Hi all,
For the last three years, I have been working to obtain unequivocal evidence that a Bedini-style generator can harvest energy from the local environment. In particular, as someone who trained and worked as a scientist and a science teacher in the UK and is now retired, my aim is to present clear evidence of the harvesting phenomenon and to publish that data in a suitable scientific journal. So far I have found nothing in the mainstream literature addressing this specific topic, probably in part for fear of ridicule.
To this end, I have built a 'Pulsed Flyback Generator' and spent a large part of this year testing it with regard to a range of variables that can affect its performance. Up to this point, I have focused on measuring its CoP and finding out the optimum settings for best-charging performance.
The testing is not complete in that I have yet to undertake power tests that bring any hidden factors to bear, and these tests will add further weight and confirmation to the CoP data already obtained.
My aim in all this is not to bring some form of generator to market but rather, as a 'curiosity-driven' project, to show the scientific community clear evidence that energy can be extracted from the 'environment' by an open electronic system. Particularly for many electrical engineers, an open system does not compute and the notion of using the term CoP outside of heat transfer is anathema.
What good data there is has usually been kept within the walls of interested groups and forums like this. However, with my aged links to the 'establishment' and universities, my long-term aim is to get further replication done and add weight to the issue of open systems and energy extraction from the quantum vacuum, what Tesla and others have referred to as radiant energy.
My project does not directly examine where the energy comes from and the mechanisms involved (such as vacuum biasing) but it is of course natural to speculate. In my view, the only viable source of the energy gain is the quantum vacuum and I'm in contact with Tom Valone and others in the US on that aspect. It will probably require a specially designed experimental setup to investigate that hypothesis but in the meantime, my own view is that the theories of Ilya Prigogine on 'far from equilibrium' states and negative entropy as well as the Geometrodynamics of John Wheeler are relevant in this phenomenon.
I plan to write the scientific paper at the start of the new year largely based on the power tests that are soon to start. Due to the much better than expected performance, I need to upgrade the PCB, and in particular the relays, to cope with currents up to 20A instead of the 3A originally designed for. Meanwhile, I have written various documents presenting the evidence so far and, while I am keen not to risk interfering with the evidence related to the forthcoming paper, I am happy to provide a link to one interim report (not written in scientific paper format) showing the methodology, equipment and evidence of some of the CoP values obtained so far. This might provide some inspiration to others who are embarking on this journey.
If there is one overarching finding I would state after all my work then it is this: one needs to optimize all the factors based on the unique properties of a specific build. The factors so far tested include PWM PRF and duty cycle, coil voltage (i.e. number of batteries in series), battery capacity and chemistry, charging point on the charging profile, and the battery swap interval.
With my build designed to allow for the testing of all these variables, when these are optimized, then I have now reached CoPs of more than 10 (compared to around 2-3 when not optimized) using HV pulses of a little over 1kV applied directly to the battery. When towards the end of this year I get to increase the peak HV towards 2kV (by changing some active components) the results are likely to increase significantly. These values translate to power levels of 100-200W which is a modest output but scientifically speaking highly significant.
Since the pdf file is 9MB and can't be attached to this post, here is a link to my Mega account and one document that I'm happy to share at this time. Others will follow as and when my paper is published next year.
https://mega.nz/file/1YVhlaBJ#yJDmYbk7IdiY1T0Ppgj4Z-E8YJeE0YDIRczxxz9fUt8
I'm not going to distract myself with too much discussion here about it as I'm rather busy but I will respond to some significant points or feedback. I felt prompted to present this now as we head into a difficult winter for many, not least for reasons of energy availability!
Blessings
Julian
Julian
Thanks for sharing your work, and hoping for the best !
These things "Energy Harvesting " tickle the imagination
Like an itch we just can't quite scratch !
Looking forward to your experiments!
Also here you can get a "self moderated"build topic for new experiments
Or ideas to present to the open source community!
I know our host has also done similar experiments
And also searches for a true breakthrough which can be shared to the world!
Respectfully
ChetKremens@gmail.com
Ps
Also I see you are interested in hydrogen
There are some experiments being discussed ( for open source)
Don't want to post off topic here !
