r-charge / bedini - solar power charger

[Aaron]

overunity and EnergenX

Sucahyo,

I don't believe some of these statements are very sincere - they are to
stir up trouble.

It is true that John did use some gels in many tests but also used
regular flooded cells.

These chargers are better for flooded cells.

One test from TUV that showed cop 5.0 may have been on gel
cells. The results are blamed on the Peukert effect where drawing
a very small C rating will give an unrealistic demo of what is really
happening.

But that doesn't explain a COP of 12-15 on a bicycle wheel motor.

There are a few methods of "overunity" possible with these circuits
solid state and with the rotor.

One is with simply running it at high efficiency and having a wheel
turning, accounting for the work in the wheel can put it over 1.0
depending on the build.

Another is with high capacitance discharges with a mechanical switch
where more work can be drawn from that battery as a fact compared
to how many joules left the input battery. Disconnecting the machine
from the charging battery, the battery would climb and in my tests up
to an hour and it was not a fluffy charge but one that would actually
power a load so well, I used that charge to power an electric scooter
that I would ride down to Bedini's shop (from my office down the street
9 years ago). Bearden says that is from the ion momentum in charging
mode. I think it is that and something else, but in either case, it is
for real and some skeptics want to claim that charge is a phantom charge,
but there weren't there to ride my scooter.

Another "overunity" is simply by calculating the joules that go into the
system and even if it is under 1.0 cop, you wind up with a certain amount
of usable joules in the recovery. Swap batteries, repeat and repeat
and repeat and add up all those joules of energy used and compare that
to only what initially left the input battery and it is over 1.0 cop.

But in any case, there are no over 1.0 cop claims with the EnergenX
chargers because it is irrelevant. The benefits are what they do to the
batteries and those benefits are worth their weight in gold - or batteries
at least!

[SeaMonkey]

I do keep wondering why no one bother to know how to exactly match impedance. And keep me wondering if my way of replacing the charged battery with the coil can be used to measure a battery impedance or matching the coil impedance with the battery....

But it still do not solve battery auto changing impedance problem.


I have problem measuring COP so I never bother to test mine anymore....


I get longer live from my nimh on each radiant charge. put alkaline and zinc carbon battery in the mix too. You may never need to buy the wall clock battery again. I don't get free energy, but I get free battery instead, and that is a significant saving . The circuit can be build less than a pack of replacement battery too. I don't have to pay royalty fee to John Bedini because he share it for free .


I wonder why people keep asking COP>1 if they can implement the basic improvement and get huge cost shaving now.

Accurately measuring and verifying the
existence of "overunity" is a daunting
task. Increases or decreases in battery
voltage are very unreliable indications,
especially when the batteries are being
"pulsed."

You have discovered the benefits of pulse
charging though. NiMH and NiCd batteries
performance will definitely improve when
pulse charged. "Radiant Spike" charging is
particularly effective because it is very
brief and very intense.

What you are doing with your "disposable"
batteries is very good. It is possible to
keep them going for a very long time with
frequent "re-charging."

Bedini certainly does deserve much credit
for what he's accomplished and for the publicity
that his projects enjoy. They've gotten a good
many people "experimenting" with some fun
concepts and learning enormously in the process.

As far as impedance matching goes, luckily the
process isn't too complicated. As long as the
impedance of the Source is less than the impedance
of the Load there will be efficient power transfer.

For the greatest instantaneous power transfer the
impedance of the Source and the Load must be equal;
but this special case is only 50% efficient.

[SeaMonkey]

You keep putting words into people's mouths.
Nobody has said alum has magical powers or "benefits"
above and beyond what the battery already has.
You also are putting word's into people's mouths also
by mentioning putting alum an a battery and charging
it with radiant energy. Where do you come up with
such nonsense?

It was brought up as something that CAN be done,
I've done it and it works and so have other people.
Only the curious naysayers are hell-bent on
claiming it screws up batteries or doesn't work.

