PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-12-20, 03:54:47
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
Author Topic: Bedini 10-Coil Alternative Discussion  (Read 72848 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Chances are whatever you are hitting with that spark gap will have some inductance, and that inductance will cause ringing. The positive excursions will probably be clipped by the diode to the power source level if the diode is across the gap pointing to the source.

For large gaps, diodes with a high PIV rating are usually expensive.

Check with Grumpy on this..he has the experience.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
you don;t want it to flyback

you want it to fly out of the coil
   
Group: Guest
Hi guys,

I have a question about spark gaps. I myself have never worked with them since I have always thought it to be a great waste as the radiant energy. But here is a question.

In the spark gap the energy potential is in one direction. But that gap, in my view, is counter productive because it does not permit any flyback return from higher up in the circuit, So what if you put a heavy diode across the spark gap that is pointing back to the source. You would still be able to make the spark gap work and have a return path for any flyback. Does that sound crazy?

Wattsup,

A spark gap is a switch. It can be made to pass only a certain polarity of DC, rectify AC or pass AC. Look at the schematic symbol for a diode. Put a little gap between the arrow point and the cathode band. You have a rectifying spark gap. You want an AC spark gap? Point two arrows at each other or two balls. Most modern schematic symbols of early devices are derived from the physical appearance of that device before solid state existed.

If you place almost any diode across a spark gap you have options: diode will pop, spark gap will not fire, diode will cause spark gap to fire at the wrong time.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
I run the AC from the hv supply through a bridge and caps across the output, so only DC to the switch.
   
Group: Guest
This posting is a follow-up from my posts about Rick Friedrich Bedini motor Google video.

I noticed that Rick made some comments about the video on his website:

http://rpmgt.org/SSG.html

I am going to try to keep the comments brief (FAIL), and will respond if there are any questions.

Quote
RPM & AMPERE DRAW

I set it to where the mechanical efficiency of the energizer gives me the ratio of the lowest ampere draw on the primary battery to the fastest speed (or more importantly to the highest charging rate in the charging battery). This may take a little playing around with, but do not worry about perfect results to start with. I start with 680 ohms resistance on the trigger resistors and work up or down from there.
When I think I have what I am looking for, I replace the charging battery with an 1 ohm resistor and measure the voltage across it while the machine is running. If the voltage is above 1V then I am pushing the Energizer with too much current and the trigger resistance needs to be higher. In the video the voltage measured across 1/4W 1 ohm resistor with this setup was 0.15V @ 190ma = 28.5 milliwatts. Temperature was about room temperature on the resistor.

I saw in the video where Rick uses his analog current meter in series with the 1-ohm resistor and he has a digital multimeter across the resistor.  The motor is pulsing at what sounds like between 15 and 20 Hz.  That whole setup is iffy, there is no way I would consider it to be able to make reliable measurements.  We don't know if he is using a True-RMS digital multimeter and even if it was a True-RMS multimeter, we don't know if the meter would give reliable results when it is looking at pulsing voltage at 15 to 20 Hz.

You can argue that what I am saying doesn't matter because all that Rick is trying to do is is get a "yardstick" for how much current he is putting into the charging battery.  On the other hand, Rick is crunching those dubious numbers into 28.5 milliwatts of power through the 1-ohm resistor.

Let me just tell you what I would have done in this case.  I am assuming that Rick is trying to determine the amount of current going into the charging battery.  If you have been following this thread, you know that you can split this into two measurements, 1) the average current going into the charging battery, and 2) the peak initial current flowing into the charging battery when the transistor switches off.  We also know that the current waveform undergoes a quasi-exponential decay after the transistor switches off.

To measure the average current going into the charging battery you do this in a round-about way.   You have to measure the power output from the coil, and when you know that, by definition you know the average current going into the charging battery.  All that you have to do is measure the average DC voltage across the charging battery when the motor is running, and then knowing the power, you can calculate the average current.  In this case you can ignore the voltage pulses on the charging battery because they are small compared to the DC voltage of the charging battery.

So to measure the power output from the coil, you swap out the charging battery for a big capacitor in parallel with a variable resistor.  The capacitor has to be big enough to smooth out the cap voltage bumps due to the current pulses from the coil.  Check it with your scope.  You then adjust your variable resistor so that the big cap voltage is about the same as the charging battery voltage, say 12.8 volts.  So the coil power output is then simply = (v-squared/R).   You have to measure the pot setting with your multimeter.

Bedini enthusiasts take note of the paragraph above.  It is how you can measure the power output from your drive coil(s).  The power output from the drive coils is independent of the load.  That's why the above test works.  You measure the power going into the big cap in parallel with the resistor and you know that's the amount of power that will be going into the charging battery.

If you are a keener you might say that you don't even need the variable resistor and you are correct.  As long as the cap voltage stabilizes at 10 volts or higher, you are minimizing the effects of the voltage drop across the diode.  The only reason that I am suggesting that you dial up the cap voltage so that it is the same as the charging battery voltage is so that the energy lost in the diode in both cases will be about the same.  Hence you are getting a quite accurate measurement of the power going into the charging battery with the diode power dissipation being about the same.

Measuring the peak initial current is trivial.  You replace the charging battery with the 1-ohm resistor.  You should actually measure the value of the 1-ohm resistor with your multimeter to get a more accurate measurement.   The put your scope across the 1-ohm resistor, run the motor, and measure the peak voltage and then derive your peak current.

