Split Positive Boost Charger

[SkyWatcher]

Hi mike, thanks for sharing your perspective freely.
It's a good thing to share our views in a peaceful manner and in an environment of neutrality, this way we can make true progress in this world.

I switched up my test circuit a little, instead of the oscillator circuitry, i'm using the cen-tech inverter off the booster with led bulb as load on inverter, splitting positives into charge battery, still a dual battery setup.
The primary battery is inputting 28.6 watts.
Boost converter is set at 25.5 volts output.
I look forward to your sharing of the results and information from the replication.
peace love light

[BroMikey]

Yes I have changed to another setup while I am unable to get the
generator section built that quickly on this Mod Mtr. I see now why
Peter used the diode on the SSG.

I am not saying it is better just different depending on what we are after.
No diode on the Mod Mtr off boost the primaries just sit there no moving
and I am running 1.3amps, the charge battery goes up very slowly. The
rotating energy mass is not collected so I'll have to get on the stick.

So I realized my setup needed to be changed to increase results and
knowing that boosters are about 80 percent anyway I decided to pull
out one of my SSSG boxes.

For just charging batteries this is the way to go (No Mechanical) I am at
600ma not 1300ma and the two charging batteries are charging right up.
The primaries are still just sitting there I guess collecting the backslash
of the SSSG circuit like John designed this to do.(Highly intelligent life form)


Going to coffee but let me tell you how it is set up. The SSSG is a
boost converter with no rotating parts and NO CAPACITORS. This
boost converter has a special design far surpassing other converters.

I am powering the input of my 4 channel SSSG off of the differential of
the 2 primaries and the single charge battery (In this test) then I am
charging a 4th battery all by itself by the SSSG so there are no physical
connections between run and charge.

I am very shocked at the results of only 600ma driving up two batteries.
The input of the SSSG is a switching circuit and charges batteries very
efficiently and of course everyone knows that the output does that too.

The SSSG circuit is said to operate at 85 percent efficiency but it looks
like the recovery rate in this setup might be as high as 90 percent.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi mike, thanks for sharing, do you have any pics or simple drawings to give more visualization.
I decided to check the amps on the output of the boost converter, in this dual battery setup, not sure why i didn't do that before.
Only 1 amp is flowing from the output of boost converter, into charge battery and the primary battery is drawing 2.3 amps.
So, this is not very efficient, the way it is setup.
I guess the boost converter, or what ever we use, sssg, joule thief, etc., needs to be inline with or genuinely splitting the positives also, or it doesn't balance out well.
I will use 3 batteries again and leave out the boost converter for now and go with the oscillator i was using with the led bulbs inline with with spike output and make sure all that is genuinely splitting the positives.
peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, just want to share some results so far.
With the system circulating around 8 watts average and lighting led bulbs, which are mounted on ceiling rafter, for real practical room lighting, the circuit has run for 15.5 hours.
I have rotated batteries many times now.
So 15.5 hours at 8 watts average = 124 watt/hours so far.
Before last rotation, measured overnight resting battery voltages were:
A = 12.64 volts
B = 12.88 volts
C = 12.67 volts
I want to share a chart i found online, that i think applies to these tractor starter batteries.
It shows that these batteries are all still, pretty much fully charged.
Point being, this system is efficient.
Here is the chart:

peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, here is the circuit i'm using at the moment and the one described in previous post.
Comments welcome.
peace love light

[BroMikey]

Hello Sky

Your batteries are approx. 13ah a piece for a total of 39ah available
energy to the system in conventional terms. This mean that the voltage
of somewhere from 12.70v-11.90v as shown in your battery chart.

Your experiment is running 8 watts and at just over 12volts a figure
of 650ma. Using the 39,000ma available we can divide your figure of
650/45,000 and this comes to 650ma/39,000ma = 60 hrs

You should be able to get 60 hrs of run-time out of your battery set
of 3. This would be your baseline, anything over 60 hrs would be proof that
your system is operating in a mode unknown to science.

The claim has been made that when Turion ran the modified motor if he
tuned his circuit correctly he could recover "X" amount of the energy
he was using to run the motor. The generator is not included here, just
the splitting the positive to a boost circuit (85% conversion) to the
special motor. The claim is up to 80% recovery.