And comprehending what I wrote about a battery
needing rejuvenation won't have much acid in the
solution compared to a new battery - the obvious
reason is that it is on the plates. If you have
the alum and distilled water mix, which is very
water soluble, there is no shortage of original
sulfuric acid that prevents the battery from
working properly. So the alum is not snake oil,
it is only you overlaying your own perspective
and interpretation on it on top of other people's
discussions about it and you even started it
by outrageously claiming that alum won't dissolve
in water and you know very well we're talking about
the common food additive alum!

You talk about needlessly dissipating power as loss.
Why? There is going to be some loss obviously but they
are still very, very efficient. And even beyond
efficiency, who cares? It keeps batteries out
of the landfill, extends their life and their capacity
as a matter of fact and works perfectly as a
desulphator. There is no question about it
except from a few people that gripe a lot with
words but have shown nothing in return.

Please SHOW what you have that is better.

I'm not going to argue about it being desirable to have
less resistance, but that is common sense. But this
is what you need to understand. This thread is about
the EnergenX chargers.

Efficiency is not the only key even though
they are efficient - it is the benefits you get from the
charge and those you cannot ignore. They do what is
claimed, period.

And, you don't even know the various charging methods
in these commercially available ones from EnergenX
so your comments about the resistance is irrelevant
in this thread.

Many of us deviated from the purpose of this thread
including me but you're trying to have an argument
about something and you don't even know how the
chargers are built.

You know what is open sourced but that is it.

And being that these chargers have a very legitimate
and practical nature and value to them, I'd use them
if they were 50% efficient just because I LOVE what
they do to my batteries. Especially my lawn mower!

No Claims were made that "Alum" is insoluble in water.

It was correctly pointed out that the chemical

Sodium Aluminosilicate

referred to in the article:

(a) is NOT Alum

and

(b) is not soluble in water.

Apparently some have come to believe that
Sodium Aluminosilicate is the same as "Alum."

This sort of mistake frequently happens when those
who have no training in Science read or originate erroneous
articles describing some process.

There are many things that can be done to make
some sort of electrochemical "cell" or "battery."
The use of an "Alum" as an electrolyte is one of
those cases; a measurable voltage will be produced
and the "cell" will seemingly function.

As an electrochemical cell electrolyte, Alum is
ineffective. There are other choices which are far
more effective.

While the "topic" title of this thread is devoted to
a particular "charger" it is not uncommon to discover
that questions will arise regarding batteries and the
chemical processes taking place within them.

Readers may also bring into the discussion "Radiant"
energy and "Bedini" as well as "pulses and spikes."

Others may bring into the discussion issues related
to "integrity" and "accuracy of information."

And inevitably, when a product is being discussed,
its "price" will also be of some importance.

Many readers will peruse the thread looking for
honest answers. Too often what is found instead
is a "song and a dance."

While amusing, it is a bit of a turn-off.

Is someone trying too hard to Sing and Dance
as a defense?

[Aaron]

@Seamonkey

There are many things that can be done to make
some sort of electrochemical "cell" or "battery."
The use of an "Alum" as an electrolyte is one of
those cases; a measurable voltage will be produced
and the "cell" will seemingly function.

As an electrochemical cell electrolyte, Alum is
ineffective. There are other choices which are far
more effective.

Is someone trying too hard to Sing and Dance
as a defense?

Alum is not ineffective and aluminum sulfate IS used together
with straight sulfuric acid and other chemicals as an electrolyte in
a flooded cell lead acid battery. Look at the additives in use for
many decades.

Go search the patents and see how many lead acid battery electrolyte
formulas have "aluminum sulfate" your plain ol pickling alum. What, you
think they're all spending thousands of dollars to patent that when
it is ineffective in an electrolytic cell? Please.

I know that just because there is a patent doesn't mean it works but
a little common sense goes a long way. You're trying to overlay your
belief system on everyone about your false claims that essentially,
there is no use for ALUM - aluminum sulfate in an electrolytic cell. That
is false as your claim is false.

