Bedini's Kromrey Converter

[linesrg]

If you have 2 Amps at the output of your SG into your battery, what is the input current into the SG?

Hoppy

Hoppy,

Somebody who knows where I'm coming from!!!

I have yet to see an SG that is more than 40% efficient and I've built a few by the book from a simple 500gm coil upto a full blown 6 coiler and on battery banks up to 1350AHr.

The best that can be said about Bedini charging is that it is very efficient and I don't appreciate people not actually answering straight forward questions.

So Steve I ask again have you tried repeatedly charging (at whatever rate)and discharging your 135AHr battery at the C20 rate over a 2 week period continuously.

Have you been able to demonstrate that you have extracted more from your battery than you put in to the front end of your SG? It is almost impossible to accurately measure the output from an SG charging a battery so don't quote what you think you're measuring.

I have yet to meet anybody who has answered this question with a simple yes. They either come out with flannel or simple refuse to answer the question. There is only one reason for this. They haven't succeeded in extracting more energy from a battery than they put in at the front end.

There is something fundamentally flawed about evaluating OU based on the energy measured out of an SG in to a battery and the energy then extracted from that battery and using that as a basis for determining OU whilst completely ignoring the total energy input to the SG.

This has been put to JB and RF more than once and they have evaded answering the question actually posed on every occasion.

Regards

Richard

It's a simple question and scepticism doesn't come into it.

[dllabarre]

Please stay on topic

Guys/Gals Please stay on topic.

A little deviation is fine but you've milked the efficency, or lack thereof, of the SSG for too long on this thread.

This thread is for people who are replicating the Bedini-Kromrey converter.
When people post non-related posts, over and over, the people who are on topic get their posts buried and questions not answered. Its not fair to the people who are on topic.

Please move the SSG conversation/debate to a more appropriate forum.

Thank you,
DonL

[dambit]

Hi Don,

I agree.

Richard, in answer to the previous question and last thing I will say about the SG in this thread. Yes! And as I stated earlier (you'll like this part), I feel no need to prove it to anyone.

Cheers,

Steve

[kent_elyue]

Hi at all,

I have been re-reading an old paper from Tom Bearden regarding John Bedini's Kromrey converter setup and experimental results. http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf

Ok, i can understand the logic of the results.
That i cannot understand is the wattage results given at document's page 9 (leaflet's page 6) in Table K-2.

He is stating that converter loaded with a battery outputs some 21 watts that corrects the figure (using a corrector factor) to 116 watts.
But, by using an 13,8 ohm resistor he gives 185,19 watts out, while by utilizing an 0,63 Ohm resistor he calculates 534,92 watts out.

Regards,
Baroutologos

Hi Baroutologos.

Perhaps I'll only add to your confusion, but I hope not. As I understand the document, the correction factor is used to to compare the charge efficiency of the Kromrey converter and a commercial charger. The two machines did not charge the battery with the same amount of current, nor in the same amount of time, so a direct comparison would not be possible. Current (amps) is a rate of flow over time, and so if you change the rate, you change the amount of charge in a given amount of time. Additionally, as the battery charges, the voltage changes, and so does the current flow. This effect is especially noticeable with the graph for the commercial charger. Because of this, a straight calculation of P=V*I isn't possible. The correction factor is a way of more accurately assessing the charge efficiencies. By using the AREA of the graphed results, you can more accurately compare how much energy each device delivered to the battery, even though the voltages, current flows, and charge-times differed.

When they used a simple resistance as a load, there is no correction factor necessary because 1) the voltage and the current flow is easily measured, and power is then a straightforward calculation (P=I^2*R), and 2) they didn't make any measurements using the resistors to load the commercial charger. They simply compared Watts In (to run the Kromrey) to Watts Out (into the load resistors.)

At least, that's the way I understood it.

[xpskid]

Well I swapped shafts again tonight and went to copper. The copper performed equivalent to aluminum, and both performing much better than 316 Stainless Steel when judged using the amp load difference between open output and a shorted output.

I then swapped the lower armature 180 degrees. Remember both sides of the armatures are wound in the same direction. The orginal had the winding similar top and bottom when viewing in the same magnetic direction (north to south). I swithched them just to check if it made any difference before rewinding my coils. Basically I had close to zero output. 0.46 V DC, and 1.8 V AC. and my current draw was 3.8 A, equivalent to shorted draw of the original configuration. Just to verify, I hooked it up to a battery and didn't see any change in the voltage. The motor didn't noticably change upon shorting and retained the high current draw. Another configuration to rule out.
Since the windings are the same, when spinning, the magnets see a constanly reversing wind, thus changing the wind direction won't change anything, is this correct ?. That leaves reversals in the winding on each armature as the last variable ? (plus pushing the resistance super low).

