Overunity.com Archives

Hi all, I have been testing this charger variant and testing different voltages.
Have been finding using higher and higher voltage inputs is increasing efficiency of power flowing through oscillator circuit and into the 12 volt tractor battery.
Will copy and paste results so far from other forum.

I'm using all 11 strands in parallel as the oscillator primary in this latest test, with 2 diodes in parallel off the collector of transistor to 12 volt charge battery and using the ferrite tube core.
I am now using my 400 watt boost converter as the input power supply, so i can raise the voltage even further to test any efficiency increases.
When using an input voltage of 50.6 volts from power supply, the efficiency is 72.5 percent, of course not including flyback recovery, actual voltage shown flowing through oscillator is around 35 volts.
On this latest test, using 60.1 volts from power supply, the efficiency has increased to
77.5 percent, actual voltage shown flowing through oscillator is around 46 volts.
These tests are tuned to use close to the same input wattage, by adjusting resistor values in oscillator circuit.
I find these results promising, i will continue to raise the voltage by 10 volt increments and tune and share the data with you folks.
I think this boost converter can only reach around 90 volts though.

The results at 70.2 volts dc input, is showing increased efficiency.
The actual voltage through oscillator circuit is 57.2 volts at .07 amps.
That is 4 watts flowing through the circuit into the charge battery and 4.91 watts being input.
Efficiency is now 81.5 percent, not including flyback recovery.

Latest test using 80.2 volts dc input.
The efficiency of the circuit has increased further.
It has increased to 84 percent.
Actual voltage through oscillator is 67.4 volts.
Current flowing through circuit is .06 amps.
Also had to wire another neon in series with neon across transistor collector, because the higher voltage was causing it to conduct.
I also have a capacitor in parallel with each of the resistors shown in the circuit drawing, it helps to adjust frequency and lower input.
Also, I'm finding the circuit to charge very efficiently, have been using a 12 volt led bulb to discharge the 12 volt battery and observing watt hours used, then can compare to watt hours placed back in and so on.

Your thoughts on these results are very welcome, not much interest at the other forum apparently.
peace love light :)
Here is pic of coil on left and latest circuit drawing.

Hi Tyson,

You have been doing an excellent job on optimizing most component values in this circuit. Also, you use a relatively
good HV switching transistor, the only 'issue' I can mention would be its rather low h_FE, DC current gain of 8 to 10
at around 1 to 4A collector current range, from data sheet: http://www.wakamatsu.co.jp/waka/2sd1878.pdf

You wrote about currents flowing through the circuit in the range of 60-70 mA or so, I assume this is an average
value and the peak collector current for the transistor must be higher than this of course.

With a more modern switching transistor like ZTX857 for instance, the DC current gain ranges from 100 to 300
for around 0.5A or from 15 to 25 for 2A collector current, from data sheet:
https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/ZTX857.pdf   
This is a 300V, 3A (5A peak) switching transistor with very low collector-emitter saturation voltage:
50mV (max 100mV) at 500mA collector current, this is better than the 120-130mV at the 0.1 to 2A
collector current range for the 2SD1878.

Question is what benefits such a transistor would bring versus the presently used one? The 23 kOhm base bias
resistor could be in the 100-200 kOhm range or so and the 15 kOhm could be in the 50-100 kOhm range or so I think.
It is possible the DC pre-bias role of the 23 kOhm resistor would become obsolote i.e. there would be no need for
any resistor at that place, due to the much higher h_FE value.
Another advantage would be the lower dissipation in such transistor due to the much lower saturation voltage.

I think these two better parameters would bring a minimum of 3 to 4% increase in overall efficiency.

Price for this transistor is here and notice it has no integrated diode across the collector-emitter and while
you could use a fast diode there, maybe it would not be needed at all.  The 2SD1878 type has got a built-in diode
because of the intended task for horizontal line output stages in television receivers of the 80s and 90s.
https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/diodes-incorporated/ZTX857/ZTX857-ND/92594
Of course there are other switching transistor types with more or less similar parameters than the ZTX857.

Thanks for showing these results.
Gyula

hello good job I am interested in your tests but I would like to know what are the objectives you want to achieve and what are the advantages of this technique, I want to understand what it will serve, thank best regard

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the positive words.
I am using the 2SD1878, because it's what i had on hand (salvaged) at the moment, since i fried my audio transistor i was using.
I will look at what transistors i can get, that are similar to what you describe, any improvements in efficiency is what i need.
I wonder if the built in diode is causing any loss of charging efficiency, i can't see how it would though, unless it somehow conducts when the transistor is not conducting.

Hi stiplanet, Thanks for the reply.
The main function of this circuit setup, is to pulse charge a battery using the current flowing through an oscillator coil.
Then, use the flyback recovery of the coil to try and increase efficiency further and also help to reduce sulphation of battery and increase capacity.
The objective is to charge the battery with the highest throughput efficiency.
Then if the recovery can exceed the power input, then when using a battery for input, we may be able to swap batteries and gain charge in both batteries, which is why the tests to gain the most efficiency with this type of split negative setup.
Though the main goal is an efficient charger that can make a battery last for many more cycles than a typical, off the shelf charger. Which limits the peak charging voltage and in far less cycles, will cause the battery to sulphate and die.
peace love light

Edit: I've just about maxed out my boost converter at 90 volts. Highest efficiency is 85% with this coil arrangement.

Hi SkyWatcher123,

Regarding other transistor types, you could look for types used in electronic ballast circuits in CFLs, in projector lamp
driving circuits  and the like and you may find such with gutted lamps but the electronic circuit inside may have
remained good. It is possible though that the older types will have a low value h_FE so you would need to pre-bias the base.

I do not think either that the built in diode would be an issue.  When the transistor is off, the built in diode between
the collector and emitter immediately becomes reverse biased from the DC supply voltage appearing across it and
the kickback pulse (flyback) coming from the coil will also appear in reverse direction.  In case the coil has conditions for
ringing like an LC circuit, then the diode may have a chance to conduct, this is not the likely case in your circuit.

Gyula

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on April 08, 2018, 08:53:59 PM
Hi gyulasun, thanks for the positive words.
I am using the 2SD1878, because it's what i had on hand (salvaged) at the moment, since i fried my audio transistor
i was using.
I will look at what transistors i can get, that are similar to what you describe, any improvements in efficiency is what i need.
I wonder if the built in diode is causing any loss of charging efficiency, i can't see how it would though, unless it somehow conducts when the transistor is not conducting.
....

Edit: I've just about maxed out my boost converter at 90 volts. Highest efficiency is 85% with this coil arrangement.

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply and the helpful information.
I found an NTE331 NPN in my salvage stock, it has a much higher current gain. I tested it and did not notice much difference in performance, though i did not remove the prebias connection.
If i remove the prebias and it still oscillates, do you think it will be more efficient.

An observation i just made, using the tv transistor.
I removed the ferrite tube core, which doubled the watts input, so i progressively lowered the input voltage from the boost converter to around 37 volts, while keeping similar input watts as all previous testing.
The efficiency lowered to 64%.
I think with this split negative setup, if we go too low with the current flowing through the coil oscillator and into the charge battery, the battery does not charge as quickly and at such high voltage, the battery load test starts to reduce in duration to 12.5 volts, which is where i end each discharge test.
So, even though the efficiency is higher for the higher voltage circuit, it is not always of benefit with this device arrangement.
The best configuration in my opinion, will be the one that charges the battery with the least input, while the battery recieves this charge with the highest efficiency.
The circuit is flowing .17 amps at the moment, whereas previously, it was using .06 amps at the higher voltage input.
The battery charges better and more efficienctly with a higher current flow.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

This post will be a long one...  :D   You wrote
"If i remove the prebias and it still oscillates, do you think it will be more efficient."

Yes it will, how much more, this can be estimated only partially because the collector-emitter waveform is
not known: removing just the 23 kOhm, the dissipated power in it could fully be saved. But this surely involves
the readjustment of the 15 kOhm resistor too.  Sometimes a transistor with such low h_FE is difficult to use in a
self starting oscillator, higher supply voltage helps on this.       
First consider the base current via the 23 kOhm:
(80.2V-12.6V-0.7V) / 23 = 66.9/23 = 2.9 mA  and the dissipation in this resistor is 66.9*2.9 = 194 mW this would not
be consumed from the power supply. Also, the transistor would not have an idle current during the oscillator OFF times,
so this consumption would also be missing.  2.9mA*h_FE would be the idle collector current, let's say the h_FE would be
8 with your tv transistor, then collector current, Ic would be 2.9*8 = 23.2 mA.
At OFF times the collector emitter DC voltage may be 80.2-12.6=67.6V and with the 23.2 mA collector current, the
dissipation would be 67.6*23.2=1568.3 mW BUT because we do not know the duration of the OFF time during the
periodic oscillations we cannot reduce the 1.5W by the actual duty cycle in this oscillator to get the average dissipation,
the 1.5W dissipation would be correct for a continuous operation, not for an oscillating operation.
So you would need a oscilloscope to see the collector-emitter waveform. Now if I assume the average dissipation were
say 1/10 of 1.5W, then this 150 mW + 194 mW= 344 mW would be saved when you could omit the pre-bias resistor
due to the use of a transistor that has a higher or high h_FE value. 

To estimate how the saturation voltage for the transistor during the ON times may influence efficiency, we would need
to know the ON time of the oscillator when collector current would flow, this would cause a certain dissipation in the
function of the saturation voltage and of course in the function of the collector current. So again the voltage waveform
across the collector and emitter would be needed.

Ideally, the ON time for the oscillator transistor should be as short as possible. This is because of the value of the
L/R time constant for your coil has 'something' to do with the DC resistance loss of your coil and also with the recovery
loss of capturing the flyback pulses. IT is very good you use multiple wires in parallel for the main coil, this automatically
reduces wire loss.

You would need to know the L inductance of your coil that has the 272 milliOhm resistance. Suppose, for simplicity,
it has 27.2 mH inductance with the ferrite tube cores. This would give an L/R time constant of 0.0272/0.272 = 0.1 sec
i.e 100 ms. What this means and how the ON time could be chosen to this constant to get the smallest coil loss,  please
read member 'verpies' post here:
http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg352483/topicseen/#msg352483 (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg352483/topicseen/#msg352483)   
If you do not understand something with his text, I try to help.

Notice that if you remove the ferrite core from the coil, the inductance goes down hence the L/R also changes to a lower
value too, so that one would have to reconsider the ON time BUT the question is how the ON time can be controlled?

