Rene/Meissner EMF Higher Voltage Charger Variant

[gyulasun]

Hi SkyWatcher,

You wrote in Reply #51: "The voltage doubler with this rene/aum circuit was not very good, stopped test early it was so poor. Not sure if the discharge switch you mention would help."

Well, the additional switch and its control circuit would certainly increase overall complexity of your charger. And this additional switch should dump the collected and stored flyback energy from the doubler capacitors to the 12V charging battery: the switched pulsing current could help in desulphating in a similar way like in your above circuit. However, this extra switch should be operated during way less time than the full OFF time of the oscillator transistor, so its timing would be critical to let the flyback pulse created and captured in the capacitors, and only then discharge the capacitors into the 12 V battery via the extra switch.  So may not be worth the trouble or the additional circuitry cost. And without such switch in that charger, the charging process happens directly from capacitors and the shock-wave-like pulsing a flyback spike provides is completely missing, it is absorbed by the capacitors, this mostly explains the low efficiency.

Regarding your latest circuit above, you can estimate the power loss in the 220 Ohm emitter resistor if simply check the DC voltage across it by a DMM. Probably the AC component across it is mostly shunted by the 320 nF capacitor so the DC voltage squared and divided by 220 Ohm would give the power loss in it pretty well. Say the average emitter current is 20 mA, then the loss in it would be 88 mW, if the average current would be 50 mA, the loss would be already 550 mW, etc.
Then you could confront this loss and overall efficiency with the earlier circuit shown in your Reply #33 where the emitter resistor had a 2 Kohm value, shunted by 100 nF in the same circuit as the one above and the boost converter voltage was set to 30 V.   
Probably you used the same transistors in both circuits. These tests nicely show that tweeking / adjusting the circuits for the best performance is a must and you nicely solved these.  Have you tried using a 100 Ohm instead of the 220 Ohm in the above circuit?   

Let me notice that you already found the load test efficiency of the Rene/Aum circuit to be 93.5% (Reply #44) but with 40 V supply input. Probably you had the 2 kOhm emitter resistor in it then I wonder? 
Then came your test on the Sucahyo/Rene circuit combination where there is no emitter resistor to waste any power and the duty cycle was probably even less than had been earlier in the Reply #33 circuit. 

Just trying to sum up some of your results.  Thanks for your efforts.

Gyula

[SkyWatcher123]

Hi ed morbus, you're welcome.
Hi gyulasun, thanks for the helpful reply.
There is 2 volts across that 220 ohm resistor, so 9 milliamps at 6.7 volts or less, making 60 milliwatt loss.

Yes, thanks for summing things up, since I've been posting many different circuits, It might get confusing.
As far as using a 100 ohm resistor on the PNP emitter line, I would have to try it and see.
Though based on my test of the circuit i deleted, that had nothing on that PNP emitter line, the charging efficiency dropped off for some reason.
Maybe because the base of the NPN was drawing a lot of power unnecessarily and robbing charging power, or the on time was made longer with nothing in that emitter line.
Yes I'm aware of the circuit in reply #44, am just testing different input voltages to see what may be more efficient.

I do notice that with resistor and capacitor on PNP emitter line, the amperage increases a little as the battery charges up to 15.55 volts, which is the peak I'm charging it to.
Though with nothing on that line, amp input goes down a little more, when battery reaches peak charge voltage.
I will try the 100 ohm resistor on the emitter line for next test at 20 volt input and see what we get.
peace love light

[Belfior]

Hi SkyWatcher,

You wrote in Reply #51: "The voltage doubler with this rene/aum circuit was not very good, stopped test early it was so poor. Not sure if the discharge switch you mention would help."

Well, the additional switch and its control circuit would certainly increase overall complexity of your charger. And this additional switch should dump the collected and stored flyback energy from the doubler capacitors to the 12V charging battery: the switched pulsing current could help in desulphating in a similar way like in your above circuit. However, this extra switch should be operated during way less time than the full OFF time of the oscillator transistor, so its timing would be critical to let the flyback pulse created and captured in the capacitors, and only then discharge the capacitors into the 12 V battery via the extra switch.  So may not be worth the trouble or the additional circuitry cost. And without such switch in that charger, the charging process happens directly from capacitors and the shock-wave-like pulsing a flyback spike provides is completely missing, it is absorbed by the capacitors, this mostly explains the low efficiency.

