Qustion about self charging batteries

[Aaron]

self charging batts

First, I used a mechanical switch and is the only way I did it when I got the effect.

Second, a load test will obviously show how much load it can pull for so long..but that isn't necessary to prove the concept.

Input battery is irrelevant for this concept as well...the concept is simply...will the self-charging phenomena produce any kind of load powering charge and not just fluffy voltage?

Just look at the output battery. If the batter is 12volts and I charge it and it gets to 12.5v and I turn everything off and it climbs to 13.0v...that is half a volt all by itself. Most of us know that turning it off at 12.5 will show an immediate drop when disconnected from the SG. Now lets say it sits for a bit and falls to 12.8v from 13.0v.

If I power a load from that battery and I get any kind of work from 12.8 down to 12.5...that is real load powering capability with that voltage that went up by itself after disconnecting. That means that is isn't a fluffy phantom voltage effect but something that will give you actual work in joules of energy. This is not to say some of the upper portion of the charge isn't fluffy but not all.

Anyway, this is my 2 cents based on actually doing it.

If anyone wants to use a trifilar coil with the recovery charging cap banks to lower voltage...around 2-4 volts over what the battery is and close to 200,000 uf's...discharge that with a mechanical switch on a pulley...you'll find out how real the effect is and that it can power a load.

Of course you'll need to size the pulley appropriately so the cap bank gets charge a few volts above the battery voltage over 1 complete rotation.

Resting time between cycles does absolutely effect COP. You wait too long to charge and drain again and efficiency goes down. You need to do the charging/drain cycles like you have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and you'll see that the efficiency goes up...do it non-stop and you'll see high gains...skip even 1-2 days and you'll see efficiency go down.

Don't do it with solid state switch, diode off the collector, etc... just do it like I did and like John did. It may be more efficient in the long run doing it with a spike off the coil direct to a battery and this is maybe why John went that route or maybe just because it is simpler and eliminates a lot of extra parts.

[Sephiroth]

Resting time between cycles does absolutely effect COP. You wait too long to charge and drain again and efficiency goes down. You need to do the charging/drain cycles like you have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and you'll see that the efficiency goes up...do it non-stop and you'll see high gains...skip even 1-2 days and you'll see efficiency go down.

Hi Aaron,

I am not questioning your observations I was just curious if the effect I'm seeing is similar to the one you observed, but apparently it isn't the same thing...

What I mean to say is that it appears (generally) my COP is higher the longer I let the battery rest after being charged.... it appears to be because the static (or capacitive) charge is being converted into a chemical charge for some time after the energizer is disconnected... of course the battery plates will probably have a capacitance of less than a micro farad, so the fact that my COP is measurably higher is interesting...

I haven't done any tests to find the correlation between rest period and COP yet since at the moment I am in the middle of a series of test to see if there is a correlation between COP and the ratio of turns between the primary and recovery windings. This is going to take a few weeks

But after that I may look into this effect some more and also try the mechanical cap pulser to see if I can duplicate the effect you observed... out of curiosity... what size was the charging battery/s you were using? 2 volts above the charging voltage with 200,000uf caps would make seriously powerful pulses for smaller batteries oh, and while I'm interrogating you do you remember the frequency of the pulses?

Cheers!

[Hoppy]

Hi Aaron

There are certain conditions where a lead acid battery will climb in voltage after charging. I have not found that this effect does in fact add capacity to the battery or gives additional 'free energy'. As you say, it is easier to achieve using a mechanical switch but can also be achieved using solid state to a lesser effect. If you carry out proper load testing over an extended period of cycling, this will show that the effect adds nothing of value. This will never be seen unless proper front-to-back load testing is carried out. From my experience experimenting for hundreds of hours over the last two years, just studying the output of the device at the exclusion of the input is very short sighted IMO.

Hoppy

[Joit]

Excuse me Aaron,

There is something I can not understand very well. If battery charged with negative energy don't work so well for the motor, then self runner motor using switching batts is impossible (hard... very hard.) build it?