Well, in this circuit, this can hardly be done (to end up with less coil loss) because of the 'rigid' (not readily controllable)
feedback in the oscillator. A good solution would be to use a very low power variable duty cycle oscillator (like a CMOS
555 timer) to drive the base of the transistor and seek for the best efficiency possible.

Needless to say, that even with such duty cycle optimization, one has to face a trade-off because the too short ON time
(that yields less and less loss and involves a decreasing amount of input power) goes together with recovering less and
less captured flyback energy from the coil (smaller input current involves less stored energy in the coil).
In this situation the only means to reduce this trade-off is to increase input supply voltage to increase input power hence
increase the amount of the captured energy too.

What you observed as an increasing efficiency when you increased the supply voltage was very probably due to a near
ideal ON time - coil time constant relation to have a minimal coil loss. This you achieved with increasing the time constant
by reducing the R resistance of the coil i.e. you reduced the denominator in the L/R quotient and you inserted a ferrite core
into the air cored coil, this latter also increased coil time constant.

So if you remove the core, you go towards the higher coil loss possibility, unless you are able to adjust the ON time too to
partially compensate for that.  (In this case you reduce L hence time constant also reduces.)

I agree with your opinion on what the best configuration would be and the thoughts above may help achieve or approach
that.  Probably you would still need the core for the coil but you need to reduce a little the inductance wrt the 80.2V supply
voltage position by using less number of cores and / or inserting them partially and thus reducing supply voltage too. 
Or you may find the 170 mA input current for the coil is quasy very good for the charging, then try to stay near to it but
remove some number of turns till you approach similar input current range with the ferrite cores inserted. 
(This latter helps increase time constant hence reduce loss provided the ON time remains nearly similar for the cases.)
And try to find a switching transistor having a higher h_FE  than the present tv transistor (the ZTX type would be ideal in
this respect, together with its very low saturation voltage). 

Gyula

SkyWatcher123  thanks for sharing
Have you tested with more output diodes

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the in depth response and information, i will try and implement some of that information.
Though the idea of removing the prebias, thinking about it, i'm not sure how it would start oscillating without it, with this circuit design.
The ideal on time information is most helpful, you're probably right, the higher voltage was adjusting that.

As of now, using 37 volt total input at .17 amps, it is charging the battery the fastest for the same input watts as previous higher voltage tests, no ferrite core at the moment.
And i have 56 Kohm resistors in each of the resistor positions, the prebias resistor has .2uF capacitor in parallel and the feedback resistor has .22uF capacitor in parallel.


Hi Ed morbus, thanks for replying.
With the 80 volt input setup, i did try the 2 diodes in series, it raised the input a little and noticed heat in them, could not tell if charging increased much.
With 2 diodes in parallel, input was lower and no noticeable heat in diodes.
What are your thoughts Ed, do you think more diodes in either series or parallel would be of benefit.
peace love light

Hi,

You need not remove the prebias if the oscillator needs it to start with that low hFE tv transistor (I hinted on this problem). And now the 56 kOhm consumes less than the 23 kOhm.

Gyula

Ok, after a couple charge/discharge cycles with the 37 volt input, the efficiency is almost 100%, if we just calculate what is flowing through the actual circuit, compared to the watt hours given back by the battery.
However, the total efficiency is close to the efficiency between the total input watts, relative to the actual watts flowing through the circuit, which is around 65% range.
I will make further tests with higher voltage, to see if i can get the battery to charge efficiently that way.
I should make you folks aware, the battery i'm using for these tests is actually not in the greatest condition, it is the one from our lawn tractor, so i will have to make these tests again on my good condition battery also.

Hi all, just want people to know, battery charging/load test efficiency results are looking much better with the good battery.
Will run a couple more cycles tomorrow and share the data, then i will try higher voltage inputs as well.
Getting tired now.
peace love light

HI MY 2 BOBS WORTH . THE BIGGEST PROBLEM YOU ARE FACING IS,
THE BATTERY.. I RECKON YOU SHOULD USE APPROPRIATE CAPACITORS REPLACING THE BATTERIES..

Hi seychelles, thanks for the reply.
Yes, am aware of the battery charging efficiency, probably why Bedini, Turion, etc. use a bunch in parallel, to lower those losses.
And Bedini used those giant telephone tower batteries i think, that had ultra low resistance, closer to the ultra capacitors battery capacitors you are suggesting.
peace love light

GRAPHENE SUPER CAP../BATTERY,, CHECK OUT THIS GUY..https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4AkVj-qnJxNtKuz3rkq16A

Hi all, Hi seychelles, thanks for the link, i have seen some his videos previously, looks good.

I am testing another circuit version, this one does not use any splitting of negatives or positives.

It does seem the most efficient so far, probably would be even more efficient with ultrafast diodes used as a full wave bridge, i don't have 4 matching ones at the moment, i will get them though.

Also, the secondary coil with the full wave bridge, gives the battery a normal pulse, then the radiant collapse, so gives us similar function as the rene circuit.

It also prevents any battery damage from too pure of radiant spike charging.

A battery load test will tell for sure though, as to the true charging efficiency.
peace love light

Hi all, testing this circuit at the moment, seems even more efficient.
I figured it will get a direct pulse charge and then the spike recovery and also any ringing will be captured effectively as well.
peace love light

Hi all, I had a thought today to try a little different circuit design, again, based on the Rene split negative charger idea.
The thinking is, the current flowing through the primary oscillator coil, creates a magnetic field by consequence of this current flow.
So why not take advantage of that and induce current into a secondary coil with a full wave diode bridge back into the same charge battery.
So 1 pulse flows through the primary coil and then into the 12 volt charge battery.
Simultaneously, another pulse flows through the secondary, into the bridge and into the same charge battery.
We get another pulse from the collapsing of the coil fields, through the bridge and into the charge battery again.
I've been testing the circuit for a little while and it is performing very well.
peace love light

Hi Tyson,

My thinking on your thinking is the following  8)
If you use 20V supply voltage, then the paralelled primary coils receive 20V-12V=8V and this 8V is transformed to the
also paralelled secondary coils, a normal 1:1 transformer, right?  This means that after the full wave bridge the remaining
DC voltage level (just from the current flowing when the transistor is ON) cannot really charge the 12V battery because
the induced voltage level is surely below 12V 'by default'. 
To remedy this, you may try to connect two - two paralelled secondary coils in series, this way you would have
a 1:2 step up transformer from the 12V charge point of view because the roughly 2 x 8V minus the diode bridge drop
of 1.3 - 1.4V will still be higher than the 12V battery level so charge current could flow into it.  (Of course,
half of the ON primary current will be available for this charging due to the 1:2 step up ratio.)  Using Shottky or
Germanium diodes helps reduce voltage drop or as you already used paralelled diodes to reduce the voltage drop.
OF course, this is to be tested how worthy it may be.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the helpful reply.

I have the boost converter set to 30 volts, so the secondary coil is pushing charge through the bridge and into the charge battery, minus losses.
Though at 30 volt input, the input power is higher at start, until charge battery reaches a high enough voltage, this to speed up the final peak charging phase.
I will also try the series coils for 2:1 step up ratio, that could be more efficient.

The full wave bridge is GBPC1506W, rated for 600 volts, avg. current 15A, surge 300A, 1.1V forward drop.
peace love light :) 

Hi Tyson,

Well, had you included the 30V supply in the schematic I would have considered it  ???   you did include the 20V
in two schematics preceeding the last schema above, this is why I thought you used 20V again. 
At 30V supply  the secondary coils voltage transformered during the ON time of the primary coils is surely
higher than the 12V battery to be charged so the 1:1 winding ratio sounds ok.

But it is always good to tests some variations like making two - two parallel groups from the 4 secondary coils
and connecting these groups in series as I wrote yesterday.   

Regarding the diode bridge, quasi all such high current high voltage bridges are intended for mains frequencies,
their switching speed may not be sufficient for your circuit that may work in the some kHz or ten kHz range. 
https://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/GB/GBPC1506.pdf (https://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/GB/GBPC1506.pdf)  data sheet deals with 60Hz frequency (Fig 1 and 2).
Maybe it would be worth to assemble a diode bridge from 4 fast diodes like the UF4007 etc.

Also, another variation here would be to use a full wave voltage doubler instead of the diode bridge. It has only two
diodes instead of 4 so half of the voltage drop can be saved versus the 4 diode bridge.  The price to be payed for this
advantage is the need for using two electrolytic capacitors, see this link:
  http://www.augustica.com/full-wave-voltage-doubler-tripler-and-quadrupler-ezp-36 (http://www.augustica.com/full-wave-voltage-doubler-tripler-and-quadrupler-ezp-36)  and I attached how it would
look simplified for your circuit.  C1 and C2 could be any value of 100 or 200 or 470 uF and higher,
working voltage should be at least 100V or higher.  If you use this doubler, all the 4 secondary coils could remain
connected in parallel of course.  In the voltage doubler, each diode could also be made of 2 or 3 fast diodes (UF4007)
connected in parallel to make the forward voltage drop even lower for each. 

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, wow thanks, great ideas.
I'm testing the the 4 strands idea, 2 sets of 2 strands in parallel, then those in series, that is working far better.
Am able to lower the voltage to 24 volts input and the diminishing voltage usable for the oscillator, does not effect the charging nearly as much.
Yes, the high speed diodes is planned, only have two matching ones at the moment, so your full wave voltage doubler is something i can test.
I will keep the series/parallel secondaries in place, then lower the input voltage as far as i can, then use the voltage doubler and see how that works in comparison.
Thanks for all your valuable contributions gyulasun.
peace love light

Edit: i've been using air coil mode for these tests

Hi all, Hi gyulasun, so far, with the 4 secondary strands in parallel and using the full wave voltage doubler, the output seems very good.

And the input is only 4 watts, 25 volts at .16 amps, though that will fluctuate as the charge battery changes in voltage.

Very impressed so far, will do a few proper load tests for watt hours to see.

I used for the voltage doubler, MUR460 diodes and 200v 470uF polarized capacitors.
peace love light

Hi all, here is the latest circuit under testing.
peace love light :)

Hi Tyson,

Nice progress, there seems to be a few refinements could be done.

One such possibility is to reduce the number of turns for the 12 strands and use the ferrite cores to have
similar inductance the air core coils have now. Less wire length involves lower DC resistance and helps get
the desired increase in L/R time constant which reduces overall coil losses, see the link on the L/R time constant
in my reply #6, previous page.

