r-charge / bedini - solar power charger

[sucahyo]

Sorry SeaMonkey, I have it wrong, my memory is dull. My circuit is more efficient with higher impedance load, less efficient without load.
"I always notice that my efficiency increase with 3V compared to 12V" is wrong.
"A circuit that its efficiency increase when the load impedance reduced" should be "A circuit that its efficiency increase with a load".

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?"

I don't measure resistance, is it enough to show with and without load?

Video on different experiment:
YouTube - COP = 69% battery charging battery

YouTube - Swap Charging front and back battery

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

With load my circuit consume less power.
YouTube - Input current reduce when there is load

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

Same source, same circuit different load. Sorry, I have it backward:

old circuit, single:

Source voltage is 11.5V.

Input current without load = 1 Amp
Input current with load = 2 Amp

Current in the load (charging current) = 0.25 Amp

Voltage in the load part:
without load = 90V
with load = 9.4V
on battery = 2.72V

on total load:
Efficiency = (load voltage*load current)/(source voltage*source current)
Efficiency = (9.4V * 0.25)/(11.5V * 2)
Efficiency = (2.35 Watt)/(23 Watt)
Efficiency = 0.1 ~ 10%


on battery only:
Efficiency = (load voltage*load current)/(source voltage*source current)
Efficiency = (2.72V * 0.25)/(11.5V * 2)
Efficiency = (0.68 Watt)/(23 Watt)
Efficiency = 0.029 ~ 3%

new circuit, single.

Performance data charging two 1.2V nicad (1000mAh):
Input: 0.7A @ 10.4V = 7.28watt
Output: 0.45A @ 3.2V = 1.44watt (at full battery)
Efficiency: 19%

Performance data charging one 12V gel SLA (7Ah/20hr):
Input: 0.62A @ 10.5V = 6.51watt
Output: 0.24A @ 13.1V = 3.14watt(initial voltage raising before going down)
Efficiency: 48%

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?

amp meter is in series with source battery. My circuit that do this is modified joule thief and stingo. My circuit is unpredictable, sometime I need to wake it up / power it up with a touch of hand.

[SeaMonkey]

My circuit is more efficient with higher impedance load, less efficient without load.
...

I don't measure resistance, is it enough to show with and without load?
...

amp meter is in series with source battery. My circuit that do this is modified joule thief and stingo. My circuit is unpredictable, sometime I need to wake it up / power it up with a touch of hand.

Thank you for the clarification.

There are some oscillator circuits which exhibit
that sort of "anomalous" behavior; a current draw
which "decreases" when a "load" is attached.

And, often oscillator circuits on the bench are
somewhat "unpredictable" and need a little
"touch" to get them going.

This is the nature of the Radio Frequency Blocking
Oscillator (Joule Thief) circuit until it is "fine tuned"
for stability. For best operation it must be mounted
on a circuit board with soldered connections and very
short wiring connections between the various parts.

When a Radio Frequency Oscillator circuit is operated
without a "Load" a radiated "standing wave" may develop
in the wiring which will draw excessive current from the
source; once a load is connected the standing wave is
dissipated and the current demand from the source is
decreased.

It seems very odd and unusual but at Radio Frequencies
strange things can happen!

[nvisser]

"Radio Frequency Blocking Oscillator"

Why is it called a "Radio Frequency Blocking Oscillator"?
Yesterday I pulsed my boost converter with 300khz instead of the normal 3Khz and it blocked the FM radio standing 5 feet away. It went silent. Is that why it is called that?

[SeaMonkey]

Why is it called a "Radio Frequency Blocking Oscillator"?
Yesterday I pulsed my boost converter with 300khz instead of the normal 3Khz and it blocked the FM radio standing 5 feet away. It went silent. Is that why it is called that?

See! "Radiant Energy" is amazing stuff!

Actually, the "Radiant Spike" is very rich in harmonics
which can extend up into the high MHz. They're capable
of "interfering" with radio reception as EMI/RFI which is
why the electronics industry does its best to suppress
their existence in consumer electronics devices.

