A run down on the SSG circuit,and the tricks they fool you with.
The 1 ohm test-rubbish.
Books full of secret's-rubbish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX14Pd4tg68
That's a nice video that shows a well thought-out experiment. The only thing that you might have added is to explain that the 1 Ohm resistor experiments you refer to are where the charge battery is emulated by a 1 Ohm resistor. The hapless purveyors of secrets insist that because the resistor is cold, the circuit is receiving "radiant energy". The resistor remains cold because the as your demonstration proves: the SSG doesn't deliver squat for power to the charge battery. BTW, you can replace the bulb with a 12V lead acid battery and the results will remain under unity.
I took the liberty of rerawing your circuit to emphasize a couple of points. The most important point I think is that the SSG is at its heart nothing more than a power converter. The run battery is the power source, the charge battery is the power load, and the silly spinning bicycle wheel is kinetic art. There are parts that one can purchase off the shelf today that perform a similar voltage boost function that are used in automotive applications. Those converters sport 90% and higher efficiencies. But they lack the spinning kinetic art.
As I recall from the early days of my SSG building and testing, the one-ohm test was intended as a tuning aid, such that the SSG (single power and trigger strand) should stop running when a one-ohm load is applied in place of the charging battery. If the SSG continued to run, then the trigger circuit needed to be adjusted in order to reduce running current. It was and still is generally understood that the SSG pulse motor itself is electrically only around 50% efficient as your test shows. The gain is supposed to be manifested in the battery itself and realised only through a time consuming load testing procedure, involving multiple charge and discharge cycles, using a fixed resistive load to measure Joules in versus out of the system. As many experimenters have found, the system COP improves over a number of charge / discharge cycles, up to a certain point, when it eventually stabilises after typically twelve or more cycles. This is as a result of battery desulfation, cleaning the battery plates, such that an increasing area of 'clean' plate is available to charge. This desulfation takes place in both new and used LA batteries. At no point in this process does the energy consumed by the load truly exceed that energy input to the system. A major flaw to the load testing procedure is that the primary battery needs to be re-charged on each cycle back to a given voltage level, that has little bearing on ensuring that the actual capacity / condition of the battery is always returned to a given and consistent new cycle starting level. The consequence of this is that COP >1 is sometimes measured on some cycles, leading experimenters to believe that the system is working overunity. The whole process is a nonsense exercise, given non-controllable battery vagaries, that has over the years become a money making industry.
I think that what Tinman has successfully done is strike down this cynical marketing of alleged "secrets". One of the misrepresentations is that these crude power converters draw energy from space, or the phi, or the aether, thereby putting more energy into the charging battery than is drawn from the run battery. Those sorts of misrepresentations have been offered without an iota of evidence since at least the early 1980's.
If someone wants to get into figuring out just how much desulfation is optimum for a lead acid battery, then I say go for it. If someone says that they have the beginner, intermediate, advanced, and super advanced "secrets" of getting free energy that they themselves cannot demonstrate, then I say let's get out the Klieg lights and shine them brightly upon such charlatans.
I gave up on Bedini technology a while ago. Using the equation for the inductor (E= 1/2 LI^2) and Capacitor (1/2 CV^2), I was able to measure and calculate the energy from the spikes. It turns out that those spikes are only 1/2 of the energy stored in the inductor (per pulse) and that's with a mechanical switch and a very fast diode. I just couldn't believe that I didn't bother to do this test for a very long time. I could have saved myself a lot of headache.
The way the SSG circuit is designed, there is no way it can go overunity. Putting a boost converter along the line deludes people into thinking they have more energy, but it really doesn't. The numbers are just different. Bottom line is that we need Watts IN vs. Watts Out measurement. However, There is another circuit that does have a potential, but i'm too burned out with this BS. I don't feel like touching another bedini setup anytime soon.
Quote from: MarkE on May 05, 2015, 02:49:10 PM
That's a nice video that shows a well thought-out experiment. The only thing that you might have added is to explain that the 1 Ohm resistor experiments you refer to are where the charge battery is emulated by a 1 Ohm resistor. The hapless purveyors of secrets insist that because the resistor is cold, the circuit is receiving "radiant energy". The resistor remains cold because the as your demonstration proves: the SSG doesn't deliver squat for power to the charge battery. BTW, you can replace the bulb with a 12V lead acid battery and the results will remain under unity.
I took the liberty of rerawing your circuit to emphasize a couple of points. The most important point I think is that the SSG is at its heart nothing more than a power converter. The run battery is the power source, the charge battery is the power load, and the silly spinning bicycle wheel is kinetic art. There are parts that one can purchase off the shelf today that perform a similar voltage boost function that are used in automotive applications. Those converters sport 90% and higher efficiencies. But they lack the spinning kinetic art.