Another possibility is using still a better choice for the 2 rectifier diodes. (I do not mention the transistor type
because it was addressed earlier).  On better diode choice I mean the followings.
Data sheet says the MUR460 has about 0.74V forward voltage at 100mA and 25°C (Figure 6 on Page 6,

https://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/MUR420-D.PDF ) Should you have had a MUR420 type instead (200V, 4A)
the forward voltage drop would be about 0.64V at 100mA and 25°C (Figure 1 on Page 4) and for the two diodes
in the voltage doubler this means 200 mV less overall voltage drop at 100mA forward current.
A similar behaviour is found for the UF4003 diode (200V, 1A) versus the UF4007 (1000V, 1A), from data sheet
https://www.fairchildsemi.com/datasheets/UF/UF4001.pdf  Page 4 in Figure 2, forward voltage drop of UF4003 is
0.6V at 100mA while for UF4007 the drop is around 0.9V at 100mA.
You may think the 200V rated diodes prove to be underrated for the voltage spikes at the switch-off moments,
this can be true when the oscillator is run without any loading i.e. no 12V charge battery is connected.

Now have a look at this Schottky diode type SBR30300
https://www2.mouser.com/datasheet/2/115/SBR30300-464761.pdf this is a 300V, 2 x 15A diode and
it has 0.42V forward voltage drop at 100mA current and at 25°C (Figure 2, Page 3).
Because the two diodes are very closely matched, they can be connected in parallel to decrease
their forward voltage drop by a few percent (8-10%).
Unfortunately, such diode types are rarely found in common appliances one could scavenge them from.
In PC power supplies similar double Schottky diodes are surely used at the secondary side but their reverse
voltage ratings are around max 40-60V.

Keep up your your devoted work.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the good information.
How many coil turns would you suggest i remove, as of now, each strand is about 3 ohms and we have 11 strands to work with.

I have some 2 in 1 diodes, the 3 pin ones i salavaged, probably schottky, will check later and see what they are.

I have on hand the NTE331 NPN i can try again and also found two STPS3045CW power schottky rectifiers, though they only handle 45 volts.
Also found a DSSK30-01A.
peace love light

Well, the magnetic permeability of the ferrite core is not known (by me at least), this is one thing.
The other thing is the coil inductance without the core is not known either, an L meter would be useful
to check if you have access to one. 

A possible approach without an L meter would be this: remove 1/4 of the total turns you now have for
the 11 strands and try to get similar input current draw by plugging in the ferrite core.
Then try to remove one layer or two only if the core is still not nearly fully inside the bobbin to get the same
current draw at the same input supply voltage of course like you had with the air core.
The goal would be to have similar coil inductance for the 11 strands with the inserted core like the air cored coil
with its longer wire length has had so far, also for the 11 strands.  The current draw is mainly determined by
the primary coil AC impedance and this latter is governed  by coil inductance at a specific oscillator frequency.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the helpful information, i will probably try those things, though before i alter the coil, i would like to try a different circuit with it.
I'm going to see if i can get the Johnny aum circuit working with this split negative setup.
It may give greater efficiency and does not need a dedicated wire for feedback.
Similar to this circuit drawing.
peace love light

Hi Skywatcher,

I agree it is not good to unwind a coil which already works fine as per your findings.  A better approach is
to make another similar coil with less number of turns from the same sized wire and using the same sized bobbin
if you have these resources.

I watched two videos from Johnny Aum and attached one of his circuits you surely have seen or even tested. 
I think what he wrote in the top part of his drawing :  "This device works without exterior source of electricity,
or anything."  is a bold statement and most likely unproven.
It is okay that the flyback pulses from the coil may charge the batteries via the LEDs but I doubt the batteries
would maintain their initial charge continuously for long weeks or months (and while charging even a third battery). 

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for sharing that drawing.
I might be able to make another 12 strand coil, i still have the 5 strand coil i made previously, could just add to that one.

I mentioned johnny aum, only because he uses a similar main oscillator to the one i posted.
I would only be using the oscillator, to try and integrate into the rene split negative setup, no leds or anything.

The load test finished on the previous circuit, around 70% given back from the battery, not too bad, considering that circuit at 25 volt input, is only 40% efficient.
So I'm wiring up the new oscillator, using the NTE331 npn and the NTE332 pnp, maybe it can be more efficient, if i can get it to work properly with the split neagtive charging setup.
peace love light

I'm quite sure it could work continuously.... like similar circuit here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q6NA5N6ioU&feature=push-fr&attr_tag=rmh84E9sTase1VFw-6

Hi all, Hi forest, thanks for sharing the video, i will study that later.

I could not get the dual transistor, npn pnp circuit to oscillate with the coil i have.
However, i know i can get the sucahyo oscillator to work and it has the advantage of the shortest on time possible, because it has the pnp backwards from the typical way.
I will see how it works with the rene split negative circuit variant.
peace love light :)

Hi all, i was able to get the oscillator running i showed in post #27.

Im using 20 volt input at the moment, without the the led shown.

I'm testing different variables to see what effects what and added a resistor and capacitor in parallel on the PNP emitter leg.

Was able to get it oscillating by testing different transistors, using TIP3055 npn and TIP42 pnp, though a couple other combinations worked also.
peace love light :)

Hi all, here is the circuit I'm testing at the moment.

It seems to be very efficient, both transistors run cool.
I did try with the voltage doubler off a 4 strand secondary, though this seems to perform better with the 2 parallel diodes.

Plus, it is using all 12 strands for the primary of the oscillator and lowering losses further.
Let me know what you think.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

This circuit must be tinkered with to make it oscillate when both transistors have a relatively low hFE values
like for the types you use. Even though their hFE values get multiplied in this Darlington connection
the resulting hFE may still be low and this is why the feedback components need the correct values
to start up oscillation. (2kOhm-100nF and 56kOhm-10nF). Especially that you use a 2 kOhm resistor
in the emitter which you found needed to reduce overall input current, its presence reduces the AC gain,
this is why a capacitor is needed in parallel with it. 
The voltage doubler is useful when the resulting supply voltage to the transistor and the primary coil is less
than the voltage of a battery to be charged as was the case for your last week circuit, this was the main reason
I suggested. (It is not good to pulse charge a battery with much higher voltage spikes than the actual battery voltage.)
I assume you find this circuit at least as efficient as the one you tested last week with the tv transistor?  To compare them,
similar input voltage and current values ought to be considered for both.
Good job, keep it up.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply.
Yes tinkered is the word, took me a bit of tweaking to get it running well and with a solid tone heard from the coil.

I tested the charge transfer efficiency on the circuit just recently posted, it is around 74%.
That i think is one of highest percentages so far, the rest were probably in the 60% range.

Meaning, i discharged battery with a known watt hour load, then charged it with circuit back up to the voltage it was previously charged to, which is full charge.
Comparing the total watt hours out from the boost converter.
Interesting i think, considering these batteries supposedly have only a 50% charge transfer efficiency.

I rewired the circuit again and will now test the same circuit, with 8 strand primary, 4 strand secondary and using the voltage doubler.
peace love light :)

Hi all, I know I'm posting alot of circuits, just trying to see what works the best.
This latest circuit, is the rene split negative, with the sucahyo oscillator.
It is performing even better than the previous circuit, it also has a very short pulse on time, due to the reversed PNP transistor.
This is a good one to try.
peace love light ;D

Hi SkyWatcher,

Well, the importance of the duty cycle i.e. the ON time of the switch nicely manifests in this circuit.
The lower the ON time the less loss occurs in the coil as was explained in Verpies post. IT is good you
experience this.
You could explore this better with a variable pulse width and variable frequency generator of low
power consumption like a CMOS 555 timer (LMC555 or TLC555 etc).  The output of such generator
can directly drive the base of your single tv transistor via a few kOhm resistor.
You surely have seen 555 type timer circuits with variable duty and frequency controls, here is such:
https://teslasforsustainablesociety.wordpress.com/2012/11/page/5/  and scroll down to the 2nd schema
under the Astable Frequencies Chart.  5V is already enough for a 555 and it could be obtained from your
main DC supply via a series 15V Zener diode in the positive rail of the 555 to drop the 20V to 5V or so.

If this reversed pnp transistor "trick" provides a very short ON time (I have no problem with this), and the
duty cycle is indeed around 1% or so, then the 555 timer may not bring much more improvement, perhaps
it could give more flexibility with its variable frquency output too (besides the low duty cycle possibility).

All I am saying is that with such pulse generator you do not depend on the limited adjustability of blocking
oscillators or similar circuits for frequency and duty cycle you already showed:  you could have even a single
MOSFET switch driven by such generator and flexibility to choose how long the input current is allowed to flow
into the coil.  I think these aspects can lead to have the best results obtainable with components at hand.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the positive reply and good information.
At some point i may test what you suggest also, as i have built 555 timer circuits with mosfets previously, just keeping it more simple for the moment.
Though yes, an experimenter showed his oscope data on the net and it was around the 1% duty cycle at all frequencies.

I also have just realized my multimeter may have been malfunctioning.
I noticed the amperage at the 20 amp setting fluctuating and pushed down on the meter lead going into the meter and it lowered by around 100 milliamps and then stayed steady.

That problem will not effect this type of circuit as far as the total power efficiency of the circuit, compared to what is actually usable through the oscillator.
However, it does place into question, the charge transfer efficiency data.
If it was showing falsely higher on the last tests and for that matter, all previous testing, then with the rene/aum circuit, the true charge transfer efficiency into the battery is much higher.
After i finish this charge/load test with this circuit, i will retest the other circuit, just to compare and get more accurate data.
I think a new meter is called for soon.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

It is good you noticed the multimeter issue, we always have to question our own measurements and double
or triple check every measured result. 
Would like to show you member Groundloop's 555 timer circuit, it is a little bit different from the circuit shown in
the link I referred to yesterday:
http://overunity.com/8411/steorn-demo-live-stream-in-dublin-december-15th-10-am/msg243175/topicseen/#msg243175

He used Pin 7 for driving a MOSFET while normally it is Pin 3 which is defined as the 'output' for a 555 timer but that is
also ok.  His 555 chip is pin compatible with the types I listed as CMOS types yesterday. 
Of course you can use your own 555 circuit you mentioned, no problem.   8)

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for sharing.
It is not clear to me, what components of groundloops circuit, are for adjusting the duty cycle and frequency.
Do you think that circuit with a mosfet can outperform this 1% duty cycle circuit I'm now using?
I have the normal 555 timer on hand, so i can try it with that and many salvaged mosfets i can choose from.