My common lead acid batts (SLI lead, sulphuric acid liquid), charged with negative energy and then charged with positive energy gives me 12.8 volts. Brand new were 12.6 volts....

What you think? Are you compared this possibles ways to used our batteries?

I found some Circuits what did switch between a Cap and a Batt with a NE555 Timer, one for few Seconds, other for about 20 Secs.
That is maybe a Way, but i didnt look at the Results.
Someone tried even to play around with that here at the Forum, but i dont have the Link right now.

Batteries get usual a better Capacitance with this charge.
I load a Lead Acid 12V/7.5Ah now up to 12.30V and 13Amps.
And it still lives. Car Batteries comes from the Store with 14V, 1,2V Accus are loaded at my charger to 1,5V, 9V Batts usual to 9,6V
So i think you can go some over the Limit.

[Aaron]

dual battery charger

I am not questioning your observations I was just curious if the effect I'm seeing is similar to the one you observed, but apparently it isn't the same thing...

But after that I may look into this effect some more and also try the mechanical cap pulser to see if I can duplicate the effect you observed... out of curiosity... what size was the charging battery/s you were using? 2 volts above the charging voltage with 200,000uf caps would make seriously powerful pulses for smaller batteries oh, and while I'm interrogating you do you remember the frequency of the pulses?!

Hi Seph,

My post was just aimed at anyone in general.

The batts I used the most in this kind of run was 12v 7ah sealed lead acid gel cells.

The wheel had at that time either 16 or 32 of those rectangle ceramic mags around it. Maybe about 60rpm??? That was about 8 years ago...that was either 16 or 32 pulses per second on a 2000 turn trifilar. 23 gauge power winding and recovery winding and 26 gauge trigger winding.

I just remembered that my discharges were about every 3-4 seconds. John had one on his bench discharging about once every 2 seconds (at even higher capacitance that I was using) or so and I was trying to match that but mine was between 3 and 4 seconds between discharges. So the cap bank discharged from the pulley switch once every 3-4 seconds.

The schematic for this is 100% identical to the concept in the original "dual battery charger" schematic.

[Aaron]

testing

Hi Aaron

There are certain conditions where a lead acid battery will climb in voltage after charging. I have not found that this effect does in fact add capacity to the battery or gives additional 'free energy'. As you say, it is easier to achieve using a mechanical switch but can also be achieved using solid state to a lesser effect. If you carry out proper load testing over an extended period of cycling, this will show that the effect adds nothing of value. This will never be seen unless proper front-to-back load testing is carried out. From my experience experimenting for hundreds of hours over the last two years, just studying the output of the device at the exclusion of the input is very short sighted IMO.

Hoppy

I don't know what those other conditions are but over 9 or so years of battery charging experiments, mostly with the Bedini circuits, what I have described is the only time I ever saw the battery continue to climb in voltage...not to say something else won't do it...just from my observation, that method was the only one to do it.

I wasn't interested in measuring efficiency of this charging effect so no accounting for what left the front end battery was 100% suited for the purpose of simply seeing if that self-charging voltage was able to power anything and it was.

I have invested literally thousands of hours in the last 10 years in all of these machines and more and am confident of what I'm looking at. I made no opinion nor was I looking for anything as far as efficiency to this specific effect so I believe it was anything but short-sighted.

I have made plenty of efficiency tests on other charging methods with these machines over the years and know what I have documented that does add something of value.

[redeagle]

here's a thought

It could be related to electrolysis and reversal of that process. A flooded battery is known to create hydrogen while charging. That is where the explosion comes from when the voltage running through them is too high and arcs in the fluid.

Since the HV spike we are sending to the batteries is such low of amperage the Hydrogen has a chance to recombine with the sulphate ions before it floats off. Just like a hydrogen fuel cell.

Like other people out there, this is just my theory. But I don't know how to test it.

Matt

[theremart]

RE: Batterey Tests....

I agree with the general comments being posted about the test posted on John's website.