See attachments for details of Blocking Oscillator from
an article which goes waaaay back. It's one of the
simplest pulsing circuits - does the schematic diagram
look familiar?

[sucahyo]

This is the nature of the Radio Frequency Blocking Oscillator (Joule Thief) circuit until it is "fine tuned" for stability. For best operation it must be mounted on a circuit board with soldered connections and very short wiring connections between the various parts.

I think that unpredictability may also be natural behaviour of this kind of circuit.

See video bellow, I intend to show how charging 1.5V nicad have less current consumption than charging 12V SLA, less than without load. Notice the current reading without load, it fluctuate between 330mA to 3A!

YouTube - Stingo, reduced current consumption with lower load impedance

So unstability may not be unwanted. Isn't conventional circuit dispose any sign of instability and kill free energy component along the way?

[SeaMonkey]

I think that unpredictability may also be natural behaviour of this kind of circuit.
...

So unstability may not be unwanted. Isn't conventional circuit dispose any sign of instability and kill free energy component along the way?

If the base drive (in the case of a transistor) or the gate
drive (for a MosFet) can be stabilized and isolated from
loading effects then the current draw of the circuit should
be minimal under load. Once a load is disconnected from
the circuit unusual operation may result due to the surge
in Radiant Spikes.

It is possible to construct a circuit which has good stability
yet produces abundant Radiant output. It never seems a
good idea to run a Radiant Circuit without a load.

Yes, in most electronics circuits the presence of Radiant
is highly undesirable since it can produce difficult to
control conditions as well as EMI/RFI. In consumer electronics
the coincidental "radiation" must be nearly unmeasurable.

[sucahyo]

If the base drive (in the case of a transistor) or the gate drive (for a MosFet) can be stabilized and isolated from loading effects then the current draw of the circuit should be minimal under load. Once a load is disconnected from the circuit unusual operation may result due to the surge in Radiant Spikes.

Not sure about that. Can 555 controlled transistor / MOSFET reduce consumption with load? do you have reference video?

[SeaMonkey]

Not sure about that. Can 555 controlled transistor / MOSFET reduce consumption with load? do you have reference video?

When a 555 Timer chip, or other pulse generator,
is used to drive a Radiant producing inductor it
will be possible to finely adjust the pulse width
in order to "charge" the inductor with maximum
energy. The pulse width will be just long enough
to take the inductor to the brink of saturation
so that the magnetic field strength will be
maximum.

Then when this magnetic energy is released as
a Radiant Impulse its energy content will be
maximum.

When this energy is released without being "loaded"
it can climb to several hundred volts which may
cause damage to the switching transistor or MosFet.

For maximum efficiency a fairly low voltage transistor
or MosFet would be desirable for the increased
conductivity (least resistance) when the device is
saturated.

In order to protect the transistor or MosFet from
damage it would be necessary to always have a "load"
connected to the circuit in order to safely dissipate
the Radiant Spike.

When such a circuit is operating into a "load" the
current draw from the source can be quite small.
Then, if the "load" is disconnected and the Radiant
Spike is permitted to assume dangerous proportions
the transistor or the MosFet would function erratically
and the current draw would increase until the device
destroys itself. This destruction may occur suddenly or
it may take several minutes during which time the
transistor or MosFet would get very hot.

That is why I do not advocate operating a Radiant circuit
without a load. Especially if the circuit has been "tuned"
to maximize magnetic field strength and hence, the
strength of the Radiant Spike.

[Aaron]

especially?

Especially if the circuit has been "tuned"
to maximize magnetic field strength and hence, the
strength of the Radiant Spike.

Have you posted any videos to show you have built anything that works
or demonstrates your working knowledge?

Seriously now. A circuit does NOT have to be "tuned" in any way to
maximize the magnetic field strength. You can run it very inefficiently,
"untuned", and the coil can still have maximum field strength
and the strength of the spike is not going to be any more stronger
than if the circuit was tuned.