I finished the charge/load test, the efficiency is higher, around 88% charge transfer efficiency, though i'm sure its +or- a couple precent accuracy with this meter connection, new meter needed.
I'm not sure what the claimed charging efficiency is for 12 volt tractor batteries, though I'm thinking this result is good so far.
peace love light

I edited Groundloop's drawing, see attachment.  He indicated two 200 kOhm potmeters as J3 and J4 male 3 pin connectors
and I included both in the upper right corner again together with the potmeter connections and which controls frequency and which controls duty cycle.  Of course you can use other than 200 kOhm potmeters, say 100 kOhm etc. Of course the 1 - 2 hundred kOhm values insure the higher range frequency coverage versus say a 10 or 22 kOhm , the same reasoning is valid for the duty cycle adjust potmeter where the resolution is at stake.

Whether this circuit outperforms the 1% duty cycle circuit you have just built: I do not know.  It depends on:
1) whether the MOSFET has less voltage drop across its ON resistance than the C-E saturation voltage across your present bipolar transistor
2) using variable frequency pulses (together with variable duty at any set frequency) the coil + core may operate at a more optimum frequency than the present fixed frequency circuit.  Mainly it is the core characteristics that define this: what frequency range the manufacturer assigned to those cores etc.   

To estimate MOSFET loss, let's say your type has 0.1 Ohm ON resistance and the drain current is say 200 mA, then the voltage drop is 20 mV and confront this with your bipolar power transistor saturation voltage, say at least 120 - 150 mV at 200 mA collector current, see also data sheets I referred to in my earlier posts on your transistor types, with some comments too on possible dissipation due to actual duty cycle. 
OF course there are better MOSFET types that have say 0.065 Ohm ON resistance (and 250V breakdown voltage) so the voltage drop would be only 13 mV at 200 mA drain current. This involves a 10V gate source control voltage so the 555 needs at least 10 V supply voltage to provide this.  for instance https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/rohm-semiconductor/RCX511N25/RCX511N25-ND/5042492 (https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/rohm-semiconductor/RCX511N25/RCX511N25-ND/5042492)

I am not familiar with charging efficiencies for the different types of batteries, perhaps you could ask this at the other forum (energaticforum.com) maybe someone cares to answer it.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the clarifying circuit drawing, i will try the standard 555 timer with adjustable duty cycle at some point soon.

I finished another charge/load test, this time with the rene/aum circuit.
The efficiency was higher for this circuit, at slightly higher 33 volt input, at 95.7% charge transfer efficiency +or- 1-2% I'm sure.
Am going to try 40 volt input, for a new test using this rene/aum circuit and see if efficiency increases or lowers, will probably have to adjust component values to keep similar watt input draw.
peace love light

Hi all, so i verified that my amp meter in these latest tests is accurate, i used a 1 ohm resistor (voltage drop over resistor, divided by resistor value) in-line with the boost converter output, to verify the amperage.
Currently testing the charge transfer efficiency of the rene/aum circuit at 40 volt input.
peace love light :)

Hi all, The test finished at the 40 volt input, load test efficiency is 93.5 percent.
I think even the lower 33 volt input test was probably very similar in load test efficiency.

I do wonder what the load test efficiency would be, if just using the flyback recovery to charge the battery.
Think i will try that, out of curiosity, will test at 12 volts for first test.
peace love light

Hi all, finished the charge/load test on the solely aum oscillator circuit, using only the flyback recovery through 2 parallel diodes, using 33 volt input, total average watts input, 3.63 watts.

The charge transfer efficiency was lower, around 81 percent, though probably more like in the upper 70 percent range, because the input power increased a little, around the final 1-2 hours of charging.

So splitting the negative, through the oscillator coil, is indeed, much more efficient at charging batteries.

Also, for long term normal battery charging, the rene/aum circuit, or the rene/sucahyo circuit, is probably best, to avoid any potential of the battery turning into more like a capacitor, which would not be compatible with the majority of loads.
Comments welcome.
peace love light :)

Hi SkyWatcher,

Thanks for all your efforts and for sharing the results.

The so-called 'splitting the negative' charging circuit is expected to charge with a higher efficiency
than the flyback recovery alone because the switching transistor connects a lower voltage battery
in parallel with a higher value voltage source so charging happens during the switch ON time and
also during the switch OFF time.

Keep up the good work.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the positive words.
Yes, that about sums it up, pulse on charges and pulse off still charges battery and helps remove any sulphate buildup on plates.

I tested the rene/aum circuit with 20 volt input and was around 90% efficient.
So, 90% or higher is the base line for this circuit.

I do wonder, if charging a lower voltage charge battery, would yield higher efficiencies.

Perhaps a large bank of 1.2 volt nimh cells in parallel, or 6 volt lead acid batteries.

I think the charge battery voltage, that is limiting our useable oscillator voltage, plays a large factor in limiting the efficiency, maybe.
Thoughts welcome.
peace love light :)

Hi SkyWatcher,

I think the different battery types need charging treatments, methods that do not ruin them on the long run. 
Maybe pulse charging does not fit to all type of batteries universally and the amplitude of the pulse current
should be well controllable, to find the best 'treatment' for any given battery type. 
An interesting pulse charge test with a Nickel-Cadmium battery is worth knowing of:  http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/scalchrg.htm (http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/scalchrg.htm)   

If you wish to charge a lower voltage battery, then the amplitude of the pulse current can become higher
than when charging a higher voltage battery in the same oscillator circuit.  This is because you simply increase
the voltage difference between the input supply and the battery to be charged and higher voltage can drive
higher charge current into a lower voltage battery. (Here would come into play a variable duty cycle control
possibility or a variable voltage source for the input supply as you have it.) 
So far you have adjusted and achieved the best conditions for charging the given or chosen battery and found
the favorable input supply amplitude empirically (and other parameters of course) where overall efficiency was
above 90%, at the given duty cycle your circuits ran.
It is very likely that when charging the lower voltage types like 1.2 V or say 6V, you would need to find again
the optimal input supply amplitude so that their voltage difference should drive the optimal amplitude charge current.

If you have means in your circuit setup to control the two charging currents during the ON and OFF times, then
most probably the overall efficiency would be over the +90% efficiency range, no matter what voltage level the
charging battery has. Such means include the variable supply voltage source to establish the correct charge current
for the oscillator ON time and the turns ratio of the transformer and / or voltage doubler at the secondary to set
the charge current for the oscillator OFF time. This way the low voltage battery types could not be the limiting factor
in efficiency.
You mention a bank of battery cells  in parallel  for the low voltage battery types while charging: care should be used
here if there are differences between the cell voltages and / or internal resistances because in that case charge currents
would vary for the individual cells. 

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the good information.
I am going to try the full wave voltage doubler with this rene/aum circuit, using 8 strand primary, and 4 strand secondary, connected to the doubler.
Since my amp meter readings on the previous tests using the voltage doubler may not have been accurate, meaning reading too high.
Will do charge/load test to know true charge transfer efficiency as usual.
The only thing about using the voltage doubler, I think the spike desulphating function would be much reduced, so this design would be for more normal pulse charging.
peace love light

I agree,  and a separate switch ought to be used (as Bedini and others did) to pulse charge a battery
from the puffer capacitors of the voltage doubler.   

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the positive words and helpful intent as always.

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 metion would help.

peace love light

Deleted.

Hi all, i erased the last circuit, because even though the circuit works fine, something about it must have been off.

The charging of my previous test was far better, i will post that circuit, the one that gave 90% load test efficiency at 20 volt input.
peace love light

Hi all, this circuit version seems to charge the best, 93% load test efficiency.

It seems like it needs the resistor and capacitor in parallel on the PNP emitter line, to charge efficiently.

So i lowered that resistor value and added more capacitance and the efficiency increased.

The transistors run cold, so no waste there.
peace love light :)

Thanks for sharing   :D

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

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 :)

Quote from: gyulasun on May 07, 2018, 03:55:20 PM
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?

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.  8)   

Gyula

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

Hi SkyWatcher,

Returning for a little to the 100 Ohm instead of the 220:  I would think that in that circuit (Reply #53) if the
emitter resistor is reduced, then the emitter current increases, provided the 1 MOhm base resistor and the
20V boost converter input are unchanged.  So you needed to change something else to get the presently
6 mA emitter current for the 100 Ohm resistor,  I wonder.  (Just curious, of course feel free to change anything
whatever increases efficiency.)  And likely the 320 nF capacitor may need revisiting too as is the 22 kOhm
feedback resistor. For the latter you may probably use a 47 or 100 kOhm trimmer potmeter to test some values.

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, I did not change anything, except the 220 to 100 ohm resistor that is in the emitter line.
As said, i notice the frequency has decreased and as it charges past 14 volts, the frequency increases noticeably.
So i assume, the lower frequency is causing the decrease of input and lower voltage across the 100 ohm resistor, since the on time is remaining constant, fewer pulses per second mean less input power.
Still working on the load test.
peace love light ;)

Edit: Ok, i can already see the circuit needs tweaking when using the 100 ohm resistor on emitter line, based on the recharge time so far.
So I have lowered the 22 Kohm to 10 Kohm and placed a 100 nanofarad capacitor in parallel.
also reduced the 320 nanofarad to 100 nanofarad..
Will finish the charge with this new tweaked circuit and then start the load test again.

Hi all, I'm making a new test, with the same rene/aum circuit.
Using 25 volt input and just a couple minor tweaks.
This circuit when charging the 12 volt lead acid tractor battery, achieved 92.3 % load test efficiency.

Am now going to test, using 3 lithium ion cells (taken from laptop) in series as the charge battery, for a fully charged voltage of 12.6 volts.
This test is to compare the load test efficiency to lead acid results.
Will post data when i have the results.
peace love light :)

Hi all, i finished a charge/load test and the efficiency with the salvaged, laptop, lithium ion cells, was 99.1%.
The load used, was a 12 volt-7 watt led bulb. It used 7.1 watt hours, for the 1 hour discharge test.

I will make a couple more tests and get a better average and also take more meter measurements at closer intervals.
peace love light :)

congratulation. you are getting the result you are wanting.
next try the new graphene supper cap/ battery.