And the singing and dancing? You're doing some subtle disinformation
dance but you're not fooling anyone. The following quote is a part of
it...

Accurately measuring and verifying the
existence of "overunity" is a daunting
task. Increases or decreases in battery
voltage are very unreliable indications,
especially when the batteries are being
"pulsed."

Nobody here is talking about using voltage alone as an indication of
overunity. Why put that in anyone's mouth when it isn't even being
claimed by anyone. WORK that is gotten out of the battery is the
indication of it having something really there.

By discussing something about using battery voltage as an indication
and how unreliable it is when nobody brought that up is subtly slipping
that out into the conversation so that someone that isn't paying attention
will see that and think, "Wow, so their overunity claims are based on
voltage readings - of course that's fake - I'm out of here!"

That is planting suggestions/thoughts for people when it wasn't even on
the table. There is no rational reason to debate how poor of an indication
battery voltage is when nobody brought it up.

And over 1.0 cop systems are under 100% efficient so there is no
overunity, which is an oxymoron.

[sucahyo]

Sucahyo,

I don't believe some of these statements are very sincere - they are to
stir up trouble.

It is true that John did use some gels in many tests but also used
regular flooded cells.

These chargers are better for flooded cells.

Thanks for the information .

Ion momentum make me remember that I do came accross 30 seconds limit a lot.

For the greatest instantaneous power transfer the impedance of the Source and the Load must be equal; but this special case is only 50% efficient.

??? Isn't that too small? While charging a battery my circuit definitely register more than 50% with an amp meter / volt meter reading? And I don't think my coil impedance is near the battery impedance, more like twice or three times bigger.




I really think zinc carbon charging should be added to r-charge functionality. I wet cooking (charge it real hot) 9V zinc carbon just now and get 9.5V usable charge from previously 8.5V.

[SeaMonkey]

??? Isn't that too small? While charging a battery my circuit definitely register more than 50% with an amp meter / volt meter reading? And I don't think my coil impedance is near the battery impedance, more like twice or three times bigger.




I really think zinc carbon charging should be added to r-charge functionality. I wet cooking (charge it real hot) 9V zinc carbon just now and get 9.5V usable charge from previously 8.5V.

The MAXIMUM Power Transfer (Special Case)
is the condition which defines the MAXIMUM
Power available from a given source.

Assume a source of 50 Volts which has an
internal resistance of 50 Ohms.

What is the MAXIMUM power that this source
will deliver to any LOAD? What will be the
LOAD IMPEDANCE (RESISTANCE) which will
result in MAXIMUM LOAD POWER DISSIPATION?

When the numerous possibilities are evaluated
you will find that:

For all Load Impedances which are less than the Source
Impedance most power will be dissipated (lost) in the
SOURCE RESISTANCE. Efficiency will be less than 50%.

For all Load Impedances which are greater than the
Source Impedance more power will be available to the
Load than is lost in the Source Impedance. Efficiency
will be greater than 50%, however, the POWER delivered
to the LOAD will be less than the MAXIMUM Power the
Source is capable of.

When the LOAD IMPEDANCE is exactly equal to the
SOURCE IMPEDANCE, and ONLY when this equality
exists, will MAXIMUM POWER be delivered to the LOAD.
The efficiency under this MAXIMUM POWER condition
is exactly 50%.

Whenever a 50 Ohm Load is matched to a 50 Ohm
Source, the Power which the Load receives is 50%
of the Total Power Available from the Source.

Therefore, unless MAXIMUM POWER is absolutely
essential, a Matched Impedance does produce a
decrease in efficiency.

For Maximum Efficiency the Load Impedance should
be many times greater than the Source Impedance.

Source Impedances which are too great (coils with
too many turns and too much DC resistance) cannot
be efficiently used to provide power to a low impedance
Load such as a battery, without some sort of impedance
transformation. Much power (more than half) will be lost.