Julian,
Having conducted similar experiments myself using capacitors instead of batteries, I was never able to achieve COP>1 performances. This led me to conclude there is something happening with the high voltage pulses that is modifying the chemistry of the batteries and unlocking potential energy stored within that is not normally accessible. The problem is, once you access, convert to kinetic and deplete this hidden energy, you can't put it back and the COP calculations begin to dip below unity. In cases I've personally witnessed, the batteries rapidly deteriorate well below their rated specifications.
Hi there, I tested a cap dump circuit delivering high current pulses to the battery and got CoPs of around 2.5 but nothing like as good as when the pulses are delivered directly to the battery.
I'm soon to start power tests that will confirm the CoP results and attach a doc explaining my approach. If the batteries retain their voltage then a chemical artifact can't really be the source, even if the chemistry is part of the energetic pathway, which it has to be. So my money is on electric field induced vacuum polarisation (what has historically been called 'radiant' energy) and I'm in discussions with other people on that scenario.
Jules
If you would like me to put together some suggestions, based on my research, on how to get a CoP>1 then let me know. These would be suggestions on components etc and methodology.
Quote from: JulesP on November 04, 2022, 02:55:07 AM
If you would like me to put together some suggestions, based on my research, on how to get a CoP>1 then let me know. These would be suggestions on components etc and methodology.
Sir
I have been trying to make builders and peers ( scientists) in the open source community aware of your work !
Please do make suggestions on your methods towards this gain mechanism!
Would truly be remarkable...
And there will be plenty of replications !
Our world desperately needs an open source breakthrough!
Respectfully
Chet K
It will take me a day or so to put some thoughts together based on what I have built. Bear in mind that my test setup was designed to test a variety of factors and approaches, such as a cap dump circuit but I found that didn't give good results. So an ideal unit based on my own results would not have the rotor or the cap dump circuit. I will mention this in the few pages of notes I will assemble.
There is quite a bit of detail in the linked document in my first post regarding an appropriate testing methodology for CoP measurements. Power testing requires a different approach as per the other Load testing doc.
My project aim is to demonstrate that energy can be extracted or harvested from the 'environment' rather than design a generator for public use. If enough people can replicate the phenomenon then it's good for the collective consciousness. I don't know how scalable such a system can be and as yet I don't know what power I will be able to extract but at least it should demonstrate that it's possible to interact with an energetic medium.
Jules
I have been speaking with researchers about your project
VERY impressed with your presentation !
There are many open source builders I have yet to contact.. will take me quite a while..( this weekend)
Will probably mirror this topic in a few forums as things progress ( already made a note at
Peter's over unity research forum ( based in UK)
( will post links here as mirror topics open)
You inspire!!
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps also nice to see DogOne here , I believe he has access to an open source builder group !
My link in the first post seems to have stopped working so here is a fresh one:
https://mega.nz/file/8IVVCaqS#yJDmYbk7IdiY1T0Ppgj4Z-E8YJeE0YDIRczxxz9fUt8
When I have prepared my 'Suggestions' doc I will attach it to a post and also give another link which will have a selection of folders in it with hopefully useful material on my build and research (but only part of due to the impending paper).
Quote from: ramset on November 04, 2022, 05:54:39 PM
Jules
I have been speaking with researchers about your project
VERY impressed with your presentation !
Peter's over unity research forum ( based in UK)
( will post links here as mirror topics open)
You inspire!!
Being a professional scientist is as much about presenting ideas clearly as about technical and academic aspects. Besides I was a science/Physics teacher later in my career.
I haven't come across any groups in UK yet which is where I am. But then I've been too busy doing my thing to even look for them.
Jules
Thanks for upgrading link
The open source community ( which the LENR ( cold fusion is also a part.. is huge ..
And I have found almost unlimited resources in people of like mind
With tremendous skill sets in all fields!
We really just need one good repeatable result ( anomalous heretofore unrealized gain mechanism)
Shared open source, to awaken this amazing resource!
And seems the time is right !
Thanks for all of your efforts!
Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
New link again
https://mega.nz/file/8IVVCaqS#yJDmYbk7IdiY1T0Ppgj4Z-E8YJeE0YDIRczxxz9fUt8 (https://mega.nz/file/8IVVCaqS#yJDmYbk7IdiY1T0Ppgj4Z-E8YJeE0YDIRczxxz9fUt8)
EDIT: for skywatchers comment below
One step at a time ...