Hi seychelles, thank you, well it is a very nice result so far, can't complain.

Are you referring to what is called, 'ultra capacitors' the ones that lasersaber used to replace his car starter battery.

I made another test cycle with the same input voltage and also checked the voltage and current at the start, middle and end of the discharge phase.
Then added those 3 values and then divided by 3 to get an average watt-hours used by the lithium ion battery pack.
Did the same with the charging phase and the efficiency came to 101.7% load test efficiency

I was getting a little better efficiency with the previous 20 volt input circuit, so i will try that next, using this lithium ion battery and see how the efficiency compares.
Am i surprised that the Coefficient of Performance is exceeding 1.0, I'm not surprised, because the collapsing coil field is recovering energy.
Your thoughts welcome.
peace love light ;) :)   

Hi all, here is the circuit that went over COP 1.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

I travelled for a few days and now am pleased to see your continued activity.
Okay on the 92.3% efficiency with the lead acid tractor battery,  Reply #61 and 62, it may have been with the 100 Ohm emitter resistor I suppose but whatever value it had the loss was surely negligible (some mW, maybe under 10 mW).

Regarding the charging of the 3 Li cells and the COP>1, this latter surely sounds unusual. You wrote it was because the collapsing field was recovering energy. I assume you mean that during the OFF time of the oscillator you add the captured energy to the normal charging current that is flowing during the ON time?
Well, okay but this was so in the case of the lead acid battery too, right? Or you meant otherwise, not as I assumed?

Anyway, my take on this so far is that very likely the charging efficiency of the Li cells can be higher than that of the lead acid type because the internal resistance of the Li cells are I think lower than the other type, so first of all the heat loss can be less, this is inherently inreasing overall efficiency.
Pulse charging Li type batteries is a not a deeply known process, at least not for me, unfortunately.

Would you mind telling the DC voltage drop across the 1.22 kOhm emitter resistor and what is the average charge current the 25V boost converter provides to the oscillator as input current?

Thanks, Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply.
Yes, the same type of charging was applied to the lead acid and you are correct, the lithium-ion cells have less losses and no peukert effect losses.

The voltage drop across the 1,220 ohm resistor is 9.72 volts.
The average current is .15 A, from the boost converter.
Average voltage from booster is 24.85 volts, because it lowers to 24.8 by end and actually starts at 24.9 volts.
peace love light

YEH SKY , ULTRA CAPACITOR OR EVEN BETTER THE NEW GRAPHENE CAPACITOR..

Hi all, Hi seychelles, thanks for the reply.
I don't have any ultracapacitors at the moment, though i will try and get some.

I made a charge/load test with the 20 volt input, changing a couple things and the efficiency as expected, is higher.

I will make 2 more charge/ discharge load tests and take the average efficiency, to be sure of the data.

I am discharging with the 7 watt - 12 volt led bulb, for one hour.

Am also charging the lithium-ion pack to 12.60 volts in all these tests.

Here is the latest 5.0 version rene/aum battery charging circuit.

Comments or questions welcome.
peace love light

HI SKY, WHAT IS THE PART NUMBER FOR YOUR BOOST CONVERTOR PLEASE..

Hi SkyWatcher,

Thanks for the measurements. 
To understand a little better the charge / discharge process for the Li pack, it would be good to know the start and end voltages of the Li pack.  Also, the discharge current your 7 W, 12 V LED bulb takes from the pack surely gets reduced as the pack loses charge in the load test,  this means revisiting the overal consumption if you have not considered this,  I do not know.  Maybe you occasionally monitor the discharge current too.

Gyula

Hi seychelles, It's a 600 watt boost converter, Says on board.
DC-DC-01
QS-HD-2015-01
I can't seem to find the exact model on the net anymore, bought it from banggood.

Hi gyulasun, The end voltage under discharge was around 11.32 volt range and exactly 12.60 volts is peak charge in testing.
It's a 1 hour discharge, i check current and voltage at start, middle and end, then convert each meaurement to watts and add all 3 and then divide by 3 to get average watts used.
I do the same with the input volts and current from boost converter.

I just finished 2 more charge/discharge load tests, then added all 3 efficiency results and divided by 3 to get average efficiency.
The average efficiency of this charging circuit is 108%
peace love light

Hi all, have observed something odd.
I checked the total ohm resistance of my 12 strand, parallel wired, 24 awg. magnet wire coil and 2 different meters show 1.1 ohms.
I then separated the strands and each strand measured 3.5 ohms.
I then soldered all 12 strands together, to be sure they were all making good parallel contact and still the meters show 1.1 ohms.

The formula for parallel resistance claculates to around .291 ohms.
I'm not sure what is going on, anyone have any ideas, thanks.  ;)
peace love light :)

NOTHING MYSTERIOUS TO REPORT, BUT COPPER ENAMEL WIRE ARE
KNOWN NOT TO TERMINATE WELL. UNLESS YOU HAVE REMOVE AND
POLISH THE ENAMEL COATING OFF .THEN SOLDER TIN EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY THEN SOLDERED
ALL TOGETHER..

Hi seychelles, thanks for the helpful reply.
I did remove the enamel off each wire end, though i did not solder each one and then solder them all together, I just twisted them all together, then soldered.
Ok, i will desolder them and make sure each one is soldered, then solder them all together and then check ohms.
peace love light

Hi all, just finished making sure each wire strand end was soldered well and then resoldered them all together and the total parallel resistance is still 1.1 ohms.
I also verified my meter is accurate by checking known resistor values.
Unless there is a short in the strands somewhere and when wired together in parallel, is causing this higher than normal ohm rating.
Still though, one would think that a short to another wire, would make it have even less ohm reading.
Otherwise, the coil has been working fine it seems, not sure what is going on.
peace love light :)

Edit: Ok, had the thought to check my meter, if i place the meter leads together, i can only read down to .9 ohms, so it is probably a meter limitation or issue.

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on May 20, 2018, 01:58:47 PM
....
Edit: Ok, had the thought to check my meter, if i place the meter leads together, i can only read down to .9 ohms, so it is probably a meter limitation or issue.

Hi SkyWatcher,

Yes, the meter leads often trick the unsuspecting user: the banana plugs should be pulled out and then plug in again a few times and also they need some rotation left and right a few times when they are plugged in. Not every day but say in a few months time if not moved for long.
Also, I often find if I do not press the tips together strongly enough, then the meter does not show total zero. In this case you need to substract this non-zero value from the measured value.  Sometimes the rotary range switch is which needs cleaning, to do this, you have to dismantle the meter and clean the contacting surfaces with non invasive spay.
Once I also found a banana socket that was normally soldered into the printed circuit board of the meter got loose during the years and it needed careful resoldering. 

Returning to your earlier post where your averaged result yielded the 108 % charging efficiency, I wonder whether you have some explanation for it since then? 
The procedure with which you arrived at this number sounds correct.  It is interesting that in this 'splititng the negative'  René circuit variant the Li type batteries seems to be more suited for the pulsing charge current than the lead acid types.  On more 'suited' I mean they have less internal impedance versus lead acid types hence less loss., if this is one of the explanations.

Question is whether the Li type batteries love pulse charging on the long run or their lifetime will be affected. I do not have info on this.

Do you think this circuit would still work with such high efficiency if the oscillator frequency would be low say in the range of 30 -70 Hz only? If yes, then the pulsing magnetic field of the oscillator coil core could be utilized in a pulse motor, by pushing rotor magnets in repel, maybe...  I am wondering of course.    8)   

Anyway, thanks for all your efforts.
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the very helpful reply.
I didn't think of that, subtracting the shorted probe value.
So it was actually flipping a little between .8-.9 ohms with the probes pressed hard together, that makes it fairlly close to the predicted parallel ohms of .29 ohms.

I think the load test efficiency went over COP 1, yes because of the low loss, low internal resistance lithium ion cells.
And that is with 3 in series, which means more loss, if they were in parallel, or a series parallel arrangment, it would be higher efficiency.

I did not notice any short term issues with the pulse charging, not sure about long term.
This circuit switches itself, so not sure how this particular circuit would work with a pulse motor, timing wise.


peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

You wrote:  "This circuit switches itself, so not sure how this particular circuit would work with a pulse motor, timing wise."
Yes that is ok, it is an oscillator and I did not express myself fully correctly: I thought of a pulse motor which normally would be controlled by with say a reed switch and this reed switch would be inserted in series with the 1 MOhm base resistor in the oscillator.  So the oscillator would work at its own, high efficiency frequency and not at a low frequency as I said but only during the ON times of the reed switch. This way the coils magnetic field would be chopped up whenever repulson is needed between the rotor magnets and the core while the multiple flyback pulses during the reed ON times could be used for either charging or driving other stator coils etc.  Was just a thought, (Callahan and others have shown such circuits,) I not yet thought it over, the charging efficiency may prove to be less than with a normal continuously oscillating operation.   Let's forget I mentioned,  8)

Your transformator idea is good, and probably there is a limit in the number of LEDs how many of them could be driven in the same way without 'paying' for them.  The higher voltage side of such transformer normally has some ten Ohms of resistance, maybe less if you are lucky, this depends mainly on the power rating it was designed for originally. But if you have a few such transformers then you could drive their paralleled 12V coils together from the oscillator and their higher voltage outputs could drive further independent groups of LEDs.
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply.
That is a good idea, to use the rene/aum circuit with a reed or even a hall effect in a pulse motor.

The tranformer test was showing interesting results, until the charge battery passed a certain voltage, the led bulbs increased in brightness and then it started to affect the charging output.
Seems like when less energy is absorbed into the charge battery at closer to peak charging voltages, the flyback energy is then diverted to the led bulbs from the secondary coil to a greater degree.
Though it still did not affect the actual input to the circuit, most likely because the leds were not tapping energy from the primary input pulse.
I think the led bulbs were just using a small amount of the flyback power, then were using more toward end of charging, so it's an impedance matching thing happening.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

Yes, the output transistor with its open collector in most Hall sensors is npn and can be adopted simply by replacing  the 1 MOhm base resistor with it, to drive the pnp base in the oscillator.  A 10 kOhm resistor directly between the collector of the Hall and the base of the pnp transistor would be needed to limit the Hall transistor current.

I think you nicely described what you found with the step up transformator test in the oscillator, and I agree with your all deductions. How much part of the flyback pulse energy can go to the LEDs or to the charge battery surely depends on which of them has lower or higher impedance, just like in case of a voltage source that is loaded by two paralleled loads of differing values: more current would flow into the load having a lower impedance than the other load.