When Primary Cells/Batteries (Non-Rechargeable) are
re-charged with a Radiant Source, care must be taken
to assure that the charging current is quite small
(30 milliAmperes or less) to avoid gas buildup and rupture
of the seals which will leak the electrolyte and ruin the
cell/battery.

[SeaMonkey]

And the singing and dancing? You're doing some subtle disinformation
dance but you're not fooling anyone.

The Song and Dance (Circular Two Step)
is truly a Solo Act. I shall return from
Intermission following the Fat Lady.

[DavidE]

Aaron

I could care less about powering an led clock. If I want to know what
time it is, I'll look outside. I haven't worn a watch regularly since 1994.

The point is not developing a timepiece - it is to demonstrate a capacity and vehicle for broad belief of application of a specific technology.

Let's take this concept of yours and see if there is any common sense
behind it. There isn't but I'm going to briefly explore it. How many
Velijko oscillators did you build, how many rotary attraction motors did
you build, how many joule thief circuits did you build, etc...

Where's the beef? That's part of it. All those are valid over 1.0 cop
systems posted right here and you have the audacity to complain?

Would you like some smelly cheese to go with that whine?

Your post sounds more like an audition for a soap opera than an attempt
to have any meaningful communication.

A true fundamental technology should be able to produce a common function - a function that is beyond reasonable doubt. A lit LED or Clock could accomplish this. The point is NOT about DRAMA but about producing a real physical item that immutably proves a capacity.

You accuse me of being disinformation in one way or another. Here is
where the "real you" is revealed. Whether or not I show it is possible
or I show schematics is irrelevant. The ANSWER to what my motives are
self evidently displayed in my work and you have no room to talk
at all.

Once the answer is self evident you then continue to whine and say
you're not interested in the ideas but want the beef.

However, demonstrating the possibility or posting schematics, which I've
done both, is NOT a requirement to prove my intentions and I really don't
have to prove anything to anyone, especially someone such as yourself.

Thank you for the answer. You can't and won't answer with a real circuit that can accomplish what you say is already obvious.

You haven't done any of my Gray circuit tests to see that at a certain
scale, having x joules of charge in the caps, discharging them with
the method into an electromagnetic coil can launch a magnet higher
than the math says that many joules can launch an object of a certain
weight to a certain height against gravity. You choose to gripe.

I never said I did't believe in examples that show promise in the field. Boiling it down to an example that can be seen by all was the discussion.

There are so many over 1.0 cop systems in this forum but you obviously
aren't qualified for this field because you can't even recognize them for
what they are.

If this is true, lighting an LED or CLOCK should be a simple task. APPLY one of these technologies - prove that it is as easy as you say - otherwise it is just postured conjecture.

Recently Peter and I released some vids and one is a DePalma lecture.
It isn't a secret how his machine works and it is COP 10.0. It is expensive
to build but what is stopping you? A bad attitude?

My objective is simple and has really nothing to do with me.

So once the intention is more than obvious, it answers your question,
then you continue to whine about wanting beef and not the theories.

You are an inconsistent individual. Getting an answer to what you ask
isn't good enough - actually it is but it is obvious in your make-up that
you are wholly and completely compelled to find something to gripe about
and it really has nothing to do with me.

I ask for a demonstration of the simplest kind. Either it is possible and post-able or it is not. Apparently not so far. Which suggest people are unwilling, or can't apply these technologies in even the most elementary ways.

MJN's oscillator has been running for 3 months nonstop powering leds.
He posted a schematic. You choose to gripe and ignore there are solutions
all around you. That is typical for a type of individual that wants to take
no responsibility for their own life or the world they live in. Where is your
replication attempt? Self powered light circuit - any interest in building
one? No? I didn't think so - you choose to complain about everything.

I have not seen this and will review it if you can point me in the direction of the reference. It matters not to me WHO does this. It matters that it is done and underlined as a undeniable proof, and not the front end of some kind of spoof.