The field strength concept you mention isn't where you're looking for
the maximum spike. It is allowing the coil to remain off just long enough
to get the full spike without turning the coil back on too quickly and
bucking against it, which would reduce the spike you're going to get.

If it is tuned, you just get the coil charged to the max with minimum
power and if it is not tuned, you get the coil charged by burning
up more than you need. In either case, there is nothing valid about
your "especially if the circuit has been tuned" in order to get maximum
field strength.

Why don't you post some videos of your experience with some of these
projects so people can see you're not just wasting their time. Based
on your post about tuning and field strength, it's looking suspicious,
because your post in completely inaccurate.

Run your circuits at 90% duty cycle, that will be horribly inefficient
but I can guarantee the field strength will be just as strong as it will
be if you were at the optimum on time just long enough to reach the
coils saturation and not one bit more.

[SeaMonkey]

Have you posted any videos to show you have built anything that works
or demonstrates your working knowledge?

Seriously now. A circuit does NOT have to be "tuned" in any way to
maximize the magnetic field strength. You can run it very inefficiently,
"untuned", and the coil can still have maximum field strength
and the strength of the spike is not going to be any more stronger
than if the circuit was tuned.

The field strength concept you mention isn't where you're looking for
the maximum spike. It is allowing the coil to remain off just long enough
to get the full spike without turning the coil back on too quickly and
bucking against it, which would reduce the spike you're going to get.

If it is tuned, you just get the coil charged to the max with minimum
power and if it is not tuned, you get the coil charged by burning
up more than you need. In either case, there is nothing valid about
your "especially if the circuit has been tuned" in order to get maximum
field strength.

Why don't you post some videos of your experience with some of these
projects so people can see you're not just wasting their time. Based
on your post about tuning and field strength, it's looking suspicious,
because your post in completely inaccurate.

Run your circuits at 90% duty cycle, that will be horribly inefficient
but I can guarantee the field strength will be just as strong as it will
be if you were at the optimum on time just long enough to reach the
coils saturation and not one bit more.

When driven by a Pulse Generator circuit, "tuning"
refers to adjustment of the Pulse Width such that
inductor charge current is permitted to flow just
long enough to approach magnetic saturation.

Pulse Width Tuning is not the same as Resonance
Tuning or Frequency Tuning; all that is being tuned is
the Pulse Width which determines the "ON Time" of
the MosFet switch.

This pulse width will then enable the inductor to
acquire maximum magnetic field strength and
maximum stored energy.

When this magnetic energy is "released" by
abrupt cessation of current flow the intense "Radiant"
spike is produced. Its magnitude is directly proportional
to the magnitude of the stored magnetic energy.

Immediately following the "Radiant" spike is a reduced
and prolonged current flow into the "load" which is
consistent with the inductance/load time constant.

Either "continuous" or "dis-continuous" pulsing will produce
that magnitude of "Radiant Spike" once the pulse width
is properly managed. With "continuous" pulsing the
"turn-off" point of the switching MosFet is determined
by Source Current monitor input to a comparator rather
than a fixed pulse width.

With dis-continuous pulsing each inductive discharge
cycle goes to completion. With continuous pulsing the
inductive discharge cycle does not go to completion;
the next "charge" pulse is initiated in the midst of
the inductive "discharge" before it is completed.

Discontinuous pulsing only requires a Pulse Generator
to drive the switch with fixed "ON" and "OFF" times.

Continuous pulsing requires another approach; Source
current is monitored and when its magnitude reaches
the pre-determined "saturation" point the switch is
switched "off" by a control comparator.

As you've pointed out, excessive "duty cycle" is wasteful.
That is the point of pulse width "tuning." Any current flow
beyond the "saturation" point of the inductor is non-productive.

By means of an oscilloscope it is a simple procedure to
"tune" pulse width for maximum Radiant Spike.

Or, as an alternative, a Peak Detecting Voltmeter can
be used to monitor Radiant Spike amplitude.