Cheers Mark.
Quote from: Madeo on May 06, 2015, 01:22:09 AM
I gave up on Bedini technology a while ago. Using the equation for the inductor (E= 1/2 LI^2) and Capacitor (1/2 CV^2), I was able to measure and calculate the energy from the spikes. It turns out that those spikes are only 1/2 of the energy stored in the inductor (per pulse) and that's with a mechanical switch and a very fast diode. I just couldn't believe that I didn't bother to do this test for a very long time. I could have saved myself a lot of headache.
The way the SSG circuit is designed, there is no way it can go overunity. Putting a boost converter along the line deludes people into thinking they have more energy, but it really doesn't. The numbers are just different. Bottom line is that we need Watts IN vs. Watts Out measurement. However, There is another circuit that does have a potential, but i'm too burned out with this BS. I don't feel like touching another bedini setup anytime soon.
The official claim has only ever been that the resultant 'spikes' have an effect on the battery chemistry which results in more energy out than in when the energiser system is built and tuned correctly. Furthermore, that there is no requirement to measure the collective energy in the spikes, as the important radiant energy 'captured' in the spikes cannot be measured using conventional instruments and methods. 'Built and tuned correctly' are the optimum words that provide a get out clause, as a builder claiming that his or her energiser is running underunity, can simply be told that this is because its built and / or tuned incorrectly.
I beg to differ. I have yet to see anyone (since I started this journey in 2007) who have managed to show overunity with Bedini systems. That's a long time!! Hundreds of people around the world replicating it, some are far more talented and knowledgeable than me, and they have no overunity results. Tuning it doesn't do squat..
I understand what they're talking about regarding battery chemistry. Bedini systems is basically a desulfator allowing prolonged, if not improved, battery performance especially old worn out batteries. An average lead acid battery last 5 years under normal use, but this system could possibly prolong its use a few more years or so. Does this mean this is overunity?? I don't think so.
Measuring the energy in the spikes is important in order to understand how much energy return we are getting for the investment we used. Those formulas are what engineers use to calculate energy stored in those components. To say that "spikes" cannot be measured or calculated is just another word for "magic" (unfortunately). To tell you the truth, I have not seen Bedini himself proving that SSG or similar setup that is undoubtedly overunity.
However, It is quite possible that he does have a version that is an overunity SSG. In some of his demonstrations and illustrations, I realize a few components were either deliberately, or unintentionally wired in way that doesn't make any sense. Rearranging them shows more promise than the original configuration. This is just my speculation, of course.
Quote from: Hoppy on May 06, 2015, 04:01:06 AM
The official claim has only ever been that the resultant 'spikes' have an effect on the battery chemistry which results in more energy out than in when the energiser system is built and tuned correctly. Furthermore, that there is no requirement to measure the collective energy in the spikes, as the important radiant energy 'captured' in the spikes cannot be measured using conventional instruments and methods. 'Built and tuned correctly' are the optimum words that provide a get out clause, as a builder claiming that his or her energiser is running underunity, can simply be told that this is because its built and / or tuned incorrectly.
Neither Bedini, nor anyone selling "secrets" books can demonstrate this "radiant energy" collection by any objective means. It is and has always been BS. If an electrical stimulus of some form causes a battery to "accumulate radiant energy" then this would be something that could readily be proven in a matter of days with proper measurements. Bedini has been selling this croc for at least 33 years with zero objective evidence. He has built a desulfanator with kinetic art.
The truth is (i believe)that the rotor full of magnets actually decreases efficieny. I can just about guarantee that if i removed the bass/emitter diode and rotor,the self oscilator would be more efficient.
Might give that a try actually,and see how we go. Will throw a video up when im done.
Quote from: Madeo on May 06, 2015, 04:21:57 AM
I beg to differ. I have yet to see anyone (since I started this journey in 2007) who have managed to show overunity with Bedini systems. That's a long time!! Hundreds of people around the world replicating it, some are far more talented and knowledgeable than me, and they have no overunity results. Tuning it doesn't do squat..
Madeo,
I assume you are replying to my last post, which you have mis-read. I'm agreeing with you and explaining in my first post how some people have assumed overunity through battery vagaries and innacurate measurement and giving the official but incorrect explanation in my second post.
Quote from: tinman on May 06, 2015, 06:54:32 AM
The truth is (i believe)that the rotor full of magnets actually decreases efficieny. I can just about guarantee that if i removed the bass/emitter diode and rotor,the self oscilator would be more efficient.
Might give that a try actually,and see how we go. Will throw a video up when im done.
