meow as they
say. These bad boys will literally hang at 12volt seemingly forever.

Now don't get me wrong these batteries need to charge all of the
way up JUST like a normal lead cell but it does take quite a few more
joules to get one of these babies up, but if you ever do you will
be in for your cake and eat it too, because these batteries are
HIGH DENSITY batteries now. Check out John Bedini's YOUTUBE
I think it is ENERGENX here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Energenx/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ihOxdKiYmo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIhZvDDkaU



Go to the cupboard pull out ALUM and add water and you are full rock
and roll. Well stay away from the aluminum.

Now instead of an acid battery that often will begin to much more
rapidly decline at about 11.70volts, you will have almost twice the
time because that battery will stay at 11.7 to 11.00 volts for the same
period of time the normal battery sticks at 12volts for hour and hours.




__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 07-07-2016 at 10:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-07-2016, 11:00 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,271
.................


Quote:
Originally Posted by Midaztouch View Post
Mikey

What is this winding?! What are you trying to do? What job is this motor supposed to do?

Midaz

Hey Hey Midaz Man

It is all explained very well in this thread let me know what you think.
I had to piece the information together over a several year period.

Little here and there and I finally got it. Matt Jones and Dave have
them running.




This thread
will be different in that members can post multiple pictures or thoughts
and be welcome in doing so.

I have been trying to understand the SPLIT POSITIVE systems for
a time and will answer any or all questions to the best of my ability.

In this thread I go out of my way to share the foundation of each idea
that is experimented with including detailed graphs or data measurements
that show joule counts. Battery monitors are not an absolute when
you understand these simple joule calculations.

Calculations must be made and are a long, tedious effort that is part
of the reason posts can be lengthy. True research shows the beginning
or the basic idea and then thoroughly documents. Understand that
DOCUMENTS take huge amounts of time and posting that in the end
reveal the machines ability to perform.

The energy is there but just how much is found by data.

The bottom line is that this information is lacking in almost every thread
that makes the boast of "FREE ENERGY" mostly the idea an after that
each is on his own.

This is due to the loss of time involved to create comprehensive information
streams all done voluntarily, giving of one's time and money to further
any field.






Good work all. I made a tiny bit of progress toward the
balancing of my rotor. The idea Matt had to put more
wire on in the spots you need is a good one because
remember when the rotor spins up high RPM's that
your balancing material can fly off.

This rotor runs smooth and never rotates backward to find
the heavy side. All sides are equal. What it look like ain't
what it is. The sound of an imbalanced motor is short
lived.

This way i could epoxy these counter weight bands on
and did so. Everything will be hard tomorrow, I put the
coating on last night.





Here is the beginning of my research with "SPLIT POSITIVE PUMPED"
systems that will be complete with testing results such as the number
of joule spent and the number of joules collected.


Okay I finished the rotor and popped it all together, here
she is. I put tape on the motor shaft so you guys can see
the motor is running at the 1 amp value.

1 amp and 22.9v running on these batteries that are to small.
But it really kicked butt on battery "C" It drove
the charge battery up fast. I didn't have these batteries charged
all of the way up.

I put the system together on a big setup also, can't show you
all that right now but I will soon enough. On the larger system
the motor runs at 1.6 amps after start up. At start up the amp
draw is 2 amps then 1.75 amps with in 10 seconds.

All of this WITHOUT the booster. Coming soon.

Thanks to the guys who lead the way.









Hi guys I been sittin up partyin with my new setup. This is
so much fun, I am really tickled with this setup. After
running those lithium batteries all by their lonesome I just
don't know how to act with two energy pumps running at
the same time. This is so cool Matt thanks-a-million for the
special treat.

The meter fluctuates from the pulsing action is pretty cool, I
read 24.80volts and 25.90volts and back and forth on the run
series batteries. Same for the charge battery, it goes up and
down a little on the volt meter while running.
13.02v and then 14.75v wow what a ride.

Here is the deal guys. Put an amp meter across the ground
for tuning if you wish as shown then when you are sure on
what your voltages are going to be remove it. I didn't do this
on purpose, it was handy and I just stuck an amp meter in
the line like I always do and I saw right away when you adjust
the boost converter just right the meter goes in the opposite
direction, backwards.

Get rid of that stupid pot and put a 10 turn on it or buy this
one with a keypad.

I didn't want to ruin my analog amp meter so quick like a birdy
I lowered the voltage on the booster going back to the run
batteries in series. As you will see in the diagram it is a very fine
line. We are talkin just a few decimal points one way or the other
and your system is out of balance.

It was so fun to run I have been rejoicing and rehearsing what my
next test will be. I am still working on getting these batteries up to
snuff then I noticed that all of this pumping action was really good
for my batteries right on top of running power.

This is great, running power all aound, pumping and pumping where
the voltage stays stable and the balance is kept all the while my
batteries are being conditioned getting better and better.

What a terrific invention

I also have a few inverters staring me in the face and some UPS
boxes and who knows what over here.

This is really to much fun.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-07-2016, 07:22 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,588
Matt's Motor

I don't know why you had to piece the information about the motor together over several years. We published a link to a PDF years ago that showed how to build the motor step by step and included a YouTube video of how to wind it.

Connected to battery in the conventional manner it is simply a pulse motor. But connected between the positives in a potential system, it becomes something more. As in more output than input.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-09-2016, 09:29 AM
aweiaini aweiaini is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 9
i have test the motor again,and dont see any gain .
the motor's efficiency is about 50%-60% of the original motor,base on a 16 inch fan as a load .
three 12v batteries series and one 12v battery for charge,motor runs at 24v.
battery 1 2 is 38ah,battey 3 4 is 12ah.
before test i run the battery 0.7a for one hour ,obtain results: battery 1 2 discharge 0.04V and battery 3 4 discharge 0.12v.
the test date:
start voltage:bat1 12.50 bat2 12.48 bat3 12.28 bat4 12.68
run half hour :bat1 12.48 bat2 12.46 bat3 12.23 bat4 12.77
conclusion:
motor consume: 0.7a0.5h50%24v=12v0.7a0.5h
battery discharge:0.7a0.5h312v=12v0.7a1.5h
battery charge:0.09v/0.12v*0.7ah=0.750.7ah
COP=(0.5+0.75)/1.5=83%,or less。

the battery‘s voltage up and down at running,because the motor’s spike voltage,it‘s not a useful voltage,if you disconnect motor from the battery,the battery’s voltage will recover at once。if you connect a oscillograph on the battery‘s electrode you will see the truth。
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
splitting, positive, advanced, videos, basic, thread, post, energy, study, qualifies, clear, video, learn, concept, verified, foundational, spite, failed, rofl, adepts, called, attempts, point, students, experimenters

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 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers