Pulsed energy capture circuit

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, thanks for the replies. Hi DrStiffler, thanks for your opinion on this setup even though its nothing new as you know. I'm not sure what the 45-60% you quote is pertaining to, the input efficiency or overall eff.. And the example numbers were based on time albeit not including all possible losses, however I understand the points you are making. What I am thinking is we input 10 watts for an hour and charge the rechargeable batteries and light the bulb, since based on observation the bulb can be lit to the same brightness for the same input even with the countering 1.2volt parallel battery bank in place. So even if we could only get 6 watt/hours back that is 10 watts for 36 minutes, then 3.6 watt/hours back that is 10 watts for 21.6 minutes and so on. The key to getting extended run time with this setup I believe is the fact that we only have 1.2volts countering our input, whereas normally people are using a 24 volt input charging into a 12v battery which lowers the efficiency to a point where the what you say then applies, 45-60% efficiency, however in this case I think that can be exceeded. Can the parallels be seen here between Peter L.'s attraction motor principle, which is no counter emf to enable much greater efficiencies.
peace love light
Tyson

[Matthew Jones]

@Sky
Maybe I am just misunderstanding you, so feel free to correct me.
Can you explain to me the principle behind this statement...

The key to getting extended run time with this setup I believe is the fact that we only have 1.2 volts countering our input

.
You mentioned it in your Tesla Switch post as well.

As far as I understand it the 1.2 volt is not countering you if you are going from 12 volt to 1.2 volt you have 10.8 volts of potential with out a load present. That number of course should drop under a load because the 1.2 should go up from charging and the load will have a capacitance of some number that gets returned when shut off.

So how is the 1.2 volt countering you?

Again I am just trying to understand.

Appreciate it.
Matt

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Matthew, thanks for reply. As far as I'm understanding it myself is that this 1.2volts is as you say causing us to have 10.8volts or so to use subtracted from the 12v input. This is why I'm pointing out Peter's attraction motor thread, because the huge advantage of that motor design is the fact that no counter voltage is generated to counter whatever voltage is input, why would it be any different in this case is my thought on this. In a typical permanent magnet motor, as Peter points out 80% of the input voltage is destroyed within the load and in the typical so called tesla switch 50% of the input voltage is destroyed not considering any exotic effects here. Whereas with 12v into 1.2v only 10% is destroyed within the load in which case we may obtain higher efficiencies. I think the reason DrStiffler says these types of setups are usually 45-60% efficient is due mainly to that very reason. That is why Lidmotors amp draw started to decrease after the capacitor climbed in voltage. That's my take on it.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, just wanted to add a couple more thoughts. So if we correlate what Lidmotor was showing in his video to efficiency and similarly what enables higher efficiency in typical electric permanent magnet motors. When the motors speed climbs its counter voltage is greater allowing less current through and less magnetic field in coils which equates to less H.P. and efficiency, only when the motors speed is lowered does the efficiency start to increase and H.P. as well because less counter voltage is generated. So in simple terms, what if we could receive the captured energy with out any counter voltage subtracting from our input voltage, then whats the efficiency. It would be as if nothing was there, yet there is and if we could actually capture it in that way how could it possibly be only 45-60% efficient. Let me state at this point, that I implore everyone to think things through for themselves and test things, don't believe what anyone says until you've come to your own conclusions. I'm only offering my thoughts here based on some tests and thinking about it without any expectations. Would the Wright Brothers have even tried to fly if they listened to others.
peace love light
Tyson

[Matthew Jones]

In a typical permanent magnet motor, as Peter points out 80% of the input voltage is destroyed within the load and in the typical so called Tesla switch 50% of the input voltage is destroyed not considering any exotic effects here.

Ya thats what everybody keeps saying. And as far as I can tell an EE guy probably follow that same chain of thought.
I don't have any background in electrical engineering so everything I have learned I learned watching what I built.
What I see in a closed loop system is different. The energy generated by the magnet a PM motor doesn't get in the way it runs to ground. Its not blocking the ability to add more energy to the system, its depleting your power source of energy without the work being done.
This why I believe this.
If you take a cap and put it in parallel with the a battery , the cap now has 12 volt at a given amount of amps it can deliver.
Then you take that same cap and hook it in series with another battery. Then short it out (without a load) to ground. That battery will have depleted itself the total value of whats in the cap as well as its own depleted amount.
But nothing stopped the potential or the current from flowing, in fact it contributed by raising the potential.
Now how can a coil be any different. The motor either charges the coil through a transformer effect from the next coil or charges the coil through off time sweeping the magnet. This energy is still EMF. Transformer pass good emf and so do generators.
So if the coils capacitance value is filled in parallel (not hooked to the battery) then run in series and shorted out, how is the effect any different from the above with a cap.
And there more tests. You could say add an extra set of brush's to a motor and diode out of the motor shortly after you have used to coil. If this out path ran to ground you should be able to light a light from this. Or charge a lower potential battery. I haven't done this but the theory is solid enough.