Good luck to you in your bunker and leave me alone and keep your
insults and character bashing to yourself. It is that kind of
attitude that causes people with many things to share to hold back and
not give them out. You are part of the problem and NOT part of the
solution and you think you have room to complain. So sad!

Listen. I asked a hard question - and I see nothing but waffling, versus providing an answer to the discussion. I have plenty of belief in this field. I have seen plenty of evidence, but with comprehensive knowledge of a prospective capacity - all we have so far is expensive hobbies.

In the end when certain people have the lights on, you'll be sitting in
the dark, in more ways than one.

Matthew 7:6

Wow. You claim the world doesn't deserve the knowledge of FE because they are not enlightened enough. For me that is a stinging perspective, one that smacks of perceived privilege complete with polo ponies. I am sorry you feel that way of most people on the planet. Questioning what I know and then emphasizing it with scripture is a new twist for me. I DON'T believe that scripture was ever created for such use. But, do what you must. After all, its your party.

[peper10]

It's been a while!!!

I start to jump back into forum this week and i'm deceived to see things
dont change...
I see alot of new names,alot of discussion that do :Mary go around.
But,when this forum was a newborn there was tons of hobbyist that where
experimenting..
Like jetjis,ren,marthale and name it..
It lands us to dissacording and argueing forum that most of people used
scientific words and put it all in the same phrase and think they got the
ansewr...
Insted of want :To see the beef,why not try to make that beef.........???
My experience lands me to believe that when you got question and try to find
the ansewr,it never comes from others...... You have to experiment it yourself
and''Hit the wall to come to EVIDENCE...
Since my knowledge is not too good with electronics,i put my energy into
building energy system at my house..Like solar and wind...

It's not rocket science and i MAKE THE DIFFERENCE...
I cut an average of 40$ of my electric bill since last year....

But for those guy out there who have better understanding of electronics
and tesla theory and Bedini circuits..Go men and experiment...

But dont go argue and try to kill the bird before he is born....

[John_K]

The MAXIMUM Power Transfer (Special Case)
is the condition which defines the MAXIMUM
Power available from a given source.

Assume a source of 50 Volts which has an
internal resistance of 50 Ohms.

What is the MAXIMUM power that this source
will deliver to any LOAD? What will be the
LOAD IMPEDANCE (RESISTANCE) which will
result in MAXIMUM LOAD POWER DISSIPATION?

When the numerous possibilities are evaluated
you will find that:

For all Load Impedances which are less than the Source
Impedance most power will be dissipated (lost) in the
SOURCE RESISTANCE. Efficiency will be less than 50%.

For all Load Impedances which are greater than the
Source Impedance more power will be available to the
Load than is lost in the Source Impedance. Efficiency
will be greater than 50%, however, the POWER delivered
to the LOAD will be less than the MAXIMUM Power the
Source is capable of.

When the LOAD IMPEDANCE is exactly equal to the
SOURCE IMPEDANCE, and ONLY when this equality
exists, will MAXIMUM POWER be delivered to the LOAD.
The efficiency under this MAXIMUM POWER condition
is exactly 50%.

Whenever a 50 Ohm Load is matched to a 50 Ohm
Source, the Power which the Load receives is 50%
of the Total Power Available from the Source.

Therefore, unless MAXIMUM POWER is absolutely
essential, a Matched Impedance does produce a
decrease in efficiency.

For Maximum Efficiency the Load Impedance should
be many times greater than the Source Impedance.

Source Impedances which are too great (coils with
too many turns and too much DC resistance) cannot
be efficiently used to provide power to a low impedance
Load such as a battery, without some sort of impedance
transformation. Much power (more than half) will be lost.


When Primary Cells/Batteries (Non-Rechargeable) are
re-charged with a Radiant Source, care must be taken
to assure that the charging current is quite small
(30 milliAmperes or less) to avoid gas buildup and rupture
of the seals which will leak the electrolyte and ruin the
cell/battery.