Peter L. just made the claim of 95% recovery AND that this extended
his run time? I think that is his claim tho it is to early to say as more
tests must be made.

Now we have something to go by. Let's take Dave's 80% figure. This means
that he is getting a conversion lose somewhere such as the operating
boost circuit.

In your case that would mean an extended run time of at least 75% of
the value collected which is claimed to be 80%. Your circuit baseline
is 60 hrs so adding an additional 75% on to that should allow for an
increase of 60 X .75 = 45hrs

So 60hrs + 45hrs additionally. Or even a figure of 50% or even 25%
would be a great recovery value. Unless we can run the devices
conventionally to establish a baseline we are fooling ourselves and
that is what most experimenters do.

Many claims have been made yet no baseline figure has been presented
this is very poor research. If we are going to give freely of the data
to further any work we must do the baseline first.

I have never before witnessed this type of data presentation where
evidence can be offered showing extra available power using the same
energy that normally would be used conventionally.

Nothing personal against you sky, just that we don't want to be this
inconsistent. I don't want to be and I know you want real figures.
Somehow somewhere the tuning can produce the extra but until
we have presented the baseline amounts for the energy in all of the
batteries we are no better than those who keeping making claims
that are unverified.

This is what has made the free energy community the laughing stock.
The feeling are hurt and the insults are thrown around, the ball and bats
are removed, the players goes home, no time to spare, never to be
heard from other than the name calling for asking important questions
that should have been asked.

What is your baseline? The answers come back like this.

1) That battery is theoretically good for 10ah so many watt/hrs

2) The last time I ran it it only ran 50 hrs and quit.

It is real easy to fool one's self. In your case we THINK that
conventionally those batteries should run 69hrs but tests must
be shown to verify that YOUR batteries indeed do produce that
amount normally.

[Peter Lindemann]

I Totally Agree...

Hello Sky

Your batteries are approx. 15ah a piece for a total of 45ah available
energy to the system in conventional terms. This mean that the voltage
of somewhere from 12.70v-11.90v as shown in your battery chart.

Your experiment is running 8 watts and at just over 12volts a figure
of 650ma. Using the 45,000ma available we can divide your figure of
650/45,000 and this comes to 650ma/45,000ma = 69 hrs

You should be able to get 69 hrs of run-time out of your battery set
of 3. This would be your baseline, anything over 69 hrs would be proof that
your system is operating in a mode unknown to science.

The claim has been made that when Turion ran the modified motor if he
tuned his circuit correctly he could recover "X" amount of the energy
he was using to run the motor. The generator is not included here, just
the splitting the positive to a boost circuit (85% conversion) to the
special motor. The claim is up to 80% recovery.

Peter L. just made the claim of 95% recovery AND that this extended
his run time? I think that is his claim tho it is to early to say as more
tests must be made.


What is your baseline?

It is real easy to fool one's self. In your case we THINK that
conventionally those batteries should run 69hrs but tests must
be shown to verify that YOUR batteries indeed do produce that
amount normally.

Hey Bro Mikey,

Wow, this thread has really made a lot of progress. I see you are mentioning claims (estimates of performance) that I have made about the machine pictured in the Basic Free Energy Device thread. Great. I agree with you completely that we must be very careful and not fool ourselves at any point in our research. With this in mind, let me share here the raw data that I saw that lead me to make those statements.

The motor functions of the machine are 2 SG coils running in a 3 Battery Supply configuration. Each "battery" consists of TWO Lawn and Garden batteries connected in series to produce a 25.2 volt (12.6v x 2) @ 13 Ah block. [The 13 Ah rating for these batteries is something that John Bedini and I developed over many years of working with this battery.] The motor runs in the Positive position between 2 batteries powering and 1 battery charging with a common negative connection. A fourth battery is allowed to rest after its charge cycle before it is put back in the rotation.

The SG coils have 8 windings of #20 wire, 4 of which are power windings and 4 of which are isolated recovery windings. The battery in the "charge position" is charged by both the run current driving the motor coils AND the discharge pulses from the recovery windings.