For counter EMF to be a block in the system in would need to be of another nature. More like negative energy. Something would want to travel to the highest potential. Now we account for this behavior if we said the collapsing magnetic field was the source. The energy collected from a field collapse is different. And here is the test.
A bilfiliar coil setup as a pulse motor, preferable on brushes or a spark gap of some kind, with one wire left out of the drive circuit. You've seen it before. Run the motor the secondary wire shows a AC potential.
Measure the AC potential, run it to an AC input on bridge then measure the DC potential. It should go up. You can run the DC again to another bridge's AC and measure the DC on the second bridge. It should go up again. And if you hook a scope to these points measurement and watch the wave form the lines will run concurrent or parallel to each other. The measurable amperage will drop but the voltage will rise and the wave will stay the same, so this rise in voltage is not a product of flattening the waveform through diode.
You can then hook it to a battery double the size of what you are using in the beginning and it will add charge to that battery.
This Energy collected from the collapse is different. IT grows through resistance of the diode and wants to charge a higher potential. Why?

Are we sure that Counter EMF is EMF at all? Or do we just see a cause and effect and make assumptions of what it is.

I am not trying to be an antagonist either. I am still flexible as to the definition I just am pointing out the direction I am working from which is clearly different from the direction you and others take.

There is also the Tesla switch work that I have done. The 50% loss as you call it is clearly not the case. If this were true a load could only run 150% longer. The fact is Unconditioned batteries fresh off the shelf setup will run far longer. The amount of time is based on the load.
I haven't any math available to calculate how a load will react but I can see a common theme between loads that do well and loads that don't. Motors for instance have a very predictable behavior. You can tell which pole of the motor will create (My definition) a Counter EMF. You can see how much. And depending on the conditioning the batteries have had I can just about tell you how long the load will last at a frequency of switching.
The other thing is the batteries very well may be contributing to the charge
in themselves via some sort of ion compression, but this isn't something that can be seen. So I discount it.
But with some loads at given frequencies you will see an environmental flow
of energy. The strange stuff or hoodoo magic if you will.
This is something I avoid. So most of my systems have for the most part looked conventional in nature.

They still do not show the 50% loss.

So sorry to ramble this much but what I am trying understand is if these things I see are true as best I can how then do they fit within the scenario you are discussing? How can all this be when the definitions of whats happening is clearly different?

EDIT: I also want to say I am not trying to divert the attention away from your circuit discussion, I apologize if this come off that way. If you don't feel like explaining this then thats your choice I'll except it.

Thanks again.
Matt

[Lidmotor]

Getting the "ducks in a row". and going to sea

@All-- I will be gone on a sailing trip for a few days and I am taking a taped up little "SkyWatcher Light" with me to test at sea. I find this project very interesting and my goal here is a practical use for it. After doing more testing yesterday to get the "Ducks" to line up in a row, I really think that Tyson has come up with something useful. On the suggestion of one of my Youtube viewers, I put a second super cap on the negative end of the circuit and that one also charged up at the same time as the first. I did more tests with voltage, amp, and TIME. A longer run time at a given brightness is what I am after. The way that I have the rig set up (as in my video) it will run all the way down to 3 volts and runs happily on a 9 volt battery. It will produce light at 50 mA. High bright at 200.
If it gives me the amount of light I want for fewer joule of energy spent then this works for me.
In my tests yesterday as the caps charged up the amp draw went down but so does the light output. Like Tyson said, finding the right ratio between source battery voltage, charge battery voltage, and time spent charging are things to be examined.
Thanks Tyson for the thread and the discussion here. It is very interesting.

Lidmotor

[ratul]

My first successful over unity - Radiant Energy project

I tried many circuit and project to achieve o/u but failed failed and failed. that includes BEDINI Motor ssg/window, Hydroxy project(that's make me bankrupt!), MEG, Radiant CFL , Tesla switch and more...
At last I achieve a successful over unity(or something?) device. the device make with two dead 12v-7Ah ups battery. config-
without load(open ckt):
Batt.1 Voltage: 8.1v
Batt.2 Voltage: 3.2v
batteries are in series connection and total voltage is 11.3v.
After connecting the circuit, total voltage is 8.0v and increase to 9.2V.

The circuit is running 17 days without interruption @ 9.2v.
if you want to build this ckt for experiment, you should remember-

**tuning is the most important part of this circuit, if the battery voltage down for wrong tunning freq. it is necessary to recharge and tune again.

I'm sure if you tune it properly, you will achieve o/u.

this ckt is o/u because-
load count: two 555 osc, two relays, two 9v-350ma lamp, one coil.
but voltage is constant on 9.2v.
without this ckt and open load, battery voltage fallen 11.3v to 3.8v within 2-3 hour.