@All
See also load testing pdf post number 3 this thread ( trouble on my end posting that link)
The only proof for 'overunity' is a self-running device, which does not need any external input power.
I don't trust any input/output power measurements.
Quote from: skywatcher on November 05, 2022, 12:02:38 PM
The only proof for 'overunity' is a self-running device, which does not need any external input power.
I don't trust any input/output power measurements.
You will have to explain that one, so whats energy harvesting mean then ??
Quote from: AlienGrey on November 05, 2022, 05:01:13 PM
You will have to explain that one, so whats energy harvesting mean then ??
Didn't you read the first post ? It's about a Bedini machine.
Quote from: skywatcher on November 05, 2022, 05:32:56 PM
Didn't you read the first post ? It's about a Bedini machine.
Yes I read it. i will just assume you don't under stand the English language so i'm not going to argue with stupidity,
You said it comes from nothing,nothing is nothing so it doesn't com from nothing like you say.
So it can't come from nothing as you say, in order for it to materialise it has to come from some thing or some where in order to harvest it.
Quote from: AlienGrey on November 05, 2022, 07:21:17 PM
Yes I read it. i will just assume you don't under stand the English language so i'm not going to argue with stupidity,
You said it comes from nothing,nothing is nothing so it doesn't com from nothing like you say.
So it can't come from nothing as you say, in order for it to materialise it has to come from some thing or some where in order to harvest it.
I understand the English language very well, although it's not my native language.
In the first post (and in the PDF) a Bedini machine is described, and measurements to prove that it's 'overunity'.
I said: measurements are always problematic, especially if high frequency pulses and batteries are involved.
The only real proof for 'overunity' is to loop the output back to the input, and look if it runs without any external power.
Or in this case: switch input and output battery and let it run long enough.
Now, what is wrong with my argumentation, in your opinion ?
The simplest way to prove OU is to close the loop. It is easy enough to modify the circuit to draw and feed from a dual battery system, or using more diodes feed back into itself. I feel the dual battery system is a more efficient system because you are only wasting energy across one germanium diode per pulse.
The Bedini is very efficient, but I don't think it iis OU. Without closing the loop, a COP of 1.01 or even 1.1 could potentially be a measurement error. Even if it is not, that will be an argument against your case.
In any case, all the best.
ADD: sorry, didn't read the above post. I agree, but take out the switching circuit and change to a dual battery circuit.
My original link is being 'neutralised' by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it's under 15MB.
I should have my 'suggestions' doc ready today (uk time).
A quick comment about 'looping'. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc 'Load Testing' where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.
For those who haven't read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate 'level of confidence'.
I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.
Anyway here are the two main docs I'm sharing at this time. Another will come later today.
J
Ok, so here as promised I attach a document with my suggestions as to how to improve on, or obtain, a CoP>1 with a pulsed flyback type of generator. It is based on my practical experience from the last 3 years in particular and I hope it will give some inspiration to those who might be stuck with how to move forward.
As using links in posts on here seems to be a bit problematic, there is a link at the end of the attached doc that will take you to a set of folders on my Mega account. There are all the files I have uploaded so far and a lot more. This is all I am willing to share at this time but it should serve the aforementioned purpose.
I expect my next contribution will be some data from increasing the peak spike voltage using other active components and some highlights from the power test data in the spring and of course, any paper I get published as and when that happens.
As I have a lot to get on with, I won't be contributing regularly to the forum. A bit like a flyback pulse, I have injected a lot of energy in a short space of time and now need to move back while it does whatever it does ;D
I expect I will look in every so often and address any major points but otherwise, keep on with your own unique journeys of discovery and hold to the belief that there is a much bigger world out there than we, as a society, have yet been able, or willing, to reveal.
Quote from: JulesP on November 06, 2022, 01:33:50 AM
My original link is being 'neutralised' by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it's under 15MB.
I should have my 'suggestions' doc ready today (uk time).
A quick comment about 'looping'. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc 'Load Testing' where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.
For those who haven't read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate 'level of confidence'.
I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.
Anyway here are the two main docs I'm sharing at this time. Another will come later today.
J
I like your systematic approach. Also you have a very 'clean' build. :)
I'm looking forward to further results. If they look promising, i also will try it. In the past, i saw nothing which could convince me that a Bedini machine really can have a COP > 1. Only measuring battery voltage is not an indicator of energy content of the battery. They have to be swapped several times to see some significant results. I'm happy to see that you are going to do this.