So now you can state what the peak initial current going into the charging battery is, as well as what the average current going into the charging battery is.  If you do this carefully and properly, your measurements will probably be accurate to within +/- 3%.   As a "bonus" you have also measured the power output from the coil or coils with the same accuracy.  That's probably the most important measurement in the bunch.

Any 10-coilers listening?

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-21, 11:10:40 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
This is a little side-bar posting related to the posting above.

Here is an important point:

The POWER output from the drive coil of a Bedini motor is the the measurement that is CONSTANT.  (We are assuming the motor RPM remains the same and the initial peak current from the coil is the same.)

That's because the discharging coil acts like a current source and will discharge all of its energy per pulse, independent of the load.  That's how a discharging inductor works.

What this means is that the average CURRENT output from the coil of a Bedini motor is VARIABLE, and is dependent on the resistance (or impedance) of the load.

We also know that the VOLTAGE output from the coil of a Bedini motor is VARIABLE, and is dependent on the resistance (or impedance) of the load.

If you really want to figure out how your Bedini motor works you have to wrap your brain around this stuff!  When you look at your Bedini motor running you have to be thinking of the POWER that is being pumped into the charging battery, and much less about the voltage or current spikes going into the charging battery.

That leads into a very important question:  What is the source battery power consumption of my Bedini motor compared to the coil output power?  When you play with your transistor base resistor value, it changes the source battery power consumption and the coil output power.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-15, 22:07:54 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Continuing on with Rick's discussion about his Bedini video clip:

Quote
Ampere Draw on Primary Battery

0.120 Amperes * 12.33 Volt battery = 1.48 Watts

CHARGING RATE MEASURED

It is not recommended to leave any meters hooked up to the charging battery or in series with the paths to and from it. The meters will become part of the circuit and negatively affect the charging rates. Therefore only momentarily place the meters across the charging battery or in series with it.

Voltage across charging battery was 12.56
Amperes measured going to the battery was 38ma
Watts = V * A = 0.48 W or 477 milliwatts

A voltmeter across either battery will have no affect on the setup.  An ammeter in series with either battery will have a very minimal affect on the setup.  Nonetheless, only making momentary current measurements is considered good practice.

Rick is stating 1.48 watts source battery power drain and 0.477 watts going into the charging battery.  Even though I have major issues with Rick's measurement techniques, the numbers look reasonable and are almost certainly in the ballpark.

The numbers are telling you that only about (0.477/1.48) = 32% of the source battery power ends up going into the charging battery.

This means that 68% of the power being supplied to his motor is becoming waste heat.  The waste heat includes all of the resistive losses in the wires, the coil, the transistor, the resistor, the bearing friction on the wheel, and the air friction on the wheel.

Rick in his video clip, and many others on the forums, make mention of the "free extra mechanical output from the spinning wheel."  If there is no mechanical load on the wheel then there is zero output from the wheel.  It is as simple as that, there is no mechanical output associated with the spinning wheel, it's a common mistake made by many enthusiasts.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
The following paragraph from Rock is a biggie and we are going to do it sentence by sentence in some places:

Quote
So if the charging battery charges at the rate of discharge of the primary battery, then we have to figure out where this extra 1 Watt is coming from, or we have to abandon our meters in relation to this technology.

That's a big "if" there Rick.  Unfortunately in your presentation you only gloss over the very important issue of battery load testing and you don't provide any data that the charging battery has more energy in it than it is supposed to, which is the basis for your argument that there is an "extra 1 Watt."  Your first round of data is showing that the charging battery isn't charging at the rate of discharge of the primary battery, and you are asking your readers to take it on faith that what you are saying is true.  What I don't understand is that this issue is central and fundamental to the COP>1 argument, and yet in your entire 1 1/2-hour video you barely even mention it and provide no data to back up your statements.  It's easy to say, "the battery is charging itself," or, "the coils are getting extra energy for the back-EMF spikes from the environment."  All the enthusiasts seem to believe this or want to believe this.  Somebody has to provide hard data.

Quote
The 1 ohm resistor test shows that no significant current flow is crossing the path of the charging battery.

As I have explained in my earlier postings, you can't compare the current through the 1-ohm resistor and the current through the charging battery.  You are comparing apples and oranges because their respective impedances are different.

Quote
The voltage and amperage test above shows that when the battery is connected, the meter shows more apparent current flow when the battery has a lower impedance than 1 ohms. But the current meter shows much less than the primary draw to run the circuit and loads.

I'm not sure what Rick is trying to say here.  It looks like he is arguing that the 1-ohm resistor is a valid substitute for the charging battery for measuring the current going into the charging "black box."  As I previously explained, you can't do this.

Quote
I have run numerous tests with this circuit and various modifications to verify that the charging battery charges at a rate equal to 80% to 95+% (depending on how well made) of the discharge rate of the equal size primary battery. If the charged battery is loaded down properly we can compare the two loads in the different batteries to figure out work done. I have also seen that whatever way we measure the current going into the charging battery, we should see more work being done by that battery under load with repeated cycles.