Regards,

Timm

[baroutologos]

@ Kent,

Yes you are right. The correction factor is to correct the performance regardings amperes going to battery from convetional charger to Kromrey converter. Thats acceptable till proven.

BUT, the low ohmic resistance outputs are of question here.
The Kromrey converter outputed in that leaflet some 1 amps shorted. (quite reasonable) (http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf)
How can boost the output to almost 30 amps when applied this 0,6 ohm load? (unreasonable)

In fact I search at John's pages and saw that IceStuff.com: John Bedini ENERGY MACHINE PICTURES from The Encyclopedia of free energy,energy21.org,energy 21 org ,Geoff Egel (see results 3 & 4) ) (although in a different setup - similar though)
amperage is about 3,7 amps at 13.5 ohms and 31.74 amps at 0,65 ohms

It cannot be so. This thing shorted outputs only some 1-2 amps max. By applying an 0.65 ohms it goes to 32 amps? Can it be?

I will e-mail JB directly (or at least try to) for explainations.

Regards,
Baroutologos

[dllabarre]

Good!

I'm not the only one a little confused by that report.
Thank you for asking JB for an explanation.

It would also be nice if we could all use the same (hopefully simple) test to determine performance of our Kromrey converters so we'll be comparing apples to apples, watts to watts.

DonL

[xpskid]

Steve,

Do you have an inductance meter ?
Curious of what you read on your coils, and if the inductance changed when the aluminum cap are used.

Thanks,

Timm

Timm

[dambit]

Hi Timm,

No i don't. I should probably look at getting one though.

Cheers,

Steve.

[Hoppy]

There are a couple of things to consider in respect of the battery charger v Kromrey battery charging. Firstly, a battery that has been at rest prior to a charge can take a considerable number of charge / discharge cycles before it exhibits a stable charge / discharge curve. The second is that a battery that has been pulse charged conditioned can respond very slowly to being charged with a conventional DC charger. The original Mueller document gives us no information on how the test batteries were previously charged, the state of charge, or condition of the batteries used in the test prior to the tests being conducted. It is therefore quite possible that the initial Kromrey charge which preceeded the conventional charge could have been carried out without first having cycled the battery a good number of times as would nowadays be carried out on a normal load test for example with for example the SG energiser. The correction factor which was then subsequently calculated could have very likely resulted in very misleading end results.

Much has been learnt about batteries since 1984 when these tests were carried out. I have been pressing John Bedini to divulge his own current test method, so that we can all compare apples with apples and more importantly feel satisfied that the recommended test procedure is not flawed by not recording important data such as battery condition prior to performance tests.

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Wow, I read the first part of that report about the Kromrey converter tests in 1984. I hate to say that the data gathering methods and number crunching techniques are invalid. It is so flawed that I could write a small essay on what's wrong with the content in just the first six pages of the report. But I don't think that you guys want to be "taken off track" so I will leave it at that. If anybody wants to know what the issues are and discuss them slowly in a calm rational way, then fine. If not, that's fine too.

[Aaron]

simply start a claims discussion thread

If this is a "builder's" thread, then it is possible for anyone that wants to debate the claims to start a thread on a Kromrey Discussion of Claims thread or whatever it should be called.

[xpskid]

Coils

FYI...
~130 turns of bifilar #18 AWG yielded 0.1 ohms per coil, 57 uH.

Timm

[dllabarre]

If this is a "builder's" thread, then it is possible for anyone that wants to debate the claims to start a thread on a Kromrey Discussion of Claims thread or whatever it should be called.

Actually I thought this was a Kromrey converter threat.
So if it has to do with a Kromrey converter then I think it should be discussed here.

I don't think discussing the SSG or other apparatuses fit this thread.
But that's just MHO.

DonL

[Hoppy]

Wow, I read the first part of that report about the Kromrey converter tests in 1984. I hate to say that the data gathering methods and number crunching techniques are invalid. It is so flawed that I could write a small essay on what's wrong with the content in just the first six pages of the report. But I don't think that you guys want to be "taken off track" so I will leave it at that. If anybody wants to know what the issues are and discuss them slowly in a calm rational way, then fine. If not, that's fine too.

I agree, IMO its flawed beyond belief!

Hoppy