Gyula

TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY FURTHER , JUST PUT A GLASS JAR WITH A
BALL NIB MAGNET ON TOP OF YOUR COIL..IF IT DOES NOT SPIN, JUST GIVE A SPIN START.

Hi gyulasun,  thanks for the positive reply.
Yes, the pulse motor idea would be an interesting project..

Also, i weighed the 12 strand coil, it read 1 lb. 6 ounces, minus maybe an ounce for plastic end pieces.
Looking at the awg. wire chart, then the 12 strand in parallel, comes closer to .200 ohms,

I also tested a couple other coils.
Quickly built an 18awg. magnet wire air coil with at least 3" inner diamter and just taped 20 or so turns together,
measured similar .200 ohms.
That coil ran at fairly high frequency and caused the NPN transistor to heat up and it did not perform as well at similar input as the 12 strand coil.
Then tried a 24awg. single strand air coil, from a previous small newman motor project.
That coil is 14.5 ohms and did not perform as well as 12 strand and was low frequency, the coil also showed heating.

Am aware the multiple strand litz type coil has less losses at higher frequency direct current,
Seems this 12 strand coil works very well, what I've been thinking is, how would a larger coil perform in comparison.
Like maybe a 5-10 lb. coil made from insulated wire used for wiring houses, something with fairly thin insulation and large enough gauge and length to keep the coil below .5 ohms.
peace love light

Hello Seychelles,

Would you tell if you have already tested the ball magnet suggestion?
I ask because at first the spinning ball magnet idea sounds good: the friction of the ball is quasi negligibly
small on the hard glass surface and the air resistance is quasi ideally small.  On eddy current loss in the magnet:
well I am not fully sure on that but let's neglect it too.

Now to have an increase in efficiency of the oscillator setup, the spinning magnet should produce
more induced energy in the oscillator coil than the energy it takes from the coil for maintaining the
fast spinning.  Hmmm, this sounds interesting...So you may have found something interesting with
such tests,  I wonder?  I am open... and not nit-picking of course  :)
Thanks
Gyula

Hi SkyWatcher,

If you wish to check further on your 12 strand coil DC resistance, here is a good link on how to estimate less than 1 Ohm resistances in a simple way and with relatively good precision:
http://www.robotroom.com/Measuring-Low-Resistances.html 
It has a set of data at the bottom what resistance was calculated from the voltage drop measurements for instance for a 59 feet length of #14 gauge wire (0.153 Ohm) with respect to the expected range (0.136 to 0.159 Ohm).

Would like to show you an online air core coil calculator (you may be aware of it though). It is good because let you learn about several choices on wire gauge etc for just a chosen L inductance and includes the total wire lengths and DC resistances with differing coil radiuses which all give the same L inductance you entered. See here: http://www.colomar.com/Shavano/inductor_info.html
The program was made for air cored audio crossover coil calculations so the mechanical sizes for the coils are relatively big, though you may prefer such now.
It can give a good and quick overall view what can be expected 'size-wise'.

Here is another, similar calculator which (also for a given L inductance) let you choose bobbin's inner diameter and coil length for a wire gauge you choose. This calculator (or similar other multilayer ones online) can extend the size range limitations of the above crossover coil calculator if needed, that is all. There is an acceptable difference (5-6%) between the results of the two calculators.

Regarding on your pondering the use of insulated wire for coils, do you mean stranded copper wire?   like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire#/media/File:Stranded_lamp_wire.jpg or an insulated single wire? Unfortunately, it is hard to find a fairly thin insulation for making coils, maybe the use of the several strands of enameled copper wire is the good choice. Other insulation types may take up too much space when making multilayer coils, this may or may not cause further problems in coil performance.

Gyula

Hi all, Hi gyulasun, than you for the very helpful web links, i will be using that resistor circuit to measure this 12 strand coil.
And the air coil calculator may come in handy.

I was thinking, maybe some 14awg. stranded copper house wire, might have a thin enough insulation to be useful in a large air coil and might give better charging performance.
Otherwise, i did find a spool in the closet with about 3 more pounds of 24awg. magnet wire.
The thing is, i was thinking about others that may find my ideas useful and I was wanting to make it easier to find the materials and make it easier to build.
Because building a 12 strand coil or greater is not very easy, if a large gauge off the shelf coil material could be used and maybe even give better performance, then it would be good.
It doesn't necessarily have to be some monstrous coil, maybe only a 2 pound coil would work well, testing would be needed.
Your thoughts appreciated as always.
peace love light :)

Hi all, so was just looking at some house wire at menards.
Looks like for $20, can get 100 feet of 12awg., which works out to .17 ohms at 1.98 pounds.
And $25 for 100 feet of 10awg., for .1 ohms at 3.14 pounds.
Not too much cost to try this experiment.
Then i will use the air coil calculator, to get the best geometry.
Does anyone think one of these coils would work well enough to try.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

I think a test coil from 12 AWG 100 feet wire could be risked.  Unfortunately I cannot comment this, have not made coils from such house wire.  I assume you choose the stranded wire instead of the solid type? 
Speaking of coils, there are crossover coils both with air and so called solid cores and maybe it is worth seeing such to get a feel on DC resistances and sizes and L inductances: https://www.parts-express.com/cat/crossover-inductors/296 (https://www.parts-express.com/cat/crossover-inductors/296)   

How do you mean to get the best coil geometry with the calculators?  Can you see such feature in them?  In the first link the program itself creates the sizes for the different wire gauges to achive the entered L inductance and in the 2nd link the user can enter certain sizes beside the L inductance.   Just curious, I do not know what geometry would be optimum here...

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, yes, i did not study the program, though a brooks coil would be ideal for air coil.
Yes, stranded wire version.
Only way to know how well it will work is to try it i suppose.
The main reason I'm thinking of trying this, is to see if a larger mass of copper will yield any better charging for similar input.
And since it will be equal or lower resistance, if the efficiency is better, then it was worth it.
Though the wire insulation may or may not be helpful, we shall see.
I may just get the 10awg., since the idea is to see if more copper mass at similar coil resistance gives better performance
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,
Yes, the Brooks coil shape insures the highest L inductance for the minimum possible wire lenght to use, so this is in favor for the smaller DC resistance quest. But if someone makes such coil to differ from the ideal size ratio by some percent it does not matter much and in this respect the calculators may help to observe the needed size ratio. 
Speaking of highest L inductance, if high L is beneficial for this setup, then cored coils may also be considered, we covered this already and you did several such tests too.  I mean cores can further reduce wire length, hence DC resistance.
Okay on the awg 10 wire size, surely worth a try to see how it works.
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply.
Not sure either, if inductance is of most importance, this experiment will be to see if more copper mass gives better charging efficiency.
I don't have any other larger ferrite rod type cores, though i could crush up a bunch of ferrite c-core, etc. that were salvaged and mix with some glue into a tube, to make a core.
peace love light

Well, in general, if we increase copper mass in a coil and it involves an increase in wire length, then inductance also increases.  If we increase copper mass without increasing wire length, then inductance increases a little only, I think.  It is okay that you wish to see what other effect an increased copper mass may have.  IT would be good to use an L meter for comparison between coil inductances you have been using for such tests now or used in the last couple of weeks.

For cores you could use the ferrite rings as you already did by stacking them in a line, no need to grind or crash them and mix the powder again with glue because their permeability will be much less then originally was (you cannot press them with as high force as they do during the ferrit manufacturing process).

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the helpful reply.
Hmm, I just briefly tested a new coil/core with just about 2 layers of 18awg. magnet wire at around .1 ohms.
I tuned the circuit, by adjusting voltage input, to get similar watts input as previous 12 strand coil and i wound the wire directly onto the ferrite tube core, no gaps between wire and core or anything.
Seems to have similar charging performance and no noticeable heat anywhere, though the frequency is higher. 
Can't say it is truly comparable to the 12 strand without doing a charge/load test.

I'm going to do this, since it is not 2 full layers, I'm going to unwind enough from the other 12 strand coil, to wind 2 full layers onto the ferrite tube core, with only thin packing tape for insulation.
This should make the resistance below .1 ohms.
We shall see how it works.
peace love light

Hi all, tested that coil and i was noticing some heat in the NPN transistor and could not tune the circuit to remove the heat.
So i went back to the larger 12 strand coil/core, which now has a little less copper turns and it stays cool and all components stay cool.
Since the coil is integral with the function of this oscillator ciruit, maybe too few turns or too low of resitance does not operate the circuit properly or the transistor being used cannot handle the pulse amps and causes heat.
I still may try the 10 or 12 gauge house wire coil, because I'm curious to see how it may perform.
peace love light

Hi all, I've been testing some different coils.
Found some plastic insulated wire, looks similar to speaker wire, though i think its hook up wire, looks like maybe 20-22awg. stranded copper wire.
Wrapped 3 layers directly onto the ferrite tube core.
Since the wire is built with wire side by side, I wired it series, Nikola Tesla style, from patent #US512340A.
This N. Tesla coil method, apparently raises the capacity of the coil and voltage between turns, cancelling self induction.
I'm using the no heat sink method to check if too much heat is generated in transistors and this coil has no heat issues anywhere and charging performance is good.
The coil is .5 ohms total resistance wired in series.
I will make a charge/load test with this coil, using the lithium ion battery as the charge battery again.
peace love light :)   

Hi all, here's a pic of the latest setup being tested.
Going to do the charge/load test today, with the lithium ion battery.
peace love light

Edit: Ok, made a charge/load test and this coil is a little less efficient, though that may be because the coil resistance is more than double the other coil at .5 ohms.
It worked out to around 104% with this hook up wire coil.
Edit 2: tuned the circuit a little and making another charge/load test.

Hi all, the second charge/load test with the hook up wire coil came out the same, 104% or 1.04 COP.

Going to test the 12 strand coil/core again, since it now has a little less resistance from removing some turns.
peace love light

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on May 27, 2018, 10:26:46 PM
...
This N. Tesla coil method, apparently raises the capacity of the coil and voltage between turns, cancelling self induction.
...
The coil is .5 ohms total resistance wired in series.
...

Hi SkyWatcher,
Would like to return to this mail of yours, namely your "cancelling self induction" statement.   

Ii is okay that the winding method Tesla described increases winding capacitance.  However, this in itself
is not yet enough to cancel self inductance because the frequency of the input current has to be considered.