Personally I have to derate my confidence in Rick's ability to perform these tests and measurements properly and arrive at the correct conclusions.  However, if there is a Bedini enthusiast or a 10-coiler that agrees with what I am saying, there is already enough information in this thread to start doing some serious testing on your setup.  As a reminder, it's not "current and work,"  It's energy in Joules or power in Watts being output by the source battery, or output from the coils, or being extracted from the charging battery.  When you are at this point there is no wiggle room with respect to the terminology that you use.  It's what separates the laypeople from the serious experimenters.

Certainly the battery load testing is not fun but you can buy a computer-controlled battery load testing device that would make the whole load testing process a million times less painful than doing it manually.

Since you now know how to accurately measure the power output from your coil or coils, knowing how much energy you will be putting into the charging battery over a certain amount of time is trivial.  Then develop a standard protocol for doing the load testing on a specific model of battery and attach your computer gizmo to the battery.   Run the software, and you can crank out the energy that you extracted from the battery during the load testing in a snap.  It would be as easy as pie!

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-15, 22:41:00 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Continuing on....

Quote
When we run sufficient load comparrison tests, calculate the losses in the circuit (transistor, resistors, diodes) in heat, the work done in light in the bulb, and the mechanical work done with the wheel, we can very easily see that we are getting more out of the SSG Energizer than what we are putting into the system with our primary battery. The mechanical output can easily more than make up any of the 20 to 5% difference. And adding more batteries to the charging bank will increase the amount of work able to be done with that bank.

Like I stated before, and it is worth mentioning again, the mechanical output is zero.  A spinning wheel connected to nothing is for all practical intents and purposes equivalent to a resistor that generates waste heat.

Here is where a Bedini enthusiast or a 10-coiler could do a serious energy audit to see if what Rick is saying is true by doing his or her own tests.  If you are really serious and know what you are doing, you will be able to do a full output vs. input energy breakdown and see for yourself.

Quote
The efficiency of the circuit and motor is not the same as the COP. The efficiency is less than 100% while the COP is greater than 1. The energy transfered for work by the primary battery has an efficiency of less than 100% as there are losses mentioned. But the resulting useful work out of the system can be greater than what that primary battery supplied. This is analagous to a wind, solar, or hydro generation system where the opperator provides little or no collector current to tap a free environmental energy source. In this case the battery is being uniquely triggered to charge itself.

The YouTube user Marthale7 bought himself a computer-based battery load testing device.  If you want to make your COP measurements, that would be the way to go.  If you don't buy the device, you will be forced to make measurements every 15 minutes and you will burn yourself out (in my opinion).  If you are serious, get the computer gizmo and save your sanity!

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-15, 22:44:12 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
I am posting up a storm today but I can't resist discussing the battery load testing to determine the COP of your motor.  I am going to work with the "strict definition" of the COP testing.

I define COP as the energy that you can extract from the charging battery compared to the energy that you supplied to the motor with the source battery.  i.e.; (charging battery energy out)/(supply battery energy out).

So supposing that you get two brand new batteries of the same type.  I have some suggestions for people to think about before they do their testing.

I am also going to assume that you have purchased the computer-based battery load testing device, let's call it the "smart load".  It is controlled via a USB port, surprise!  lol

You have to define a protocol for deciding when the battery is fully discharged.  The nominal battery voltage is 12.6 volts.  So lets say that you define a "discharged battery" as being when the battery voltage drops to 10 volts when the smart load is ON.  Everything I am saying is being simplified.

So the first thing that you have to do is measure the power consumption of your motor when it is running nominally and charging the charge battery.  The best way to do this would be to use a big low-pass filter between the source battery and the motor itself.  Poynt designed one where you have two large electrolytic capacitors and a shunt resistor.  This will convert the pulsing current load of the motor into smooth measurable DC.  This will allow you to make very accurate power consumption measurements of the running motor.

Then you take the charging battery and you connect the smart load to it and you discharge it completely.  Yes, you discharge it completely as per your defined protocol.

So now you are ready to start the test.   You take your fresh source battery, and power the motor for a fixed amount of time so that you put 500 kilo Joules of energy into the motor.  You know the motor power consumption, so you know how long you have to run it to put 500 kilo Joules of energy into it.  Let's suppose that you have to run the motor for exactly 40 minutes to do this.

So you run the test for 40 minutes, then you disconnect the charging battery and then put the smart load on the charging battery and discharge it until it is fully discharged as per your defined protocol.  Then check your computer to see how much energy was contained in the charging battery, that's it!

The logic is simple.  Start with a fully discharged charging battery.  Run the motor for enough time to drain 500 kilo Joules from the fully charged source battery.  Then measure how much energy you now have in the charging battery by discharging it.  Then you can calculate your COP.

You can't calculate the COP from one lousy test.  You have to run a suite of tests with variations, etc, and calculate some sort of average COP.

Did Rick do anything like this?  What about John K?  Perhaps they have different methodologies for doing the load testing and COP measurements that are just as good or even better?  At this point as far as I know there is no information from either of them that shows how they calculated the COP, or any data.  Forget about the Energetic Forum Bedini 10-coiler thread, none of them are even close to getting to this point, and the thread is comatose at this moment.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-16, 01:38:35 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Final post today where I am going to make a prediction about the COP measurements.

If you do everything correctly and know how to make your measurements and know what you are doing, I predict that your COP is always going to be less than one.

