David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[citfta]

Hey Carrol

Well I think I explained it.  The 3 batteries in series 'each' lost and gained as many electrons as the reverse battery did. If all are in series loop, then there is the same current through all. So if we add up what each of the 3 series batteries lost, it is more than what the reverse batt gained. And 10 batteries in series is an even bigger loss, and Im seeing it as a configuration caused loss.  And if we were to just have 2 batts in series, the loss would be less than using 3. Ran it on sim and seems to be correct.

Mags

Mags

Hi Mags,

Sorry for the slow response but I have been very busy for the last couple of days.

First we need to clear up how many batteries we are working with.  There are only a total of 3 batteries.  2 connected in series to give us 24 volts going to the load.  Then on the other side of the load there is one battery connected in reverse polarity to the 2 series batteries.

Now using conventional logic and conventional electron flow the 2 batteries in series are both giving up the same amount of electrons that are going to the battery connected in reverse.  So both those batteries should be loosing charge at the same rate.  BUT that is not what we see.  The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster.

Brad has posted a possible answer for why that is and he may be right.  But a simulation is probably not going to show the same results as we are seeing on the bench.

Carroll

[Magluvin]

Hi Mags,

Sorry for the slow response but I have been very busy for the last couple of days.

First we need to clear up how many batteries we are working with.  There are only a total of 3 batteries.  2 connected in series to give us 24 volts going to the load.  Then on the other side of the load there is one battery connected in reverse polarity to the 2 series batteries.

Now using conventional logic and conventional electron flow the 2 batteries in series are both giving up the same amount of electrons that are going to the battery connected in reverse.  So both those batteries should be loosing charge at the same rate.  BUT that is not what we see.  The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster.

Brad has posted a possible answer for why that is and he may be right.  But a simulation is probably not going to show the same results as we are seeing on the bench.

Carroll

" The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster."

I totally agree.  Because 'each' of them lost as many amp hours as the reverse battery gained over time. Amp hours is how much current over time, and the same amount of current flows through the whole loop at any given time till switch over rotation of the batteries. But with the forth component, the inverter added to the loop, the loop current is the same for each component in the loop at any given time also, and it just takes longer for the reverse battery to charge, and we also get output from the inverter...   So using the inverter helps to reduce total losses because the dump from the 3 batteries to the reverse batt is being used, like the cap to cap discussion. The only difference for the batteries is the time value of the dump before rotation.

Mags

[tinman]

Hey Brad

I get what you are saying. But here is my point....

If we add the inverter in the loop, I believe we are only changing the time period of getting to what ever full charge of the reverse battery is determined as, and using that current flow to do something.   So if we break the theoretical direct 3 batteries to 1 reverse battery loop and put the inverter in the loop, the reverse battery will still charge to that determined level of charge, but it will just take longer as the inverter just limits the current vs theoretical direct loop.  Like trickle charging instead of brute force, of which, trickle charge is more efficient than the very high heat developed(and batt damage) with high current charging. Once that reverse batt gets to the determined charge, then that is what is discharged from each of the 3 series batteries.

So what Im seeing is the theoretical direct loop will discharge the 3 series batts much further than what the reverse batt took on more due to circuit config where just as much current flows through each of the 3 batts as what went through the reverse batt.  But just like the cap to cap, if we use that current flow to run the inverter, or what ever, then we are actually using that flow to do something instead of just pumping up 1 batt with 3 others at a great loss. Stupid losses as I called it.

Mags

Like the cap to cap, what we have discovered and Poynt found some references on, is that any resistance, even 0ohm would have the same results.

I have been watching that thread,and have been thinking about the above,and that seems to match my theory. The fact that the resistance could be 0-no resistance,but still end in both caps combined only retaining half the starting stored energy amount,means that the half that is lost,cannot be due to resistive heat losses. We also know that if an inductive transfer system is used,then we loose less than half the starting energy. This is because the electrons are accelerated to a higher speed(higher voltage)by the induction method,and so impact the capacitor plates with at a higher energy state. The same fits for the 3 battery system,where although the amount of electrons flowing is the same,the speed/force at which there flowing is halved,and so only have half the impact energy on the third battery.

So i think the lost energy in the cap to cap transfer system,is due to the reduced speed/pressure of the flowing electrons,resulting in a lower impact energy delivered to the plates of the receiving cap when transferring through a resistor. But as we know,if we use an inductive transfer system,where the voltage(pressure/speed) is increased,and those electrons are accelerated to a higher speed/pressure,then they impact the receiving caps plate with a higher velocity,and so ,cause a higher impact energy upon the plates.

We could build a simple JT type circuit to test this cap to cap transfer system,and see how high in percentage we could get this transfer to happen. I think one of those garden light circuits would do just fine,where we replace the LED for a cap and diode.


Brad

[Magluvin]

Sorry. 2 batteries and 1 rev.  Same situation with inverter.

Mags

[citfta]

" The series battery connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster."

I totally agree.  Because 'each' of them lost as many amp hours as the reverse battery gained over time. Amp hours is how much current over time, and the same amount of current flows through the whole loop at any given time till switch over rotation of the batteries. But with the forth component, the inverter added to the loop, the loop current is the same for each component in the loop at any given time also, and it just takes longer for the reverse battery to charge, and we also get output from the inverter...   So using the inverter helps to reduce total losses because the dump from the 3 batteries to the reverse batt is being used, like the cap to cap discussion. The only difference for the batteries is the time value of the dump before rotation.

Mags

After reading again what I posted and your reply I realize I didn't communicate well what I was trying to say.  When I said the series battery connected to the load I meant only the battery connected to the load.  The series battery connected to the negative side of the circuit does NOT loose charge as fast as the other series battery.  They both don't go down the same.  And the explanation of the same amount of electrons going through all the batteries would seem to indicate that BOTH series batteries should go down at the same rate.  BUT they don't.  I have tested this several times and Dave has tested it hundreds of times.

Carroll