I would LOVE to have ACTUAL DATA from John's devices... I want load test results, I want current measurements going in and coming out. But more than anything else I want to see his scope shots!!! Both across the coil and across the battery terminals...

Don't want much do I? lol, I think I should save this post as my letter to Santa...

Aaron - The reason I asked the question is that I am seeing some correlation between the amount of resting time between charge/discharge cycles and COP, but the battery voltage doesn't increase... it decreases steadily as expected, but I believe the dropping voltage is part of the charging process. ie. the static charge converting to real charge. Obviously something else is happening in the cap pulser set up....

We have the same wish list

I think the cap pulser holds the energy till the battery can take it, as well if the cap is conditioned it will do double effort...

Mart

[Aaron]

lead acid batteries

Lead acid batteries are water fuel cells.

[Hoppy]

I don't know what those other conditions are but over 9 or so years of battery charging experiments, mostly with the Bedini circuits, what I have described is the only time I ever saw the battery continue to climb in voltage...not to say something else won't do it...just from my observation, that method was the only one to do it.

I wasn't interested in measuring efficiency of this charging effect so no accounting for what left the front end battery was 100% suited for the purpose of simply seeing if that self-charging voltage was able to power anything and it was.

I have invested literally thousands of hours in the last 10 years in all of these machines and more and am confident of what I'm looking at. I made no opinion nor was I looking for anything as far as efficiency to this specific effect so I believe it was anything but short-sighted.

I have made plenty of efficiency tests on other charging methods with these machines over the years and know what I have documented that does add something of value.

Aaron

I'll try to explain why I believe that the self-charging effect is giving us nothing back in real terms. As we all know HV conditioning of LA batteries helps to reduce sulfation and this effectively increases the working capacity of a battery. An indication of sulfation is a substantial increase in battery terminal voltage when put on charge or a slow increase in voltage over a period of time when subjected to a load. In both cases the tendency is for the terminal voltage to increase in a sulfated battery whilst the internal resistance of the battery is changing. A badly sulfated battery will as we know take very little charging current due to its high internal resistance.

Pulsing a battery with the Bedini SG energiser triggers these internal resistance changes, especially when the pulse has a very steep leading edge as is the case with pulses applied from a mechanical switch. The battery is current pulsed to a greater extent with a mechanical switch than a semiconductor switch and this can trigger the self-charging effect. The energy needed to produce the pulses is taken from the primary battery, so any increase in pulse current to the charging battery causes an increase in energy extracted from the primary battery. This is why its so important to do the full load test to see that the self-charging is at the expense of additional energy taken from the primary battery.

Although the front and back ends of the energiser are to some extent electrically isolated, magnetic induction (mutual induction) ensures that any increase of energy taken by the load is reflected back to the front end of the energiser. For example, it can be seen clearly from experiment that when a load is applied to the SG rotor, the input current will either decrease or increase depending on how the energiser is tuned at the instant the load is applied. Careful observation will show that the charging current / charge rate will also change in proportion, that is, if the input current decreases, then the charging current will fall and vica-versa. This effect will not be seen if the front-end is ignored! John Bedini is correct when he says the the input current can fall when the wheel is loaded mechanically but he fails to explain what happens at the back-end. The mechanical energy extracted from the wheel is not free and its very easy to see this if both ends of the energiser are studied!!!

This is why I and others get frustrated, because for some reason some people are convinced that the front-end is not important. What is the point of believing that there is an overall gain in energy, if in truth this is being derived from the front-end? As I said earlier, there is a gain in battery capacity through de-sulfation but this gain can be had by using purely solid state devices if the mechanical from the rotor is not required. John Bedini acknowledges this in his patent US2008/0129250A1.

The self-charging effect is not resulting in battery capacity gained over and above that resulting from de-sulfation, it is part of the same process.


Hoppy

[Aaron]

my comments.

Hoppy,

You are seriously taking my words out of context.

I have NEVER said that testing the front battery is not important.

I have said that I have done tests where I have tested the front and back and know what results I have, which are entirely irrelevant to WHAT I was testing with the self charging effect.