The reasons for this are as follows:

1.  You loose energy in the step where the source battery power is converted into the coil output power because of the various resistive and mechanical losses.  I think that everybody agrees with this.

2.  You loose energy when the output coil power charges the charging battery.  Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting the electrical energy you supply to them into stored energy.

3.  You loose energy when the charging battery is discharged into the smart load.  Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting their stored energy into output electrical energy.

4.  There is no magic going on in the battery because it is being charged by regular pulses of current.  Sorry, you have to prove this one otherwise with hard data.

5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off.  There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea.  You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench.  The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.

6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something.  When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.

I know that I am being a "bad guy" here.  However, the proof is in the COP measurements, and I have never seen any.  I have been reading about Bedini motors for years, but I have never seen anyone do any serious COP measurements where they describe their protocol and show their hard data proving the claim.

Forget about battery before/after voltage measurements, they are totally meaningless for calculating your COP.

If any Bedini enthusiasts have been following this thread and understanding most or all of it, and they have the drive and motivation, they would be able to prove or disprove the claim of COP>1 themselves.

You can call me a skeptic with respect to Bedini motors and the claims made about them.  However, I am prepared to have a civilized debate with anyone that disagrees with me, or agrees with me.  That what this thread is here for.  It's all about finding the truth, and yes, sometimes you have to roll up your shirtsleeves and do the experiments yourself.  Don't listen to me, or Rick Friedrich, or John K., or John Bedini.  If you have a Bedini motor and have the motivation to find the truth you can do the COP measurements yourself.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Great job at the analysis MileHigh...I am in agreement. Most errors are indeed measurement errors.

 You sure have a lot of patience. I hope some of the Bedites are following this thread.

The man behind the curtain will not be so happy. He has refined his snake oil sales over a period of 30 or more years and has honed it to a fine edge with just the right hype, buzzwords, and website management.

One additional question I would like to ask whomever: does the "proposed magic" happen with any type of battery?

e.g Lead acid wetcells, gel cells, nickel cadmium, Nickel Metal Hydride LiFePO4 etc? Is an electrolyte a "must".......what about "electrolytic" capacitors?



« Last Edit: 2010-08-16, 04:12:26 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Final post today where I am going to make a prediction about the COP measurements.

If you do everything correctly and know how to make your measurements and know what you are doing, I predict that your COP is always going to be less than one.

The reasons for this are as follows:

1.  You loose energy in the step where the source battery power is converted into the coil output power because of the various resistive and mechanical losses.  I think that everybody agrees with this.

2.  You loose energy when the output coil power charges the charging battery.  Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting the electrical energy you supply to them into stored energy.

3.  You loose energy when the charging battery is discharged into the smart load.  Batteries are not 100% efficient in converting their stored energy into output electrical energy.

4.  There is no magic going on in the battery because it is being charged by regular pulses of current.  Sorry, you have to prove this one otherwise with hard data.

5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off.  There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea.  You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench.  The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.

6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something.  When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.

I know that I am being a "bad guy" here.  However, the proof is in the COP measurements, and I have never seen any.  I have been reading about Bedini motors for years, but I have never seen anyone do any serious COP measurements where they describe their protocol and show their hard data proving the claim.

Forget about battery before/after voltage measurements, they are totally meaningless for calculating your COP.

If any Bedini enthusiasts have been following this thread and understanding most or all of it, and they have the drive and motivation, they would be able to prove or disprove the claim of COP>1 themselves.

You can call me a skeptic with respect to Bedini motors and the claims made about them.  However, I am prepared to have a civilized debate with anyone that disagrees with me, or agrees with me.  That what this thread is here for.  It's all about finding the truth, and yes, sometimes you have to roll up your shirtsleeves and do the experiments yourself.  Don't listen to me, or Rick Friedrich, or John K., or John Bedini.  If you have a Bedini motor and have the motivation to find the truth you can do the COP measurements yourself.

MileHigh

Dont worry too much about being the bad guy , only people with little or no experience in electronic/science take everything from bedini as fact. There so much replication everywhere  since so many years and about no selfrunning or a near proof of concept showing a UNDENIABLE COP > 1 . Funny thing , one of a very few(if not the only one) who got a selfrunning bedini motor work for him :) . People often forget the marketing side of a company and Bedini like any business man want to make money , look at his tesla solar charger, the publicity before the release was showing a possible COP > 1 but the reality from people who bought it don't show that at all, but the publicity he make pushed his sales and didn't cost him  anything to make :)

Usually, if the proof of concept doesn't work and was applied correctly, the hole idea doesn't work.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Just add the word "Tesla" or "Radiant" to your product and there are a few tens of thousands....(maybe more) out there willing to part with their money.

Slick snake oil salesman know how to walk the line and only allude to COP>1, no guarantees. They talk magic.

Wish I had thought of this, but then again, I lack the required low ethical fiber to wholeheartedly pull off such obvious scams.

Never underestimate the gullibility of humans. The great unwashed are ripe for the picking.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@milehigh
Quote
5. There is no magic going on in the energy output pulse from the coil when the transistor switches off.  There is not any excess energy being picked up from the environment or the aether or the Dirac Sea.  You would have to prove this one with hard data and the truth is this one is ridiculously easy to disprove by doing some simple tests on the bench.  The spike does not contain "radiant energy" (whatever that is), the spike contains energy that came from the source battery.