If you start to sweep the frequency of the input current from a few Hz and go higher and higher, then the X_L
reactance of the self inductance of the two series windings will gradually be reduced by the increasing shunting
effect of the X_C capacitive reactance of the winding capacitance.  Then there comes a single frequency where
X_L=X_C and this is what Tesla described as the condition that  I quote "permits a current of given frequency and
potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though
it possessed no self-induction." 

That is, if a bifilar coil that is made of say two insulated and relatively long copper or Alu foil stripes sticked to each other
and the stripes are connected in series to form the coil, will have a resonant frequency say at 92 kHz then this same coil
will behave as any other coil would at the lower than 92 kHz frequency range and will have the usual inductive reactance. 

In case of using two normal enamelled copper wire for the bifilar windings, then the resonant frequency will be much higher than my randomly chosen foil example of 82 kHz of course.
So it is possible that in your latest test with the plastic insulated dual wire connected in series as per Tesla, the resonant
frequency of that coil may be in the some hundred kHz range while the oscillator circuit frequency may be at a lower than
that frequency.  So we do not know whether there is any advantage by this kind of coil or not... sorry for noticing these. 
It is good your efficiency  numbers comes pretty close to that of the 12 strand coil.
Thanks for your efforts.
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the helpful reply as usual.
Yes, I thought about that also, the frequency being important with that N. Tesla style coil.
Maybe I will visit that coil method again, later at some point.

Though for now, I will continue to try and improve efficiency of this rene/aum charging circuit.

I made a charge/load test of the updated 12 strand coil/core, since it now has some turns removed from previous testing.
I also picked up a new meter, this one has the 20 amp setting capability that is properly working.
Used the lithium ion battery as charge battery again.

Input voltage to circuit in this test was 20 volts at .18 A average current.
Circuit component values were altered for this latest test.

The circuit used 6.48 watt hours and the battery gave back 7.12 watt hours.
Which works out to 1.099 COP or 109.9% efficiency.

Any ideas are welcome, that may increase efficiency further.
peace love light

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on May 30, 2018, 11:36:50 AM
....
Any ideas are welcome, that may increase efficiency further.
...

Hi SkyWatcher,

To answer your question I can only repeat myself: with a switching transistor that has lower collector emitter saturation voltage specification than the 2N3055 say the ZTX types or with a power MOSFET that has say 20-30 milliOhm drain source ON resistance.   This way your switching device will have less loss than the DC resistance loss of your coil, presently your transistor loss seems higher than that of the coil, albeit it is small enough because the body temp of the 2N3055 is at room temp for your touch if I understood you well.

So practically you have approached the efficiency of you switching circuit pretty close  to 100%, there is room for small impovement in it, maybe not worth spending on a better switch at the circuit power level you are at (low duty cycle oscillator i.e. switch and the 0.18A average current via the switch) .
It is good that you again reached the higher than 100% charging efficiency for the 12 strand coil from which you removed some length of wire and managed to compensate it with tweeking other component values. 

Thanks,
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the kind words and helpful reply.
Ok, thanks for the suggestions, i will research a transistor that might be better to try, once i make these new experiments.

It is actually a TIP3055 NPN for the main transistor and it doesn't have much of a body to it at all, half plastic and a small metal backing on it, that has no detectable heat to my finger.

The new experiments will be with this 10 awg. stranded copper THHN house wire I just picked up.
Have a 50 foot roll and it is almost 2 lbs.
It is 19 strands and should be between .05-.1 ohms for 50 feet.
peace love light :)

Hi all, was just looking at this 10awg. wire and the plastic former it came with.
Turns out, the ferrite tube core fits perfectly into the center, well with a little rubber mallet encouragement, though sure is convenient and the plastic coil former is also the exact length as the ferrite tube core.

Will be recoiling the wire at some point today and getting the core in place.
peace love light

Hi all, i need to share an error.
Apparently, the previous meter was broken as suspected and the smaller and cheaper meter is also off a little, amp meter wise, because it only has 10 amp capability.

The new meter i feel is fairly accurate, as i also have a 1 milliohm current shunt for measuring higher amps accurately and it confirms the new meters accuracy.

I also used 8 data points for the discharge, checking amps and volts 8 times during discharge.
Also used 6 data points for the charging, checking only amps, as the voltage is stable from the boost converter.

Unfortunately, the charge/load test effiiciency with the new 10awg. house wire coil is only 94.7% efficient, charging the lithium ion.
I will test the 12 strand coil also and see how that compares.

Still not too bad i guess, sorry for the wrong data folks.
It's still a great charger though and who knows, maybe it can go over COP 1 somehow.
peace love light

Hi all, i ran another test with the 12 strand coil and ferrite tube core.
This coil is more efficient than the house wire coil.
Efficiency worked out to 100.1 %.
So the 12 strand coil is very efficient, more likely because it is using the magnet wire, with the copper wires closer to each other or tighter windings.
Used the multiple data points as previous test.
Will make another test with this same setup, to see if it is consistent.
peace love light :)

Hi all, so i decided to try something a little different.
I took the 12 strand coil with ferrite tube core and placed it on top of the 10awg. coil with ferrite tube core, with the coils wired in series.

I wasn't absolutely sure which way was the proper magnetic field polarity orientation, for the top 12 strand coil,  so i went with what seemed to give the best output for input and cleanest audible tone.

I ran a previous test, with this arrangement, with a ferrite tube only about 25% into the 10awg. coil former, which yielded 102.4% load test efficiency.

The latest test, with both coils having full ferrite tube cores, yielded 102.7% efficiency.
So it seems interesting, is it the added copper mass that is giving higher efficiency and if we used a normal magnet wire coil instead of the insulated THHN house wire, would we get even higher charging efficiency.
The coils add up to about 3.2 lbs. of copper as it is.
What if we used 10 lbs. of magnet copper wire, hmm.

I am pretty confident of the numbers data.
As in the latest test, i used the 8 data points for the discharge of the 20 ohm resistor and 4 data points for the charging phase.
Since the amperage input did not waiver from .18 amps and is stable at 20 volts from the boost converter.

Out of curiosity, i am going to raise the voltage to at least 25 volts input and compare the charge/ load test efficiency next.
Thoughts welcome.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

In your last but one post you wrote: "i ran another test with the 12 strand coil and ferrite tube core.
This coil is more efficient than the house wire coil. Efficiency worked out to 100.1 %.
So the 12 strand coil is very efficient, more likely because it is using the magnet wire, with the copper wires closer to each other or tighter windings."

I think it is mostly the insulated-from-each-other wires in the 12 strand winding that is useful, together with what you wrote on the closeness to each other versus the house wire coil in which the number of strands are 19 (as you wrote) but they are uninsulated copper wires directly touching each other and the thickness of the PVC insulation on the 19 strands maintains 'air gaps' in the magnetic field. These "embedded" air gaps may or may not affect the strength of the magnetic field created by the input current, only tests can reveal this, my take is the field strength is probably less than with tight windings.

Regarding your latest test, you wrote:
"So it seems interesting, is it the added copper mass that is giving higher efficiency and if we used a normal magnet wire coil instead of the insulated THHN house wire, would we get even higher charging efficiency.  The coils add up to about 3.2 lbs. of copper as it is. What if we used 10 lbs. of magnet copper wire, hmm." 

Well, what you deduce sounds good and acceptable at first. We need to consider though the position of the two coils: they are coupled in a magnetically aiding fashion i.e. they together must have higher resulting L inductance than just adding the L1 and L2 inductances of the 12 strand coil and the house wire coil together due to their series connection. It is sure you eventually connected them correctly in series, their fields aid each other as if they were quasi a common continuous winding, otherwise the resulting inductance would be much less than the sum of them (plus the M mutual inductance) and this would have surely manifested in an input current increase at first if you happened to notice such? 

So it is not so sure (well I am not so sure) that the role of the copper mass is: the more the better. 
What if you had say a metglas core having a permeability of say 50000 instead of the say 800-1500 for the ferrite cores? That would mean the same L inductance could be had just with less copper for the winding, so just the opposite tendency it seems. I am not against using more copper of course but there are other factors I try to mention for consideration.

I thought drawing your attention this simple LC meter for you :
https://www.ebay.com/itm/LC100-A-High-Precision-Digital-Inductance-Capacitance-L-C-Power-Meter-Board/401382330899?hash=item5d74405213:m:mf8zDmlZ5r4DO7Jb87gUOAg     

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply and helpful information and the inductance meter link.

I just swapped the top coil around the other way and it does draw slightly more, though is more quiet.
I'm going to make a test at 25 volts, with the top coil swapped around this way, which is probably bucking, just to see.
peace love light  :)

Well, you can check the magnetic poles by a compass if you feed a low level DC current into the coils and then orient them accordingly.   Or check the winding sense of the two coils by eye if it is simpler.   8)

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply.
Yes, i will do that if needed.

I finished a test at 25 volts using similar input and the efficiency came to 102.8%.
This test was with the top coil flipped the other way around.
I will flip the coil back the other way and make another test at 25 volts input, though first i will check magnetic field polarity.
peace love light

Hi all, have been making more tests.
Just finished another charge/load test and afterwards I checked the magnetic polarity of the separate coils in series, using a 12 volt battery, briefly applying power.

In this latest test, the coils were in repulsion and yet, the efficiency has increased to 104.5% at 20 volt input again.

Part of the reason for the increase, may be because I flipped the bottom coil, because more copper was on one end compared to the other, as can be seen in the picture posted.
This may be giving greater inductive coupling.

Still, it is interesting that the efficiency is higher with bucking coils in this type of configuration.
Thoughts welcome.
peace love light

Also, I made a previous test and i did not have the ferrite tube cores touching each other, from the two coil cores and the efficiency was normal, at around 100%.
So it seems, the two coils need to be sufficiently coupled, inductively.

Hi SkyWatcher,

It is interesting that with the coils in bucking connection you get a bit higher efficiency. Yet, conventionally it can be explained I think: due to the big coil sizes involved, the magnetic coupling cannot be so strong between them and this is valid both for the bucking and the aiding cases of their flux.

To understand this better, if one of the coils were wound directly on top of the other onto the same bobbin (say you had one fat coil) and you would connect them also in bucking series, then the resulting L inductance would be much less than it is when they are bucking in the one coil placed above the other position as shown in your present picture.
And in the series aiding connection (now I refer again to the example of wound directly on top of the other on a single bobbin), the resulting L inductance would be even higher than in the series aiding position when one coil is placed above the other as they are shown in your picture. 