Seamonkey,

You pretty much described how a Bedini SSG operates as an "Inductance Coupled Impedance Matching Trigger Device" (pg 42, Fig 26 - Bearden - Free Energy Generation - Circuits and Schematics. Copyright 2006 Cheniere Press)

When I posted about impedance matching the other day I was mainly talking about the front end of the Bedini SSG circuit, not the back end. The way I understand it is that the front end is a conventional EE circuit, therefore it follows all the conventional rules. In the case of impedance matching, we aim to get the total impedance of the coils (LOAD) at the same or lower impedance of the primary battery (SOURCE).
As you described, the maximum efficiency on the front end can be obtained at these conditions.

But what about the bank end? Here's where it gets a bit tricky - as you correctly posted:

"For all Load Impedances which are greater than the
Source Impedance more power will be available to the
Load than is lost in the Source Impedance. Efficiency
will be greater than 50%, however, the POWER delivered
to the LOAD will be less than the MAXIMUM Power the
Source is capable of."

Now the LOAD is the charging battery and the SOURCE is the coil (as it is charged). According to the theory, the way I understand it is that at the point in time where the transistor switches off (the "spike") the Load Impedance "appears" to be greater than the Source Impedance, therefore the maximum power is transferred to the LOAD. Then the current catches up to the "spike" to ruin the party.

In that first instant there is a massive impedance mismatch, due to the large difference in potential between the coil and the battery. In order to "re-guage", the battery wants to be at the same impedance as the coil and vice-versa. So the battery lowers its impedance, which is coincidentally the same thing that to a battery when it is being charged. It's during this "asymmetrical re-guaging" that the battery receives the most amount of charge, the current that follows the spike is an unfortunate by product. Some of the current is wasted as heat in the coil (especially if the coil is driven too hard and over-saturated) and some of it goes to the battery and yes, does charge the battery a little bit.

But it is the "spike" is the "signal" that tells the battery to lower its impedance and "charge". The battery, because it has lead for brains , is happy to do that.

Anyhow, that's the way I see it.



John K.

[DavidE]

Pepr10

I agree and applaud most of what you said.

But when the community claims to have fundamental knowledge (or different flavors of the same), proof of that is utilizing it in a circuit or device that proves the principle. It should be simple enough to be understood by ALL. Please no more flip-de-doodle, tic toc fulcrum devices.

I am tired of what people infer that they know. I say, quit playing games - put up or shut up. I have done enough work to prove that FE or OU (call it what you will) exists. My speculation is that it is no more than another process that leverages a natural force that has always been part of our world. In other words, WE created nothing, we merely became acquainted with another glint of primal essence.

New common sense is emerging over time. We are beginning to see that historical reference (books) have been cooked to hide or make hard to see a broader truth.

My conversation with Aaron really isn't about Aaron. Its about all of us. Either what we learn can be demonstrated by practical means, or what's the point?

The observer should not need to have a doctorate in physics or be an electrical engineer. When we can learn to do this, it will likely effect the world in a profound way.

I can remember when I bought my first MP3 player. People asked me what it was and I explained it. Many of the responses were like "no way." Enter Steve Jobs and the iPod. How many industries and fortunes were changed by that bit of brilliance? But it all started with a common circuit - that could execute a digital file.

If we want to advance and really collaborate - we must find a way to move to and from some kind of common platform. Once we do that a thousand variations will likely form. Countless value will likely come from that one collaborative center.

What is stunning is that I have no doubt that hundreds maybe thousands of individuals could do what I have suggested here (LED Challenge). But they scoff, grumble, try to devalue the idea so that they may covet their own interpretation of the prize. Here lies the end of my rant.

I apologize for posting off topic on this thread. For what its worth, anything Bedini is worth the price to own it. I never feel bad about paying a lot for someones blood, tears, sweat - results created from a life of passionate pursuit, of concepts and practical applications... that at one time was thought impossible.

[SeaMonkey]

Pepr10

I agree and applaud most of what you said.