I would agree however what many of the persons here who have never actually built anything have yet to understand is something called "quality". The analogy here is than many of you would have me believe there is no difference between a glass of stagnant pond water and that from a mountain spring as they are both water but the reality is that there is a huge difference in quality. Here is another analogy, what if I put you in a 6'x6' box with a small hole for light/air and I fed you nothing but slop -- would you tell me there is no difference in your life since you are still "alive" just as before? You see quality is just as important as quantity and if you think you can just charge then discharge any old inductance into any old battery and expect a miracle you are sadly mistaken. This is where science and many so-called experts have lost their way, they are cold, calculating and impersonal which is everything that nature is not, nature is dynamic.

Quote
6. The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself", nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something, nor are there any "slow ion displacement effects" somehow doing something.  When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy.

--
Quote
"The battery is not "resonating" from the current pulses, nor is it "charging itself"
I cannot say if this is what Bedini is doing but I can tell you I have because I have performed actual experiments to prove it can be done.

Quote
nor are there any "bunching up of electrons" on the plates which somehow does something
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but in electron flow notation this "bunching of electrons" is referred to as a negative source not unlike the negative terminal on a battery. The bunching of electrons on one plate pushes electrons off nearby plates creating a potential difference in every single capacitor in existence regardless of whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte. We could also say a current will cause electrons to bunch on one plate and not bunch on the other in a battery when it charges, are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?

Quote
When electrical power is pumped into the battery it results in chemical energy being stored in the battery, and there is also some waste heat that did not become chemical energy

Power is not pumped into the battery energy is and the chemical energy stored is fundamentally electrostatic in nature, that is what you call "chemical" or "chemistry" is simply a naming convention for interactions between electrostatic sub-atomic forces. There is no "chemistry" in nature, it is a fictional thing created by man so they can specialize and demand higher wages,lol. The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
If anyone is a little down and needs a good chuckle, watch this "infomercial"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mKOL0JGUxw


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Ion:

Yes I saw the clip also.  At 3:30 Gary Bedini of Energenx Inc. says that the Renaissance Charger uses "radiant technology" and the word "PATENTED" is overlaid on top of the video.  That's just marketing hype of course, every company does that.  "Radiant technology" simply means that the battery charger is using a pulsing inductor to charge a battery, just like a Bedini motor.  In the lexicon used around here it would be called a "Solid-state Bedini" system.

With a few multimeters, a scope, and a few tricks of the trade, like the big capacitor with the variable load resistor to mimic the charging battery, you could measure the Renaissance Charger's performance.  You could measure its average output power, the pulse frequency, the energy per pulse, etc.  My guess is that the "Power" control knob on the device simply adjusts the frequency of the current pulsing from the output coil.

They make the same claims about rejuvenating batteries, desulfating batteries, and extending battery life that the Bedini enthusiasts make.  My gut feel is that to a certain extent this is true, but I would like to see more hard data to back up those claims.  Does the ampere-hour capacity really get restored to 90% of the original capacity?  More importantly, can the "rejuvenated" battery undergo a comparable number of charge-discharge cycles as compered to a new battery, and also retain its ampere-hour capacity as it continues to undergo charge-discharge cycles?  Those are some good questions, and the answers are out there if a Bedini enthusiast wants to find out for him or herself by running some tests.

Personally, I would not be surprised if the "rejuvenation" is (to borrow a term that normally makes me squirm) "fluffy."  In other words, the battery appears to be fully rejuvenated, but after less than a dozen charge-discharge cycles it starts to loose it's ampere-hour capacity again.  The reason that I am speculating that this is the case is that there has been some sort of degradation in the battery chemistry and you can't really escape this in the long run.  I am not an expert on battery chemistry at all.

Energenx Inc. is a Pink Sheets company that hasn't made any money over the last 10 years from what I could gather from my brief look at their financial reports:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/EENX/financials

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 03:45:29 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
AC:

With respect to my statement that the output spike contains energy that comes from the battery and nowhere else, you state:

Quote
You see quality is just as important as quantity and if you think you can just charge then discharge any old inductance into any old battery and expect a miracle you are sadly mistaken.

You seem to be making reference to the "quality" of the energy in the discharging inductor.  Even in surfing all things Bedini online, somewhere there is a still frame picture of John Bredini discharging a capacitor where it says that John Bedini is discharging a capacitor that is full of "radiant energy."  There are also references, possibly on the same page, that state that this is "negative energy."  Among the Bedini and free energy enthusiasts there is the notion that a capacitor can be charged with "radiant" electricity as well as "normal" electricity and there is a difference between the two types of energy in the capacitor.

All of the stuff mentioned in the above paragraph is nonsense, pure and simple.  Anyone can go ahead and do some bench tests if you don't believe me and try to find some differences, you never will.

With respect to alleged phenomena about the battery itself, like internal "resonance" when charging the battery or "self-charging" you state:

Quote
I cannot say if this is what Bedini is doing but I can tell you I have because I have performed actual experiments to prove it can be done.

If you can share with us what your experiments were and what your data is that would be appreciated.

For my comments refuting, "bunching up of electrons" you state:

Quote
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but in electron flow notation this "bunching of electrons" is referred to as a negative source not unlike the negative terminal on a battery. The bunching of electrons on one plate pushes electrons off nearby plates creating a potential difference in every single capacitor in existence regardless of whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte. We could also say a current will cause electrons to bunch on one plate and not bunch on the other in a battery when it charges, are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?