I'll post further development details.
I'm not good in english, ..long time no practice. sorry .

[nvisser]

Had a quick look at your circuit
It looks like you interupt the supply to both of th 555`s with the relay
Is the ground permanently connected to the 555`s?
It sounds promising !!

[SkyWatcher]

Hi ratul, Thanks for reply. That is strange, I was just yesterday testing ideas with dead batteries with a load parallel to batteries. I fully understand what your doing in that circuit and I thank you for posting it. I already started to build the circuit since I have all those parts already, though I think I will use a Joule Thief for the main pulser circuit and use a double throw double pole relay i have on hand with a 555 timer energizing relay alternately dumping cap and starting joule thief as your circuit shows. At about what frequency is your main pulser firing at in your particular setup. Though like you said will have to be tuned to any given setup. Really does look like a promising circuit to me, cant wait to get it fired up. I have 2 - 6 volt lead acids that are fairly dead I will be using, they were ones that I have partially rejuvenated. Thanks again and look forward to your further results and replications.
peace love light
Tyson

[ratul]

first 555 ckt (which is connected with coil through 2N3055) is designed from Dave Lawton's 555 Mark-Space Oscilator (Hydroxy booster driver). Second 555 circuit is clock pulse generator and time apporx.-->0.7sec __|--|__.
both circuit's negetive is connected with ground. oh one thing, a 10,000uf/35V capacitor is connected with 555 pulser's power-input section which is not shown in schematic.
First 555 circuit frequency is more than 1khz(I don't have freq. counter), both 555 are not in same freq. I'm using two relay because, i don't have double pole relay, i think two way relay will work fine and increase efficiency.

[wrtner]

I tried many circuit and project to achieve o/u but failed failed and failed. that includes BEDINI Motor ssg/window...

The Bedini SG can be tempremental. For instance the magnets must be
ceramic - Neos won't do. You should join the definitive Bedini group:
Bedini_Monopole3 : Bedini_Monopole3

They are very supportive, and have a couple of high level experts.

[Lidmotor]

Skywatcher / Lidmotor "CRAZY LIGHT"

@All
I'm back from my sailing trip and I used the little CFL light every night as a table light at dinner. It worked great. I just ran it on a little nicad RC battery pack. When I got home I tried the charging circuit that Tyson suggested using the AAs ( 8 for 12v pushing through 4 at 1.5v). I put an additional 4 on the back end so I would be charging up a total of 8 to exchange with the drive ones. I was rather surprised that it worked because when I used the super caps the result was that as they charged up they starved the main circuit. The 1.5v battery pack arrangement didn't do that. I ran it for about 5 hours to see what would happen. The voltage dropped slightly at the main circuit but stayed high enough to keep the light on. The source discharge was set at about 100mA and just stayed there as the 1.5v packs charged up. I don't think that there is anything magical here but is was interesting to watch.
Here is a video of the setup with the 555 timer and battery circuit.

Cheers,

Lidmotor
YouTube - Skywatcher / Lidmotor-- "CRAZY LIGHT"

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Lid, welcome back. That video was weird, wild, stuff there, hehe. Yes that circuit is effective, though if you use a different transformer like the one i mentioned that gives less voltage and a little more current you can get the flouro to close to full brightness, because I did test a 3.7volt mobile phone charger transformer like what you used and it didnt get very bright. As far as the charging aspect of the circuit, I think it has to be tuned properly to get the best charging going in the receiver batteries otherwise it doesnt seem very effective from my tests, though maybe lead acid individual 2 volt cells would take the charge more efficiently, but I dont have any of those to test with. Good work.
peace love light
Tyson

[Lidmotor]

Brighter is better

Hi Lid, welcome back. That video was weird, wild, stuff there, hehe. Yes that circuit is effective, though if you use a different transformer like the one i mentioned that gives less voltage and a little more current you can get the flouro to close to full brightness, because I did test a 3.7volt mobile phone charger transformer like what you used and it didnt get very bright. As far as the charging aspect of the circuit, I think it has to be tuned properly to get the best charging going in the receiver batteries otherwise it doesnt seem very effective from my tests, though maybe lead acid individual 2 volt cells would take the charge more efficiently, but I dont have any of those to test with. Good work.
peace love light
Tyson

Tyson---
I will have to try a transformer like you recommended. I would really like to light up the "Halo Light" to full bright using this circuit. It is a simpler way to go.
The battery charging idea is a puzzle. Because this is a pulse circuit, the tuning like you said might be a resonance thing and touchy to get right.

Lidmotor

[dllabarre]

@LidMotor

I'd like to replicate the 555 timer circuit to light a CFL that was in your video but I can't see what all the components were.
Can you provide a list or a copy of the schematic in the forum here?

Thanks