Of course that is true. It is established by the facts: that the rotating magnets, coil, and control circuit can be fairly represented as the boost power converter that they are, and that boost power converters are routinely available with efficiencies well above 90%. One that operates on the about a Watt of your demonstration can easily be built the size of one's thumb for less than $2. This is no criticsm of your nice demonstration. It is a criticism of schlock being advanced by promoters of "secrets" that don't exist.
Quote from: Hoppy on May 06, 2015, 07:09:31 AM
Madeo,
I assume you are replying to my last post, which you have mis-read. I'm agreeing with you and explaining in my first post how some people have assumed overunity through battery vagaries and innacurate measurement and giving the official but incorrect explanation in my second post.
It appears that I did misunderstood your post. My apologies, working night shifts dulls my reading comprehension.
Despite my disappointment of Bedini, I did learn a lot about coils, lead acid batteries, and magnets. It wasn't a total waste of time. ;)
Just in case that someone else wants to try my idea, The attached illustration was my last thought before I got completely burned out with this project. I made a mistake of testing it on NiCad Batteries (spent a lot of money on it too), but this was before I understood about Lead Acid Battery chemistry. Perhaps, someone will find this useful.
In the traditional design of SSG or Pulse motors, the pulse energy used to energize the coil is completely wasted, and we only get to collect BEMF spike which is approximately 50% of the coil's stored energy (50% return of the original investment). I understood very well that there is no way overunity can be achieved in this setup, but I tried anyway. However In the alternative circuit, it is designed in an attempt to conserve as much energy as possible by charging the secondary battery during the energizing phase of the coil instead of wasting it (important concept). There will be inefficiencies due to the limitations of the coil, the switch, and the diode which most likely bring the system's overall efficiency down to 70% (rough conservative estimate), but I'd hope that the BEMF spike was going to compensate for this since it does contain 50% of the coil's energy to add to the system. Please note that the Switch' ON-time must not exceed the coil's charge time. If you guys still have a working Bedini circuit, it's worth a try. I have already dismantled mine a year ago thinking that I'll never touch another bedini circuit again. ;D
Yep I built a boost converter with 2 small 60 uH coils of 1 mm wire switched by IRF 1010 mosfet's (I think) and controlled by a picaxe chip so that the max voltage and current can be adjusted, it can output several amps at 24 volts but can be adjusted up to almost 40 volts max or 5 amps max at 24 volts, it runs from a 12 volt battery, the coils are switched together at about 60 Khz, the program manipulates the switching to keep the voltage stable or the current can be limited with a pot, as well. It is quite efficient at about 0.8 amp x 24 volt output I measured over 90% efficient. At higher currents the little cores get warm after a while so not so efficient but still good, it uses Schottky diodes. It has many uses as a little black box power converter. Thick wire, good board traces, low on resistance mosfet's, clean switching and Schottky diodes make all the difference. It did cost a bit to build but was well worth it as I use it often. Handy for getting DC motors spinning at the desired speed ect. It's efficiency is not so important when using solar energy but better efficiency means more power with less waste heat, almost failure proof the way it's program is coded. If I remove the output the switching stops and prevents any over voltage events ect. Shorting the output might make smoke. ;D
SSG is very low tech, and inefficient by design. An optically triggered mosfet switched pulse motor can be much more efficient and use less wire. (no trigger coil) I have also a three transistor Solid State Bedini setup which I do use on occasion to begin the desulfation of batteries if I am doing several at the same time, I also use a simple inverter circuit and two coils so I can desulfate two batteries at once with the dual output, AS soon as the batteries take charge I just put them on a regular solar setup for a long charge and occasional discharge. No hurry. I'm averaging one acceptable recovery for every 4 batteries attempted, but they need to get to at least over half the rated Ah or their toast. After many batteries it is fairly easy to tell if a battery will respond, although sometimes they might look good then develop an issue late in the game.
..
One thing I cannot stand is singing coils arrrggghhh. make it stop. My dog hates it as well. ::)
..
The PICAXE approach offers a lot of flexibility. In terms of the power section, if you ignore the 555, this schematic has the basic form that is desirable for a desulfanator. The top coil isolates the desulfanating pulses from the main recharging rail. If you were to use your PICAXE in place of the 555 then you can adjust the pulses as you like.
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f321/30971d1151855707-braille-battery-trickle-charger-question-desulfator.gif
Yeah the single battery desulfator is a very useful setup (I imagine) I never built one, I've got a bank to power from that is solar charged so never thought it necessary. I think for a single battery setup the battery needs to have some decent voltage to begin with. Much easier to use a good 12 volt battery to power the unit from, at least for me. If I was to build a single battery setup I think I would use the 555 as well, since over charging is impossible and the part is much cheaper than a picaxe chip.
The SSG is kinda just a Boost Converter but without any smoothing caps and a battery as the load.