I think many free energy enthusiasts possibly including yourself are confusing capacitor plates and battery plates.  They have nothing to do with each other.  There is essentially no relationship between capacitors and batteries so your analogies don't work.

"Whether the dielectric is an insulator or an electrolyte."  The electrolyte is not a dielectric.  The electrolyte is a conductor, and by definition is not a dielectric.

"Are you saying the inductive discharge from Bedini's coil to the battery has no current or potential difference or that this energy does nothing -- I'm confused?"  I explain this in quite a bit of detail earlier in the thread so you might want to look around.

Now of course the pulses charge the battery and each current pulse contains a measurable amount of energy.  One thing that I can add that I probably did not clearly state before is that it would be very easy to measure the number of Joules of energy per current pulse coming from the discharging inductor in a Bedini motor.  It's just the measured coil average output power times a certain time period divided by the number of pulses that occurred during that time period, so it's a trivial measurement.  You just need to use your scope to measure the pulse frequency.

Quote
Power is not pumped into the battery energy is and the chemical energy stored is fundamentally electrostatic in nature, that is what you call "chemical" or "chemistry" is simply a naming convention for interactions between electrostatic sub-atomic forces. There is no "chemistry" in nature, it is a fictional thing created by man so they can specialize and demand higher wages,lol. The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?

Energy is pumped into the battery at a certain average power rate that you can measure.  I disagree with you with respect to your statement that there is no chemistry in nature.  It is a very complex field, and electrostatic sub-atomic forces are just the tip of the tip of the iceberg!

"The question we should be asking is what is the nature of this energy sent to the battery, what qualities must it have to charge the battery efficiently?"  For this I invite you to name some parameters or attributes or qualities that you can use to define the "nature of this energy."  I am not sure if you are talking about some of the stuff that I have been talking about like pulse energy, initial pulse current, pulse frequency, etc, or something else.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 04:19:36 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Talking about the official 10-coiler YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2KtZ45nXA

To quote John Bedini:

"This is the little coil from the back that is going to light it up, so that's the excess energy just from the mechanical on the wheel."

"If you gear this correctly you can run a water pump all day long.  (...)  And you are going to pump it for no extra energy in this deal."

Let's take a look at the idea that mechanical energy output from the motor is "free."  The implication being that when you run the 10-coiler, the power consumption from the source battery and the charging power going into the charging battery will be the same if you have a mechanical load on the wheel or not.  In other words, the motor can give you free mechanical power output and still charge batteries at the same rate with no increase in current draw from the source battery.  I am being a bit simplistic here because we know the RPMs will drop, but you get the point.  Keep in mind that John Bedini has never (from what I am aware) further qualified what he means by "free mechanical output power."

What is a distinct possibility is that an experimenter will put a mechanical load on the motor and see the current consumption from the source battery go down and then be utterly convinced that the Bedini motor is outputting mechanical power for free.

Nothing could be further from the truth and experimenters have to be very careful not to jump to conclusions.

What you can say with 100% confidence before you start the test is that there is a very good chance that the overall electrical impedance of the motor (from the point of view of the source battery) is going to change when you add a mechanical load to the motor.  You don't even know if the impedance is going to increase or decrease.

If the motor's impedance increases, the current consumption will go down.  If the motor's impedance decreases, the current consumption will go up.

We also know with 100% confidence that the speed of the wheel will go down when you add a mechanical load to it.

Therefore when you add a mechanical load, the rotor slows down, and the pulse rate will decrease, and this will tend to reduce the current consumption of the motor.  This will increase the effective impedance of the motor.

At the same time, when the rotor slows down, the transistor switches on for a longer time for each pulse, and this will tend to increase the current consumption of the motor.  This will decrease the effective impedance of the motor.

Which one will predominate as you start adding a mechanical load to the motor?  I don't know the answer to that, but at least I know one of several parameters that I want to look at to get a complete picture of what is going on, and that parameter is the source battery current consumption.

So you have to ask yourself the question, "Why should the mechanical output of the rotor be free?"  Personally, I can't think of a single reason for this to be the case.  However, you can always run bench tests to check for this.  What kind of tests should you run to check to see if the allegations of free mechanical power output from the Bedini motor are true or not?  What parameters do you need to look at while the motor is running load-free and while the motor is under mechanical load?

A little sidebar:

"This collects energy, and then sends the potential energy to the secondary battery, so that the battery charges itself."

If you want to be picky, this sentence is an oxymoron.  You are charging the battery so the battery can charge itself?

To be more liberal, we are assuming that Bedini is alleging that you will get more energy out of the charging battery than you put into if from the inductive current pulsing charging method.  That sounds a lot less glamorous than "radiant charging" but it's a lot more descriptive.  I will repeat that someone would have to produce data that clearly demonstrates that this is in fact true but I am not aware of any.  In a previous posting I outline why this would not be true and challenge Bedini experimenters to run their own tests to prove or disprove this claim themselves.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 12:10:35 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Some ideas for checking if the mechanical output is free or not.