For me, the final goal would be to get rid of batteries and use capacitors. And after this, to get rid of moving parts. I think everything can also work 'solid state'.
Hi Julesp;
Sorry to be a pain but could I please ask you a few searching questions as the device look's rather complicated
to be broken down for experimentation and i'm hoping you might be able to answer from memory.
The coils were the cores tuned to any resonant 'in tune' frequency with or with out the coil and what is the coils inductance and resonant frequency ? and what did you use for the core. Also have you a scope shot of one cycle
of rotation to view.
If its a problem please PM me.
Many thanks Sil
QuoteI was getting much better in the 5-15 range
I find that very difficult to believe. A COP of 5, you would have energy to burn and should have little problem convincing anyone with the amount of excess power available. For me, any COP over 1 is an achievement, anything close to 2 would be Nobel Prize material.
To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.
If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi
thx a lot mr JulianP sir
i will try to build this, fast as i can ;D
your work and your papers on the flyback generator are amazing !!
but what really inspires me is your openness and willingness to share your knowledge with the world
If I'm successful I'll handle it the same way!!
thx a lot
Greetings from Austria
Moritz
Quote from: bistander on November 06, 2022, 03:07:37 PM
To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.
If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi
The if you happen to use a LA DS battery that sort of device uses approximately 50 percent of the energy to store your charge from my experience and from building various
magnetic rotor generates for every 5 units of energy put into the unit 1 unit is wasted in
reverse BEMF being wasted in heat.
I'm not saying the device doesn't work but the device would be expensive to build
and one would have to ether make or buy the PCB and that might be difficult with out
a layout or rats nest listing and copy of the Gif file ect.
but some explanation of info would be very helpful.
Sil
Closed-system analysis of momentum imparted onto a charged-mass,
and the field that imparted said momentum, can be difficult.
Because the systems involved are affected by factors not present in the other system.
From analysis of the first system, cop > 1 may be apparent, but not actual.
Due to the energies of the second system not included in the analysis.
An example of this is the particle accelerator:
Energy A is used to accelerate the particle, where the energy B contained in the momentum of the particle is greater than energy A. (this is only true in certain types of accelerators)
Though this devices allows is to investigate high-energy particle physics, it is rarely addressed how it is possible for the particle to have such high energies from the low energy electric field.
The answer to this is simple in principal, but a near impossibility to differentiate the two energies.
We look to the difference between the laws of electric charge force and Newton's 3rd law.
Newton's law defines a mass-based acceleration, while the electric force is dominated by the charge quotient.
In the latter, using the time derivative of acceleration, we see the energy imparted onto the particle, from the field, in a much shorter period of time than the charge that built up (and sustained) the driving field. By use of the Einsteinian mass-equivalency, we now see that all energies can in fact be accounted for. (calculated or measured using initial and final energies)
A similar occurrence can be realized in electric motors.
Where we see that, even at the macro scale, the electric force is imparted at a much faster rate than the force applied to the physical mass.
Conservation of momentum tells us that the momentum of the field interactions must translate to the momentum of the mass.
So now let's take this knowledge to the bendini
We have the physical force, but only for a short duration.
We have the electric force (acting much faster) for a longer duration.
This was assessed by analysis of the field strength and timing cycle of multiple machines.
The effective field strength extends to a size greater than the physical force, which leads to longer interactions as the coil assembly passes.
We can view the moment of inertia of a pulse motor as being predominantly an electric field force interaction, rather than as an electromagnetic (physical mass) interaction.
While the second is still present, it is a short lived interaction, and follows field conservation.
Field conservation breaks down in the pure electric domain. (0 value tangents, 0 value magnetic flux)
Maxwell's solution must then become our default equation.
Therefore, to asses the energy value contained in the field, E-field theory cannot be used.
E-field approach looks only at the force applied to the charge, with no respect to changes in the field itself. Maxwell proves this theory to be incomplete.
We in fact should expect a scalar quotient variant in field strength between the particle (vector and velocity included) and the extremities of the effective field. ('effective' value is used here to truncate the equation to a countable infinity with respect to a minimum charge value constraint)
The effect of these changes on the driving circuit are to the magnitude of E(0). Permeability of free space.
The field exists in the space outside of the coil.