At 850 rpm the combined average current draw of the two motor coils reads as 1.8 amps on an analog ammeter in-line with the input circuit. There are individual digital volt meters on each of the battery blocks.

So, this is the set-up. The base-line for an understanding of the conventional battery capacity of the system looks like this. There are 4 batteries in the system, each with a capacity of 13 Ah (maximum). So, 13 Ah times 4 batteries equals 52 Ah total. (13Ah X 4 = 52 Ah). With an average current draw of 1.8 amps, the 52 Ahs will be totally consumed in 28.8 hours of run-time. Run conventionally, the voltages on each of the battery blocks should read below 23 volts (11.5 v X 2) after 28 hours or running.

Before going on, I'd like to give you a little history of the batteries I am using. All of these batteries have a little red sticker on them that reads 4/11. They were, in fact, purchased from Walmart in April of 2011 and used in an experiment at that time. The experiment was a dismal failure and the batteries sat in my garage, unused and uncharged, until June of 2016. I rejuvenated 8 of them for this experiment using a Tesla Chargers 2A12. That is, I charged each of them until they would hold a voltage of 12.6. At no time did I get a Green Light from the charger on any of these batteries. My evaluation of them is that none of them are fully rejuvenated, and a few of them are weaker than the others. I don't believe that any of them can really deliver 13 Ah at this point. On top of this, the experiment is discharging them at about the C7 rate which would also lower the available amp-hours under normal conditions.

I got the machine operating on July 6th. In the run-up to the Conference, I put about 10 hours of run-time on the batteries. During the Conference, I ran it at least 5 more hours during various demonstrations. After I brought it home again, I ran it for another 17 hours straight. So, I ran the system for 32 hours during which the batteries did not receive any external charging. At this point, one of the 8 individual batteries was clearly "crashing" and registering a voltage of 10.8 volts, so I stopped the machine. After resting, the other 7 batteries were still showing voltages of 12.3 to 12.6 volts, depending on where they were in the cycle.

After the Conference, I had to get back to my "real job" and so I have not gotten any farther in my experiments with this machine. However, considering the less than ideal state of the batteries going into the experiment, this performance vastly exceeded my initial expectations! As a "first try" at seeing what Dave and Matt were talking about concerning the idea that a circuit like this could run a motor for a "very long time", these results really shocked me. I have no doubt that with a little more work on the batteries and a little fine tuning of the circuit, this machine should be able to run for weeks at a time on these batteries - running 10 generator coils for whatever I can get out of them.

So, the 95% recovery number is an estimate based on what I have just related. It is not "hard science" and it has not been duplicated yet, but it is not an illusion either! It is a spectacularly exciting initial result that has motivated me to want to continue to refine these experiments.

Hope that helps.

Peter

[BroMikey]

Hello Peter L.

Good to see you around the experiments I can follow once again.
WOW, that is such a cool even handed entry. Thanks and I really do
receive this from you knowing how advanced you are with handling
batteries. There are so many beginners around who only wished they
had a handle on their battery condition as well as you do.

Yes I agree also that batteries left alone will not give you their rated
output so I applaud your precise honesty about a real situation in
a real setting at your garage. I am no different, I get doing other things
and have to work at reviving my banks.

It is going to take me more time to study your design on the special
recovery windings on your very awesome new design for the SSG
augment.

I see figures in your post, I love figures that tells me everything. I am
running some baselines right now trying to get a feel for these deep-
cycles. To hear from you knowing how familiar you are with THAT
particular battery is important to me for sure. YOU know what you can
get out of your batteries as a general rule and this is so important.

Of all people I KNOW you and John KNOW your battery as pointed out
and this gives me hope as to what I can expect on AH ratings for
real experiments. So important to me.

Sounds like you had one duck out of the batch you revived but still
did quite well recovering energy using the 3 battery system, well let's
not forget your new twist on using recovery winding PLUS.

Are you kidding? Of course this helps.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi mike, thanks for the reply and making sure we try and keep it real.
Thanks for sharing Peter, that does help.