But when the community claims to have fundamental knowledge (or different flavors of the same), proof of that is utilizing it in a circuit or device that proves the principle. It should be simple enough to be understood by ALL. Please no more flip-de-doodle, tic toc fulcrum devices.
...

If we want to advance and really collaborate - we must find a way to move to and from some kind of common platform. Once we do that a thousand variations will likely form. Countless value will likely come from that one collaborative center.

What is stunning is that I have no doubt that hundreds maybe thousands of individuals could do what I have suggested here (LED Challenge). But they scoff, grumble, try to devalue the idea so that they may covet their own interpretation of the prize. Here lies the end of my rant.

I apologize for posting off topic on this thread. For what its worth, anything Bedini is worth the price to own it. I never feel bad about paying a lot for someones blood, tears, sweat - results created from a life of passionate pursuit, of concepts and practical applications... that at one time was thought impossible.

The discussion within the thread may have expanded
well beyond the narrow confines of the "title" but that
is not necessarily counter-productive.

To maximize "Free Energy" or "Over-Unity" we must do all
that we're able to MINIMIZE LOSSES. Conserve as much
energy as possible by opting for MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY.

It is rarely necessary, or desirable, to extract MAXIMUM
POWER from the Free Energy reservoir. In fact, by
attempting to extract maximum power we risk "killing"
the effect or initiating unpredictable outcome.

Take only what is needed at any given time in order to
prolong the process - in due time we'll obtain far more
total energy when it's an ongoing evolution.

The impedance of the battery does vary to some
extent throughout the discharge/charge cycles;
the healthier the battery the lower its impedance.

By assuring that whatever Source we're using to provide
power to the battery has the lowest practicable impedance,
we'll be assured of obtaining over the long term the Maximum
Available Total Energy of the source. Very little will be lost.

[sucahyo]

For all Load Impedances which are less than the Source Impedance most power will be dissipated (lost) in the SOURCE RESISTANCE. Efficiency will be less than 50%.

I don't get it. I measure voltage and amp of my source and destination and then divide it to get >50% measured efficiency. Using the same method I measure my old circuit to be 3%.

How can you predict lost on a circuit that behave differently from normal? A circuit that its efficiency increase when the load impedance reduced. I always notice that my efficiency increase with 3V compared to 12V. Shorting out the load will produce 0 amp compared to usual maxed current consumption.

You theory do not work on mine.

When Primary Cells/Batteries (Non-Rechargeable) are re-charged with a Radiant Source, care must be taken
to assure that the charging current is quite small (30 milliAmperes or less) to avoid gas buildup and rupture of the seals which will leak the electrolyte and ruin the cell/battery.

In my case, I think my rechargeable capacity reduced by the heat of quick charger. I rarely notice reduced capacity when I use radiant charger. For me gas build up is less dangerous than heat.Since my radiant charger can charge with very little heat on the battery, even on 300mA, I get longer life.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't get it. I measure voltage and amp of my source and destination and then divide it to get >50% measured efficiency. Using the same method I measure my old circuit to be 3%.

How can you predict lost on a circuit that behave differently from normal? A circuit that its efficiency increase when the load impedance reduced. I always notice that my efficiency increase with 3V compared to 12V. Shorting out the load will produce 0 amp compared to usual maxed current consumption.

You theory do not work on mine.

Would it be possible for you to show your
calculations and the values of Voltage,
Current and Resistance? What are the
characteristics of the "source" and the
"destination?"


Are you saying that by reducing the impedance
of your Load the efficiency of the power transfer
increases?


When you observe an increase in efficiency at
3 Volts instead of 12 Volts, what is the source
and what is the load?


How are you able to "short out the load" and
measure 0 Amperes? Where is the Ammeter
positioned within the circuit when it indicates
0 Amperes?

We need a little more detail on the above
questions in order to evaluate what is taking place.

[Mark]

Hey Guys

Does anyone have any experience with Bedini's solid state radiant energy pump US Patent 2003/0117111 A1. Is this the solar power charger?

Mark