I have said that on the self-recharging effect on batteries, I have not tested the front compared to back.

I have said that I only wanted to see if that self-charging charge would actually power anything or if it was only a phantom fluffy voltage charge that wouldn't power anything. I proved 100% conclusively that it will power something.

Does this mean I have never tested the front to back before the self-charging test or after the self-charging test on other tests? No it does not. I have compared efficiency plenty of times during thousands of hours of testing over almost 10 years.

You can say the self-charging effect gives nothing back in real terms. That is fine if that is what you want to believe but you don't even define your own terms as to what real means.

A subjective real means what you want real to mean as in real meaning over 1.0 cop possibly.

An objective real means nothing as well as there is no such thing as anything objective in the universe.

But just to bring things down to a simple nature...an objective real is one thing in regards to this test....will the self-charged charge power anything in joules of energy or not before the battery is drained down to the voltage where it was before the self-charging voltage started to climb. The answer is YES and nobody can change that.

So in those terms...the answer 'may' be no to your subjective real and is yes to the objective real.

For one, DOES THE SELF CHARGING EFFECT POWER SOMETHING. The answer is yes and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

For two, WHAT IS THE EFFICIENCY WHEN ACCOUNTING FOR THIS SELF-CHARGING EFFECT?

1. It is 100% irrelevant if you want to simply see if the self-charging effect will even power anything. That concept or principle of (self-charging effect will power something) is a totally different ball game compared to discussing efficiency...Nothing to do with efficiency to simply see if something does something or not.

2. If you want to compare efficiency, then compare front to back...that I didn't do, I never said I did, I never said the self-charging effect gives over 1.0 COP, etc... I said one thing and one thing only...the self-charging effect is not a fluffy phantom voltage and will power something, period. Does that mean I haven't checked front vs. back on other tests? No, it does not.

Does that mean anyone can do it and power something with that self-charged charge? No, it means I did it and I did it and I got results. John did it and John got results. If someone wants to duplicate it, they may OR may not get results. If they do, the go the results we got. If they don't, then they didn't get the results we got but that doesn't mean the results can't be had because someone can't do it.

And by the way, the wheel turns for free whether you believe it or not.

You can be frustrated if you want by people not thinking measuring front end is important, that is your choice. But be frustrated at people not doing anything productive with these machines. I have tested the front end vs. back end countless times like I said over almost the last 10 years. I'm not one of those people that thinks the front end isn't important and neither is anyone else that actually does measure the front end obviously.

Therefore, to blanket me as someone you need to be frustrated at based on on my comments that you have taken out of context because I said I didn't measure the front end because it was irrelevant to find out IF the self-charged charge will power anything or not is, well, totally illogical and makes no sense whatsoever so please don't take what I say out of context and read what I post for what I post.

To summarize.

I think it is important to measure the front end IF you want to measure efficiency. Over 1.0 COP isn't magic.

Again, however, if efficiency isn't a concern and you simply want to see if the self-charged charge will actually power something, the front end battery is 100% irrelevant...I don't think I can clarify that anymore.

Also, you can say there may be a gain because of desulfation, but that is 100% speculation as to whether the self-charging effect is desulfating very well conditioned batteries. The batteries we used were ALREADY in tip top shape from countless hours of conditioning so if you want to believe desulfation was what was doing it, you are free to do so but that has nothing to do with the reality of it.

Good luck on your own tests and please don't put meanings to my posts that have nothing to do with what I was saying.

[Hoppy]

Aaron

Equally, I did not say that you were one of those people who ignored the front-end, just that many do when load testing. The only reason I raised the subject of full load testing was simply because I do not see from experimentation that the self-charging effect is divorced from the action of desulfation, which I believe takes place every time a battery is placed on charge irrespective of how much HV conditioning it has received from an energiser.

We both have our beliefs based on experimentation, thats all we have. We have both made our views clear so lets leave it here. I have no wish to offend you and take no offence from your honest comments.

Hoppy