For starters you are going to need a mechanical load that is larger than a typical fan load.  It's possible the fan load will be too small to measure.  If your motor axis is horizontal you could put a gear system on the end of the shaft to give you a vertically rotating shaft.  (It's called a 'crown and something' gear I forget.) Then you could put a propeller in a bowl of water.  You could change the water level to change the mechanical load on the motor.

Your basic setup would be without the charging battery, you would have the big cap in parallel with the resistor instead of the charging battery.  You also need the low-pass filter setup between the source battery and the motor.  There is a current sensing resistor in the low-pass filter and you put a multimeter across that to measure your motor's current consumption.

Assuming that your source battery has an imperceptible voltage drop as you run the motor, then the voltage across the current sensing resistor gives you enough information to get a real-time power consumption of the running motor.  You know the current through the resistor, and you know the supply voltage for the motor, which is on the "far" side of the resistor.  So you multiply those two values together to get your real-time motor power consumption.

Every time you make a change to the motor, you might have to wait 30 seconds for everything to stabilize, and then take your power measurement.  You could simply punch the voltage reading into a spreadsheet cell, and see your real-time power reading displayed in watts in another cell in the spreadsheet.

You use the big cap in parallel with the resistor in place of the charging battery.  This setup allows you to do a real-time measurement of the average power output of the discharging drive coil(s) due to the spikes.  Use a load resistor where the voltage across the cap typically stabilizes at 20 volts or higher.  This will minimize the power dissipation in the diode.

You do another spreadsheet cell where you can punch in the voltage reading across the big cap, and see your real-time average coil output power displayed in another cell.

Now for the most important cells in the spreadsheet.  One cell to display the percentage of the input power that is output by the coil(s), and another cell to display the percentage of the input power that is lost as heat.  You want to display at least two figures after the decimal point.  The reason these cells are so important is that this data is independent of the current consumption (or impedance) of the motor.

Now you are ready to run your tests.  Fire up your motor, let everything stabilize, and punch in your two voltage readings and look at the percentages of the power from the source battery that become heat power and coil output power.  You punch in those two voltage readings and like magic you see the percentages displayed.

Now add your mechanical load.  Wait for everything to stabilize.  Advance one line down in the spreadsheet, and punch in your two voltage readings and see the percentages displayed again.

So you can tweak your trimpot, make more measurements with and without a mechanical load, and so on and so on.  You can enter some text in a cell about each measurement for reference.

Do about 30 sets of measurements and you will have amassed enough data to draw some conclusions about if the mechanical output from the spinning rotor is free or not.

I am quite certain if you do this that you will consistently see the percentage of source battery power that is lost as heat increases when you add a mechanical load to the rotor.  Don't forget that any mechanical load on the rotor ultimately becomes heat.  This would be hard data that tells you clearly that the mechanical output from the rotor is not "free" at all.  Some of your source battery power has to be expended to produce the mechanical output from the rotor.

For any keeners, this is a relatively simple test to do.  You need a low-pass filter between the source battery and the motor, a big cap in parallel with a resistor in the place of the charging battery, and two multimeters.  Then you have to create the formulas for a single row in a spreadsheet, and the formulas are trivial if you know what you are doing.  Then just copy that row of formulas as many times as you need and you will be ready to take measurements and punch in your data.

Milehigh

P.S.:  Notice I never once mentioned making any RPM measurements on the Bedini motor?  That's because that's irrelevant data for purposes of this test.  By the same token I never make any mention of trying to measure the mechanical load on the motor.  Almost nobody will have a pony brake setup, I think it is also called a dynamometer.  Without that, it's almost impossible to measure the mechanical load.  It doesn't matter for the purposes of this test, the only thing you need to know is that you have added a mechanical load, you don't need to know how much of a mechanical load.  You can assume if your mechanical load makes the rotor speed drop by at least 20% that that this is enough of a mechanical load to make a noticeable change in your percentage readings.
« Last Edit: 2010-08-21, 11:34:43 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I like to use an efficient DC permanent magnet motor (which is also a generator) as a mechanical load.

If you have two identical units, you can map the efficiency of the devices by coupling the shafts, then measure input power and using a load resistor on the output unit, measure the power dissipated by the resistor.

They can be run at several voltages hence RPM's to get a rough efficiency curve of the tandem devices.

Also characterize the devices with a few different load resistors.

The losses between input and output power can be roughly divided between the two devices. This can be factored in when later one of them is applied to the DUT.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Ion, using a motor/generator as the mechanical load is a GREAT idea.  Sometimes things that are right in front of your face are the hardest to see!  Thanks for the suggestion!

It was a long posting and I had to edit it to polish and polish.  I hope it is clear enough.  But for all the length, the idea of simply making two voltage measurements and then seeing your spreadsheet crunch your numbers is very appealing to me at least!

Also, certainly you can play with the source voltage for the motor if you use a variable power supply for the motor instead of a battery.  I am trying to keep it simple (another FAIL? lol) so I didn't mention that.

In a motor setup like this, as you play with different settings, it all will eventually stabilize at a new balance point.  There is always a negative feedback mechanism at play.  So you are basically changing settings and making measurements of the new balance points.  Nothing is stopping people from making graphs, pie charts, etc, if they want to.  Two day's worth of work for anyone with a Bedini motor setup and you should be able to complete the test for the claim that the mechanical output from the motor is free.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
A final thought or two.