Similarly the So called "Tesla Switch" is just a pair of 12 volt batteries in series powering a load and 2 x 12 volt batteries in parallel as part of that load, then all flipped about. The Tesla switch can also work to increase the capacity of sulfated batteries.
Basically any way current can be made to flow through the sulfated battery without overheating it will do the job, I consider the proper discharging of the battery to be part of the desulfating process, so just using a partially sulfated battery as much as it will allow will in most cases bring more capacity to it.
For a lead acid battery ( especially Starter batts) it is very important to immediately recharge a depleted battery fully then rest it and don't discharge it too deeply. It's not good to leave a starter battery for a long period after discharging.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on May 06, 2015, 06:31:58 PM
Yeah the single battery desulfator is a very useful setup (I imagine) I never built one, I've got a bank to power from that is solar charged so never thought it necessary. I think for a single battery setup the battery needs to have some decent voltage to begin with. Much easier to use a good 12 volt battery to power the unit from, at least for me. If I was to build a single battery setup I think I would use the 555 as well, since over charging is impossible and the part is much cheaper than a picaxe chip.
The SSG is kinda just a Boost Converter but without any smoothing caps and a battery as the load.
Similarly the So called "Tesla Switch" is just a pair of 12 volt batteries in series powering a load and 2 x 12 volt batteries in parallel as part of that load, then all flipped about. The Tesla switch can also work to increase the capacity of sulfated batteries.
Basically any way current can be made to flow through the sulfated battery without overheating it will do the job, I consider the proper discharging of the battery to be part of the desulfating process, so just using a partially sulfated battery as much as it will allow will in most cases bring more capacity to it.
For a lead acid battery ( especially Starter batts) it is very important to immediately recharge a depleted battery fully then rest it and don't discharge it too deeply. It's not good to leave a starter battery for a long period after discharging.
..
Right on all points. Lead acid battery manufacturers are adamant that they must not be left in a discharged state.
Clouds passing here or there may be enough to keep your solar bank desulfanated.
I bought this charger from amazon. It does a pretty good job for charging and desulfating lead acid batteries.
http://www.amazon.com/NOCO-G750-UltraSafe-Battery-Charger/dp/B004LX3AS6/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1430960796&sr=8-10&keywords=desulfator
Also, what do you guys think about the new Tesla Home Battery ?
Quote from: Madeo on May 06, 2015, 09:08:31 PM
I bought this charger from amazon. It does a pretty good job for charging and desulfating lead acid batteries.
http://www.amazon.com/NOCO-G750-UltraSafe-Battery-Charger/dp/B004LX3AS6/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1430960796&sr=8-10&keywords=desulfator
Also, what do you guys think about the new Tesla Home Battery ?
It looks like a decent charger. The numbers on the Tesla Home Battery do not make it look very attractive to me. In a few years if they get the cost down in half and net metering goes away then it will be attractive to people with solar installations.
I agree with what Tinman has shown here.
My SSG using 2 new motorcycle batteries really cranked out the rpm's. I was thrilled with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfprTzG5SY4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfprTzG5SY4)
BUT, after several battery swaps (charging battery/run battery) it would not work well anymore. I stuck both batteries on a
standard battery charger and...I could never get them to come back...at least I got the core charge back when i turned them in.
The only thing I did not try was to use supercaps instead of batteries. In my other experiments, it appeared that these capture high spikes really well and probably in a more efficient manner than those lead acid bats. I might get around to trying this one day, I don't know if anyone has done this yet but...
I am not getting my hopes up. My guess is that they will last longer and for more cycles than the bats but...eventually, more energy will have to be added from an outside source.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 07, 2015, 11:49:49 PM
I agree with what Tinman has shown here.
My SSG using 2 new motorcycle batteries really cranked out the rpm's. I was thrilled with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfprTzG5SY4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfprTzG5SY4)
BUT, after several battery swaps (charging battery/run battery) it would not work well anymore. I stuck both batteries on a
standard battery charger and...I could never get them to come back...at least I got the core charge back when i turned them in.
The only thing I did not try was to use supercaps instead of batteries. In my other experiments, it appeared that these capture high spikes really well and probably in a more efficient manner than those lead acid bats. I might get around to trying this one day, I don't know if anyone has done this yet but...
I am not getting my hopes up. My guess is that they will last longer and for more cycles than the bats but...eventually, more energy will have to be added from an outside source.
Bill
That's right: Capacitors are better at capturing current pulses than electrochemical batteries. A couple of well connected capacitors can drop the peak pulse voltage down by a factor of 50:1 or more which is all good for efficiency. The SSG is as in the figure I posted earlier just a power converter built out of kinetic art. It is not a particularly good one.