Regarding your latest circuit above, you can estimate the power loss in the 220 Ohm emitter resistor if simply check the DC voltage across it by a DMM. Probably the AC component across it is mostly shunted by the 320 nF capacitor so the DC voltage squared and divided by 220 Ohm would give the power loss in it pretty well. Say the average emitter current is 20 mA, then the loss in it would be 88 mW, if the average current would be 50 mA, the loss would be already 550 mW, etc.
Then you could confront this loss and overall efficiency with the earlier circuit shown in your Reply #33 where the emitter resistor had a 2 Kohm value, shunted by 100 nF in the same circuit as the one above and the boost converter voltage was set to 30 V.   
Probably you used the same transistors in both circuits. These tests nicely show that tweeking / adjusting the circuits for the best performance is a must and you nicely solved these.  Have you tried using a 100 Ohm instead of the 220 Ohm in the above circuit?   

Let me notice that you already found the load test efficiency of the Rene/Aum circuit to be 93.5% (Reply #44) but with 40 V supply input. Probably you had the 2 kOhm emitter resistor in it then I wonder? 
Then came your test on the Sucahyo/Rene circuit combination where there is no emitter resistor to waste any power and the duty cycle was probably even less than had been earlier in the Reply #33 circuit. 

Just trying to sum up some of your results.  Thanks for your efforts.

Gyula

I saw a video where a dude charged MO caps with 230V AC and then connected his 12V batteries to the caps. Caps showed 230V before the batteries were connected and then 12.6V DC when the batteries were hooked up. He also said this helps with the battery desulphating. Was this guy full of shit or does this help make your batteries last longer when constantly charged?

[gyulasun]

Hi SkyWatcher,

Well, if you have 2V DC across the 220 Ohm emitter resistor, then the emitter current is 9 mA indeed and the loss is 9mA*2V = 18 mW or so.  I do not get how you mean the voltage of 6.7 V or less and the 60 mW loss, would you tell.
Regarding the 100 Ohm emitter resistor, maybe it is not really needed to go to as low as that now that we know about the 18 mW or so loss in a 220 Ohm resistor there: while any loss is a loss, less than 20 mW loss could already be negligible in the overall setup if most other things are ok.  And if you could use transistors with higher h_FE features, the emitter current could be less, hence so could be the current.


Hi Belfior,

Unfortunately I am not an expert on battery science, my take on your example is that in case of mainly lead acid types the regular and conventional charging process builds up sulphate layer on the surface of the plates and with such 'treatment' you saw from the guy the unwanted layers could be blasted off and such batteries could be revived and used for a longer time when this occasional pulse charge is applied. 
But the process is not straightforward: damage may occur on the plates when the voltage difference is as high as 230V versus the 12V and may render a battery fully dead.  Perhaps with much less than 230V 'zapping', the process is safer from battery survival point of view.  And the Farad value of the capacitor that is charged up for such treatment surely counts too (the amount of the stored energy).

The kinda charging with "radiant energy" the Bedini fans follow is also said to be doubtful: on the long run it may kill batteries,  I do not know the truth, there have been people replicating charger circuits that are said to be charging with "radiant energy" and after a certain time the batteries became useless.  Then there are others who say that if the pulse amplitude is only 18-20V with respect to the 12V battery, then that treatment is not harmful on the long run either or not so harmful. 
My take on this is that it is the energy of the collapsing magnetic field  (when current is switched off in a coil) which is collected in a capacitor and then this cap is discharged onto a battery, does the charging... sorry from those believers.     

Gyula

[SkyWatcher123]

Hi gyulasun, nevermind the 6.7 volt comment, wasn't thinking, was tired.
Yes, 18 mw is correct for the 220 ohm resistor.
I already started the new test with the 100 ohm on the emitter line.
Voltage across that is .6 volts, so 3.6 mw.
Input is much lower starting out with this 100 ohm in place, though charging good it seems.
I notice the frequency is lower, though based on previous testing, the frequency will climb when the charge battery climbs in voltage.
We shall see how the load test numbers pan out.

Hi belfior, I've tried that circuit, though not sure how healthy it is for batteries in the long term.
This rene/aum circuit, gives a normal pulse charge and then a flyback pulse, the normal pulse should prevent any problems of turning the battery into a capacitor or fluff charge syndrome.
I have been using my rejuvenated lawn tractor in the tractor, that was pulsed by the rene/meissner circuit and it seems ok so far.
peace love light