There are a great many instructional videos available, as
well as printed tutorials, which reinforce these basic
concepts. The printed Applications Notes are well
illustrated with diagrams and waveforms.

[Aaron]

eschew obfuscation!

Eschew obfuscation! lol

"Especially if the circuit has been "tuned"
to maximize magnetic field strength and hence, the
strength of the Radiant Spike."

The above sentence you posted does claim that
the tuning of the circuit allows for maximum field
strength and therefore a stronger radiant spike.

I pointed out a 90% duty cycle is not a tuned circuit
and IS maximizing magnetic field strength and
the spike isn't any more or less than if the circuit
was tuned.

Once the coil is saturated, it isn't going to get any
more saturated with tuning.

Perhaps there is a language barrier to what you're
trying to say but your statement was false and you
obfuscated that entire point in your response by
running everyone in a deviated trajectory away from
the key points. You talk in circles basically and you
did the same thing in the Tesla Switch thread, for
which you have absolutely no experience with -
none that you have ever proven.

Also, do you or do you not have any videos or
documentation of any of your experiments?

You have successfully derailed this thread away from
the Bedini chargers - get on topic or move to a
different thread.

[SeaMonkey]

Eschew obfuscation! lol

"Especially if the circuit has been "tuned"
to maximize magnetic field strength and hence, the
strength of the Radiant Spike."

The above sentence you posted does claim that
the tuning of the circuit allows for maximum field
strength and therefore a stronger radiant spike.

I pointed out a 90% duty cycle is not a tuned circuit
and IS maximizing magnetic field strength and
the spike isn't any more or less than if the circuit
was tuned.

Once the coil is saturated, it isn't going to get any
more saturated with tuning.

Perhaps there is a language barrier to what you're
trying to say but your statement was false and you
obfuscated that entire point in your response by
running everyone in a deviated trajectory away from
the key points. You talk in circles basically and you
did the same thing in the Tesla Switch thread, for
which you have absolutely no experience with -
none that you have ever proven.

Also, do you or do you not have any videos or
documentation of any of your experiments?

You have successfully derailed this thread away from
the Bedini chargers - get on topic or move to a
different thread.

"Non-Productive Current" flow has been explained.
It is "waste." Excessively long duty cycle is
ineffective.

My own experimentation began in the days before
"video" was even a pipe-dream. Pre-transistor times
during the golden era of the vacuum tube.

In the days when we "peaked the grid" and "dipped
the plate" for maximum Radiant Output.

Transitioning to the Transistor and to the MosFet
has been without difficulty and fruitful.

Is there really any need to duplicate with "video"
what has already been done?

Yes, it is indeed possible to "tune" any circuit by a
variety of means (some unconventional) to obtain
a desired "output."

If you have found any "false" in the explanation it
has yet to be convincingly presented.

Educational resources are more abundant and accessible
today than ever before. Is there really any excuse for
"lack of understanding?"

[sucahyo]

SeaMonkey, I doubt that timer driven radiant oscillator can reduce consumption with load. I tried and failed. Unless there is evidence that state otherwise I would say that timer driver radiant oscillator will always draw more current with load no matter what you do.

When this energy is released without being "loaded" it can climb to several hundred volts which may cause damage to the switching transistor or MosFet.

Mine produce 800V on DMM, >1000V on AMM and yet I only break transistor if I spark the output. It break at least 5 fan that use the same power source but only 2 transistor break.

When such a circuit is operating into a "load" the current draw from the source can be quite small. Then, if the "load" is disconnected and the Radiant Spike is permitted to assume dangerous proportions the transistor or the MosFet would function erratically and the current draw would increase until the device destroys itself.

I have never seens such circuit other then SSG or mine. What I have seen is higher current consumption with low impedance load.

My 555 version transistor die because of heat when there is load. And I think any other timer driver radiant circuit transistor will heat up more with load because it consume more power / current with load. More power = more waste = more heat.


You seems to think that what I show you on my posted video is the normal operation of a timer driver radiant circuit. It is not. Most of radiant circuit will consume more power with load. Your suggestion is false because my circuit proof that the same cheapskate transistor can operate differently just because it is used differently.