One thing though mike, the 8 watts is based on the series battery input of whatever it may be at any given time, 25 or so volts at .32 amps.
The circuit in between the positives then gets to use around 4 watts or so of that, however, the series batteries are still draining by 8 watts.
How much of that 8 watts, that gets absorbed by the charge battery is the question that is revealed by the run time, which is why coil recovery should help.
This is similar to Peters no back emf motor teachings, though in this case, all is not almost lost, because we are using a battery instead of a coil.
peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, so here is my view on this.
Each 12 volt tractor battery is maximum, 13 Ah, and we have an average of 12.3 volts for each battery, that being the 50 percent full reading.
Whenever this circuit is running, 24.6 volts average, is what is multiplied by the current flowing into charge battery and in my case, it is around 8 watts average.
All 3 batteries equal 39 Ah maximum, multiplied by the 12.3 volt average, we get a maximum possible 480 watt/hours.
480 watt/hours divided by the 8 watts circulating, is 60 hours, maximum run time.
I'm using this watt/hour method, because we are using 2 of the batteries in series and the method of dividing amp-hours by our amperage circulating, will not be accurate.
This is my thinking on the matter, feel free to comment and offer your opinions.
Testing is still going, it has now been running for 26 hours and the last overnight resting voltage measurement of all batteries, gave an average of 12.67 volts per battery.
Meaning, if i then placed all 3 batteries in parallel, that is the voltage they would all come to rest at.
peace love light

[BroMikey]

Great evaluation Sky

I guess people use analyzers like RC cars have but I don't know
if that would work on a tractor battery like yours. Mine is the same
approx. size but are deep cycles. This means I can get more power
out of the same size package by discharging down to a lower level.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Digital-Automotive-Battery-Load-Tester-12V-24V-LCD-Voltage-Battery-Analyzer-/222213697528?hash=item33bcf7eff8:g:Jm0AAOSwcdBWTJt S&item=222213697528&vxp=mtr

With your battery 12.70v down to 12.00v is 70 points of the scale
and my batteries can be started at 12.70v down to 10.90v and this
represents 180 points on the scale.

But I do not want to go below 12.00v anyway. When I discharge I get
a .05 drop per hr on all of these batteries the same discharging at 1 amp.

This means between 12.70v and 12.00v I have 14ah available also so
about the same as you. If I wanted I could go down to 8v without
damage but that is not a goal in this experiment.

[BroMikey]

This might be considered a reasonable addition to any battery
cart. The instruction book comes when you buy it. I guess. $18

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Constant-Current-Load-9-99A-60W-30V-Battery-Discharge-Capacity-Tester-12v-24v-/221865941617?hash=item33a83d9a71:g:CvIAAOSw3ydV33U M

[BroMikey]

This is another one I had recommended to me for quick easy.
Yeah I could get comfortable using this one.
The price came down


https://powerwerx.com/watt-meter-analyzer-inline-dc-powerpole?gclid=covv0pruus4cfrspfgodixedbw


http://www.ebay.com/itm/verygood-RC-Heli-Watt-Meter-DC-60V-Balance-Voltage-LCD-Battery-Power-Analyzer-EF-/261862818563?hash=item3cf83d8303:g:AoEAAOSwv1RUY6H J

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi mike, thanks for the kind words and the valuable information.
Have you used any kind of battery analysis devices and if so, how did it work.

This experiment is at the 32 hour mark, or around 256 watt/hours.
When adding all 3 battery voltages and dividing by 3, each battery is still at 12.663 volts.
And the testing shall continue.
peace love light

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, the experiment is at the 42 hour mark, or 336 watt/hours.
All 3 battery voltages added and divided by 3, each battery is now at 12.62 volts.

When this experiment finishes, i will run another experiment.
Though this time, i will increase the power closer to c20 rate, to speed up testing results.
So far though, the numbers are looking pretty good, don't you folks think.
I know some are sceptical about how many watts my setup is using and i understand.
Though for now, i do not have watt meters or anything, maybe at some point i will get that.
Though tell me, does anyone disagree with my previous comments about the power usage from the series batteries.
I see mike said, great evaluation, does that mean you agree, though you would still like more solid data evidence from a watt meter.
Right now, it is similar to Peters unscientific method, just to see if we are even in the ball park and so far, it does not appear to be an illusion, as Peter said.
peace love light