If you use a variable power supply instead of the source battery then you can make a definitive "Cadillac" measurement:

Note for this setup you will need a third multimeter that measures the voltage across the variable power supply.  This will also require the modification of your spreadsheet formulas to account for this voltage.

Case A:  Run your motor without a load and make your measurements and get your percentages.  Also make note of the power consumption of the motor for Case A.

Case B: Add your mechanical load and let everything stabilize.  Make note of the new power consumption of the motor for Case B.  We will assume that the power consumption of the motor will have changed.

Now, with your variable power supply, tweak the supply voltage and monitor your power consumption.  Make the power consumption of the motor in Case B identical to Case A, and then note the percentages again.

You have set up a perfect "apples and apples" comparison when you do this:  You supply the motor with the identical power for with the mechanical load, and for without the mechanical load.  You can then compare the percentage split between waste heat power and coil output power in both cases.

This will give you definitive hard data on whether or not the mechanical output is free.  The trade-off is that the setup is more complex requiring an extra voltage measurement and upgraded spreadsheet formulas.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-08-18, 20:00:11 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Here are some YouTube links showing scope shots for the 555 oscillator setup that I have mentioned in the past:  a 555 bistable multivibrator connected to a 555 monostable mulitvibrator.  He also does some basic frequency calculations on paper from his scope measurements.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM_WIfmBOEA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TDm0AFb8b8

This could be used to make the front-end for a solid-state Bedini charging setup or for the solar panel impedance-matching battery charger that I described before.

MileHigh

   
Group: Guest
Just for the heck of it, I am going to copy/paste relevant postings that I made in the thread "Beyond the Joule Thief" into this thread.  The reason for this is that my discussion in that thread is very close to what a solid-state SSG is all about....

>>>

So what is the ultimate Joule Thief?  How can you really get more efficiency?

The answer is to abandon the whole Joule thief concept and do it with a microcontroller or a pair of CMOS 555 timer chips.

What is a Joule Thief really?

A Joule thief is nothing more than an inductor connected to your voltage source on one side, and an opening and closing switch that connects to ground on the other side.  The end of the inductor that connects to the switch also connects to a diode to collect the energy spikes and pump them into a load or into a capacitor.

When you reduce it to its basic form, a Joule Thief is a pulsing inductor that gets its energy from a voltage source, typically a battery.  The pulsing inductor discharges it's energy into a load, typically an LED.

A timing source controls the switching of the Joule Thief.  You pay a price in power consumption and have limited control over the timing source when you make a standard Joule Thief circuit.  The timing source comes from the trigger (a.k.a. base) coil and that consumes juice.

Therefore the solution is to switch over to a more intelligent timing source and get rid of the Joule Thief circuit altogether.

The more intelligent timing source could be a microcontroller.  All microcontrollers have built-in hardware timer registers that can control the frequency and duty cycle of a square wave on an output pin.  This gives you the ability to have software control over the timing signal generated by the hardware that is built into the microcontroller.   You could write a simple program that reads some of the I/O bits that are configured as inputs.  You could have switches that control frequency up and down and duty-cycle up and down so that you could adjust your frequency and duty cycle of your timing source "live" while the microcontroller runs.  The microcontroller would consume a small fraction of the power that the Joule Thief consumes in overhead to do the timing function.

Another option would be to use two CMOS 555 timers.  One 555 runs at a variable frequency and connects to a second 555.  This gives you the running frequency. The second 555 runs in "one-shot" mode and gives you an adjustable pulse width to turn on the switch.  This setup would consume a small fraction of the power compared to the JT also.

There you have two options for a rock-steady, reliable, and flexible timing source for switching the inductor current on and off.  Both of them would consume almost no power.  You could have a separate 4.5-volt source for powering the timing reference.

Then, it would be up to you to pick the switching transistor and inductor/toroid setup.  You would have the ultimate flexibility here, pick your transistor, pick your toroid, decide how many turns of wire.  There is nothing stopping you now.  You know that you have a reliable and flexible timing source, and you can mix and match any coil configuration you want.  You could probably fire Xenon flash tubes from disposable cameras, neons, as many LEDs as you want, charge any capacitor at any rate that you want, control exactly how much energy you put into the coil before it discharges, the sky is the limit.

For example, if you want to light a CFL, then you could lower the switching frequency to 70 Hz, just above the human eye's ability to perceive flickering.  Then you could chose your coil/toroid, and then play with the "on" pulse width to put the exact amount of energy that you want into the CFL  for every "burn."  Or you could fire the CFL at a much higher frequency and have a continuously sustained plasma inside the tube.  That may have certain advantages.  Like I said, the sky is the limit.

By using a microcontroller or a dual CMOS 555 timer setup, an astable multivibrator triggering a monostable multivibrator, then you have complete control over efficiency and power consumption.  For every load there is an optimal configuration of inductance and switching time to give you the best performance.  If you also factor in cost, then the optimal configuration may change.

One serious option is to go air core.  Why go air core?  Because all toroid cores burn off energy, they are "lossy."  If you use an air core inductor, then there are no energy losses associated with a ferrite core because there is no ferrite core anymore.

What I described above is the next logical step in experimenting with Joule Thieves - move past them and do a completely new design that does away with the constraining Joule Thief "transfomer" and switch over to a computer-controlled or programmable-555-timer-controlled switching function that drives your choice of transistor and coil.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-12-20, 03:54:47