Give proof that the circuit you mention exists. Because that is what I am trying to achieve before I found stingo / MJT. You need to give proof because I never found such circuit exists.

I don't care if it is not your video.

[SeaMonkey]

I doubt that timer driven radiant oscillator can reduce consumption with load. I tried and failed. Unless there is evidence that state otherwise I would say that timer driver radiant oscillator will always draw more current with load no matter what you do.

The goal of the timer driven radiant circuit is
not to be able to demonstrate more or less
current flow when loaded or unloaded; it is to
simply produce maximum radiant output in a
very predictable manner.


As for any circuit which will exhibit a change in
current flow with "loading" or "unloading"
it depends upon the type of circuit and how much
isolation exists between the source and the load.

Removing a "load" from a circuit to observe some
change in source current when dealing with a
self-resonant RF configuration can be very
unpredictable. Depending upon how well laid out
the circuit is; what sort of distributed inductance
and capacitance (stray) is present and the
frequency of operation. Standing Waves can
develop in the wiring which may result in very
unusual observations.

Mine produce 800V on DMM, >1000V on AMM and yet I only break transistor if I spark the output. It break at least 5 fan that use the same power source but only 2 transistor break.

The susceptibility to "breakage" will be dependent upon the
voltage and current ratings of the device. For minimal
switching losses it is customary to use a device with the
lowest voltage ratings, consistent with circuit parameters,
in order to utilize a device with maximum conductivity.

I have never seen such circuit other then SSG or mine. What I have seen is higher current consumption with low impedance load.

That would be a normal situation it would seem; a lower
impedance would result in an increased current flow.

My 555 version transistor die because of heat when there is load. And I think any other timer driver radiant circuit transistor will heat up more with load because it consume more power / current with load. More power = more waste = more heat.

Would this be a case of "overload?" Is the load
causing more current to flow than the circuit
is capable of providing without overheating?

Is the transistor being adequately driven to
saturation for minimal switching losses?

You seems to think that what I show you on my posted video is the normal operation of a timer driver radiant circuit. It is not. Most of radiant circuit will consume more power with load. Your suggestion is false because my circuit proof that the same cheapskate transistor can operate differently just because it is used differently.

Whether a circuit will consume more or less
power when "loaded" depends upon the nature
of the load and how it is coupled to the circuit
in question. In a laboratory setting where such
determinations are made great pains are gone to
in order to assure that the circuit operates without
any "anomolies" and that the "load" is seen as
purely "resistive" and is properly matched to rule
out the formation of "reflections" and "standing
waves."

A "breadboarded" circuit, or a "clipped" circuit may
have large amounts of distributed inductance and
capacitance (stray) which will cause very odd circuit
behavior.

Without knowing precisely what is taking place within
all of the wiring it will be very easy to come to erroneous
conclusions. Particularly when dealing with "Radiant"
energy and Radio Frequency waves.

I am a firm believer in using "cheapskate" transistors
by the way. Using the least expensive of devices is
good policy.

Give proof that the circuit you mention exists. Because that is what I am trying to achieve before I found stingo / MJT. You need to give proof because I never found such circuit exists.

I don't care if it is not your video.

The most common type of circuit which will demonstrate
excessive current flow when "unloaded" or when "mis-
matched" to the load is a Radio Frequency Amplifier
and its associated Antenna.

When a "mis-match" exists between the Amplifier and
the Antenna a large standing wave develops which
will cause excessive current flow in the Amplifier.

Once the Antenna is "tuned" to present a proper
impedance to the Amplifier and the Standing Wave
dissipates, the Amplifier current flow is minimal.

If you've ever dealt with a Radio Transmitter and
its Antenna Coupler then you've already seen that
kind of circuit.

[SeaMonkey]

You have successfully derailed this thread away from
the Bedini chargers - get on topic or move to a
different thread.

Aaron has requested that all discussion not directly
related to the topic be carried on in other locations.