David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[ramset]

I think we need a bit more Patience

Luc is moving step by step and Dave and Carroll are helping too.
the good news is your Money will be well spent at the end of all this.

Hope things are goin well in Oz !!

[gotoluc]

Hi Brad (tinmam)

At this time I would prefer not to get in more debate until I've completed both tests. It's going to take several days or even weeks before we can conclude with any certainty.
I understand you're not agreeing with the discussion but I'm asking you to hold off a little for now.
There's been a lot of drama over all this and it has finally cooled down when they realized I'm doing the best I can with the components I have available to test with.

Thanks for your understanding mate

Luc

[Dbowling]

Brad,
We started with 3 batteries and a stock motor. It was hit and miss. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Some people NEVER got positive results. Some people got them some days and not others. But we could see from REPEATED testing that there were possibilities. We have since come to understand some of the factors that influenced our successes: Size of batteries and condition of batteries. Rotation of batteries was and is essential with the basic system.


When we replaced the stock motor with the Matt motor, the results became MUCH more consistent. I was getting positive results on nearly every run. Others were still hit and miss, but still getting better results, even with smaller or poor condition batteries, but very LITTLE luck with batteries that were BOTH poor and small. If you go back and look on the forum, there were VERY FEW people who even BOTHERED to build the Matt motor.


Then I asked Matt if there was a way to increase the voltage to the motor to increase the RPM, and he came up with the circuit for the addition of the boost module. At THAT point my results became positive every time. The system flat worked.


So we substituted an inverter for a pulse motor and that worked. But you could only run the inverter with 250 amp hour batteries because you had to have time to adjust the boost module and it had to be readjusted every time you switched batteries. Too much of a hassle, so we abandoned it.


There were lots of other folks who contributed ideas that made the system more stable and all of those were "part of the system" at one time or another, so depending on when I was posting, the "system" was different. Now it is pretty much stabilized. For a while anyway.


I can understand your frustration, but I have little empathy. How do you think I feel when I have had to argue with folks like YOU for TEN YEARS that this thing works when I have had working systems on my bench running my generator?


It sounds like you probably have everything you need to replicate Luc's test with a stock motor. If your batteries are GOOD and large enough, you should get the same results Luc is getting. When he finishes his testing he can share his results and you can make a decision. Then you can rewind the motor as a pulse motor and improve those results. Then add the boost module and improve them a second time.




Luc did a series of videos debunking this system, and I have not been kind to him because I felt he gave the attempt at replication NO chance at success. The use of small batteries and an off the shelf motor is NOT a recipe for CERTAIN success, and failure would only reinforce his opinion that his doesn't work. I didn/t want THAT! But at least he is rotating the batteries. I expect he will see extended runs, but not not very long at all. I would say I hope it is enough for him to explore this further, but I already know he is going to test it with larger batteries and a pulse motor. If he adds the boost converter I have every confidence he will see the results I would like him to see.


It is not worth continuing the argument about how Luc is measuring the system. You have your opinion based on what you know. I have my opinion based on what I know. All that REALLY matters is results. Let's wait and see what THOSE are. If I am right about THAT, perhaps I am also right about the measurements and my understanding of how this system works as opposed to what other people have to say.


Attached is the data from Luc's testing as of today, and he is not finished yet. He began with two charged batteries and a discharged batteries so about 120 watt hours of available power to run the  motor according to his statement. He has currently shown 160 watt hours of work performed and is not done yet. I will be interested to see what conclusions he draws at the end of his testing and what results he gets with a setup that has large batteries, a pulse motor and a boost module.


Dave

[ramset]

Carroll has shipped the Matt Motor to Luc ,and Luc is out trying to find the proper batteries in stock somewhere [his walmart is out of stock and for some reason the online option for others stores which have them isn't telling him ]?

just a note

a few members are contributing to the battery purchase.

@Dave
Nice Chart

it would seem  additional resting has shown benefit between charge ? not referring to Luc's present run ,this was from conversations with Carroll ...let them sit a bit before starting the charge cycle [a more recent observation]?

maybe a forth battery is a good idea ?[More??]
these are the batteries which are being purchased

https://www.walmart.com/ip/EverStart-Lawn-and-Garden-Battery-Group-Size-U1-7/21984263

these less expensive Batteries were reccomended to help keep costs low for other replicators ?

I believe they are 7AH

[citfta]

Slight correction to Chet's post.  The U1 batteries are rated at 32 AH.  7 AH are too small for the Matt modified motor.

Carroll