Unfortunately, the truth on the resulting L inductance for the two coils in any series configuration could be answered more precisely by an L meter.

Remember that when you removed a certain amount of wire from the 12 strand coil recently and its earlier L inductance surely got reduced, you managed to obtain very nearly the similar 102-103% by some tweaking in the circuit like the efficiency was with the original 12 strand wire length.  i.e. did you have to tinker with the circuit in the bucking coils case your picture shows?

You may also ponder on whether you explored the several possibilies of filling the 12 strand coil back then with varying length of the toroidal core inserts, i.e. changing the L inductance of it by the length of the core. If yes and in case you found a broad range for the peak efficiency, then it is possible that the reduced inductance the bucking coils cause (when they are placed as your picture shows) may still fall into that broad range and with some tweeking the circuit that good result came about.

You wrote: "Part of the reason for the increase, may be because I flipped the bottom coil, because more copper was on one end compared to the other, as can be seen in the picture posted. This may be giving greater inductive coupling."

I respect your tending towards 'the more copper higher efficiency' idea, trying to explain the better efficiency result. Please consider also what I tried to mention above.
I do not think that the "more copper was on one end compared to the other" is what influences efficiency, especially if you had to do adjustments in the circuit in the bucking mode to arrive at the better result.
If the cores position are considered when flipping the coils (if they can be considered without measuring inductance) then the resulting L inductance has to be within close range for the flipped case i.e. magnetic coupling should be also within close range so efficiency-wise this could not count as much.  This is what I think.
Thanks for sharing your work.
Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks as always for your very helpful replies, I appreciate your help very much.

And I'm sorry if I am causing any confusion, though most of those previous results were in error.

The results I have gathered with this new meter, are pretty accurate in my opinion.
The 10awg. coil/core on its own, showed 94.7% load test efficiency.
The 12 strand coil/core on its own, showed 100.1% load test efficiency.
So the interesting thing at this time, is the fact that the coils in series combination, with one on top of the other, is giving the above COP 1 results.
Well yes, the circuit is altered, because i went back to 20 volt input, so maybe that is why the increase in efficiency.

Though the question at hand, is this, why is this setup going over COP 1 now, where before, with just the single coil/cores by themselves, they could not achieve this.

I'm currently trying to find information on a device I remember reading about from Bill Muller.
It was a solid state overunity RLC circuit and if i remember correctly, it had a similar configuration, a coil on top of another coil, though I don't remember if it was bucking or not, i will find it.
peace love light

Hi SkyWatcher,

Okay, and the dilemma now is: how do you know that if you could make the inductance of the 12 strand coil to have the same inductance that now the bucking coils have, then what efficiency would you get? Pondered on that?
The bucking coils inductance can be either higher or lower than the 12 strand coil has.   

Gyula

I do not recall such coil arrangement from Bill Müller you mention. He used 'step' like coil windings in his rotary motor - generators, you may recall that.

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the reply, i will ponder that.

I found some files about Bill Mullers RLC circuit, it does look similar.
Both coils are coupled without a gap and in series, though not sure if bucking, though I bet they are, since his motor/generator used bucking or repulsion.
If you look at the circuit, it is using pulsed dc, so my circuit is also functioning similar, except for the capacitors.
It looks like it is splitting the positive with the coils, into the capacitor and then acting as a voltage doubler.
I seem to recall the circuit was well over COP 1.
peace love light :)

Hi SkyWatcher,

Thanks for showing the Müller RLC circuit, I surely missed this from him back then. You wrote:

"If you look at the circuit, it is using pulsed dc, so my circuit is also functioning similar, except for the capacitors. It looks like it is splitting the positive with the coils, into the capacitor and then acting as a voltage doubler."

In the schematic I see a full wave diode bridge that rectifies the 110V AC input and capacitor C2 is across the DC output of the diode bridge.  I labeled the positive output as A and the negative as B, see attachment. 

The two coils in series is connected between point A and C,  the latter point is also connected to the positive plate of another capacitor, C3 and also to one point of a load via a switch I labeled as S1. The other end of the load is connected to point B which is the common negative for C2 and C3 and also for the DC negative output of the diode bridge.
I inserted a second schematic which I think shows exactly the same circuit, it is a full wave rectifier with a pi filter feeding a load with DC power when switch S1 is on.

So I do not think there is pulsed DC in the load if you meant that, unless the switch is controlled by a pulse not shown.  And there is no voltage doubler in this.
If Bill Müller found overunity with this circuit, then the "wonder" to give that should be happening in and coming from the core material the two coils share. 

Can you agree with these?

Gyula

Hi gyulasun, thanks for the good reply.
Yes, I could not find any of this on the web again, i had to dig in my archives.

Here is what i see, first, it looks like the symbol orientation of C2 and C3 on the original circuit is backwards and i think that is an error in drawing, yours is correct.
Then, the full wave bridge is outputting DC and it is not continuous, there is a pulsing effect happening.
So if a pulsing is happening, then C2 gets charge directly from bridge and C3 gets charge through the series inductor.
Then, if there is a break in the pulse, the coils collapse and couple with C2 to create a boosted volage into C3 and load.
Though if there is no make and break of the pulse from bridge, then what i just said, is not correct.
Not sure if the coils are bucking each other and what that may be doing, pulsed or not, though i see it's doing interesting things in my setup.
peace love light

Hi all, I made another charge/load test with the same circuit and coils, though this time, i flipped the top 12 strand coil, so it is in attraction mode with the bottom 10awg. coil.
The efficiency came out almost identical.
So, it seems as though the bucking was not adding or subtracting from the charging efficiency.
For now, I'm leaning toward the higher efficiency being caused by the greater mass of copper.
Though I have one thing i want to test, separate both coils and physically place them apart, though still wired in series and see how the load test efficiency compares.
peace love light

Update: Finished the physically separated in series coil/core test, the efficiency was a little better, at 105.5%, charging the lithium ion battery.

Hi SkyWatcher,

I reflect on your last but one post above. Well, I did not care about capacitor filter drawing symbol orientation (and please you don't, either), the point is that the two schematics are identical in function and operation.

Yes, the output from the FWB is a pulsing DC voltage and it charges up C2 to the peak value of the AC input voltage. Here we need to be more precise and distinguish between the pulsing current that charges up C2 and the pulsing voltage across C2, see attachment I took from this link: http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/PSU/psu12.php (http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/PSU/psu12.php)  You surely know the remains of the AC voltage across C2 is also called the ripple voltage.
The point is the pulsing current flows into the puffer or (reservoir) capacitor (C2) and it is the ripple voltage which will be fed into the series coils and notice that this voltage has no sharp waveforms to make the coils field collapse in the sense we normally mean pulsing a coil. The ripple voltage has the same frequency the AC input has when we half wave rectify as shown and it has twice the input AC frequency when we full wave rectify the input AC, waveforms are in the bottom part.

All I mean is that the rectified voltage or current does not pulse the two (Muller) coils, the current is never interrupted in them by the charge or discharge of C2 or of C3 and the DC output amplitude can only fluctuate a little in the function of the ripple voltage amplitude, while the ripple amplitude depends on the load current. Of course if the load current is suddenly interrupted, then the coils surely respond to that by a counter emf but it is a single moment and the coils stored energy goes into the capacitors which balance and share the spike, then all the charge may bleed away from the caps in time. 

Regarding your latest test you updated :  when the two coils are in series and do not have mutual inductive coupling between them, their self inductances add up, so their captured collapsing energy is surely higher than for a single coil or bucking coils, provided the supply voltage conditions are comparable voltage and input current wise.  I say this, and you are leaning toward the explanation of the higher efficiency being caused by the greater mass of copper.  We can be both happy...   I mean also with this here that a coil with higher number of turns (i.e. your added two coils) possesses a greater mass of copper.   8)

Gyula

HI ALL, THIS MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO ALL..THE FRENCH VERSION
HAVE THE EXCITING BIT IN IT .THERE IS ALSO THE ENGLISH VERSION..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXXEjkwUemI

Hi all, I will focus on the rene/aum device more now.
I ran another charge/load test, though with a method to better know what was used or discharged from the lithium ion battery.
I used my digital charger, which has a discharge mode, so i can see exactly the amp hours used and take note of the voltages for average voltage data.
Also used a laptop power supply 19.12 volts loaded, where voltage only varied .01 volts during the charging phase.
The watt hours drained from the battery during discharge phase, was 5.75 watt hours from 12.60 volts.
Watt hours used to recharge the battery back to 12.60 volts was 4.95 watt hours.
Which is a 1.16 COP or 116 percent efficiency.
Used the 12 strand coil with ferrite tube again, with minor circuit changes and a ferrite core that does not protrude from ends of coil anymore.
Tests and ideas shall continue.
peace love light

Hi all, I have been making some experiments with a different coil/core setup, the one with the 15 ferrite toroids stacked together, 7-3/4" long X 1-1/4" wide core.
I think the core is too long.
The core/coil probably needs to be closer to the brooks coil geometry, for highest inductance.
The original 12 strand coil/core is close to the brooks coil geometry.
In these latest tests though, i also used a 7 strand 24awg. coil, so that is different also.
My results with this long core/coil, for charge/load testing, was either right at 100% or slightly over, compared to 116% for the other coil/core.
I plan to modify this core, make it shorter and as close to brooks coil geometry as possible.
Then continue with charge/load testing.
peace love light :)

Hi all, i was thinking why the results were all going down with all the coil/cores and decided to check the lithium ion battery cells.

Sure enough, one of the cells was out of balance with the other 2 cells.

So I balanced them and the efficiency came back up to around 115 percent, with the original 12 strand coil/core.

Though the other coil/cores were showing higher efficiency, while the battery pack was out of balance.

So I will retest these and probably rebuild the longer core/coil.
peace love light :)

Hey skywatcher, how are your experiments doing so far? Have you increased your efficiency?

I am also working on something similar and I would like to see how you were doing and what you thought of this circuit (credits to patrick kelly)

Hi...the stingo circuit gives very short duty cycle pulses and i think also higher voltage spikes, so more voltage than current output, compared to the meissner oscillator.
The coil itself, is an air core coil, with a 3/4" diameter core opening, 1 3/4" outside diameter and 1 1/2" length.
It is 5 strands of 24awg. magnet wire not twisted, though that may work better or the same.
Here is pic of coil using stingo oscillator.