Splitting The Positive

[BroMikey]

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.


.................................................. .....

[BroMikey]

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.

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

[BroMikey]

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

[BroMikey]

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.

[BroMikey]

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

[BroMikey]

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.

[JohnStone]

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 µA range of your multimeter - you're done. It is no absolute reading but you can compare the initial µA 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 µA 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 µA 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

[BroMikey]

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 µA range of your multimeter - you're done. It is no absolute reading but you can compare the initial µA 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 µA 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 µA 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?

[BroMikey]

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.

[SkyWatcher]

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

[BroMikey]

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?

[SkyWatcher]

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

[JohnStone]

...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

[yaro1776]

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

[BroMikey]

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.