So where does the energy then come from?
Short answer - the energy that was running through the circuit at a prior moment in time.
More explicitly, the energy that created the field in the first place:
This energy is lost to space, even if we do not make use of it.
[physical analogy - remove the rotor and operate the device]
Measurements can be taken in this state
Then again with the rotor replaced.
Now, we want to observe what's happening in real time:
So we scope the input and output simultaneously,
And put them both side by side in the time domain.
We see the output has a higher magnitude and a shorter duration
This is the manifestation of the momentum we imparted on it from the field.
The input is performing 'work' for a longer duration, but with less force.
The difference in energy in/out (loss or gain)
should now be evident on the scope traces.
In the case of loss, it becomes clear that the energy exchange takes place in the shorter-lived physical force magnetic interactions. So why then is the energy exchange in the pure electric vector not manifest as a loss in the circuit? For this we look at Maxwell's interpretation of Ohm's Law.
Which points us right back to the time domain. The electric field already 'happened', this is the Voltage potential. Where as the magnetic force is derived from the Current, at THIS moment in time. The 'now'
So the energy loss in the electric domain comes from energy already emitted into the field.
[size=78%]Motors like the Corona Motor are able to achieve greater torque using less energy than their magnetic counterparts.[/size]
[size=78%]The laws of physics are not violated by this approach, when all energies are accounted for from their perspective.[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]
I tried to run a similar device with two batteries. Approximately two years ago.
But made from a conventional two-phase computer fan.
There, after all, there are already all the necessary windings and magnets.
Single transistor circuit, manual switching of batteries.It was perhaps on this site. :)
After several switching, the batteries were discharged. :(
Hello JuleP
there is a coil twisted. But not in all pictures. Do you have to have them?
Greeting
Lota
Hi all,
To address some questions, I started my tests with four identical coils and one 'litzed' coil, which is the format where you have several strands twisted together to form a trigger coil inside another. This is a system recommended in the SG books to do the triggering for the FET but I never found it to work. So during this year, I rewound the 5th coil to be the same as all the others. So they all have an inductance of about 350-400mH and around 12-15Ohms. When connected up in parallel then of course the combined readings will change to perhaps around 20-30mH and 1-2 Ohms.
The coils were not tuned in any way. I put on as many turns of wire as the plastic spools would take (~2600) and used a ferrite rod in the core. The coils are only doing the 'natural' thing of building up a mag field and then resisting the collapse when the current shuts off as described by Lenz's Law. In my opinion, there is no tuning of the coils required and the only 'tuning' of a sort is the matching of the PRF (Pulse Repetition Frequency) of the pulse to best suit the receiving battery, as described in my doc. This is not a resonant phenomenon but rather an optimisation to get the best results with the minimum energy input.
The circuity I have assembled is straightforward electronically speaking even though it may look complicated. If there is any 'magic' going on in this device it is where the pulses meet the battery electrodes. My working theory, one that I can't test with this setup, is that the high dV/dt (~10E8 V/s) is stressing the local space around the battery terminals and causing a local and temporary coherence in the vacuum that results in a short 'scoop' or burst of charge into the electrode vicinity. The battery then processes that in the normal way. I have no evidence of that and my research is primarily to demonstrate a phenomenon of energy gain (harvesting) and not to determine the pathway or mechanism of the energy influx. That may come later, and in the inductive scientific method, it should.
I also wanted to mention that I have added some more documents to the Mega files.
Firstly, I have revised the 'Suggestions' doc to include a paragraph (p9) regarding my suggestions on the essential elements of a generator that could be assembled based on my findings. There is no need to build a device as 'complicated' as mine and one can omit the rotor system and cap dump circuit. My design was as such only because I had to accommodate all the possible variables to find out what worked and what didn't. Although I said that I would be required to produce a revised PCB design to accompany my forthcoming paper, I have decided to bring that forward to before the end of the year to help those wanting to replicate a build. So I will prepare a revised PCB design, and the Gerber files for anyone to be able to get it printed, which removes those parts that I found not to be essential. It will be accompanied by a set of assembly notes.
For those new to this thread, the link to the files is at the bottom of the attached and revised 'Suggestions v2' doc
Also, I have added another file to the folders called 'Battery Swapper & Timer Circuit' that explains how that works and how to set up specific swap times using the CD4060 chip which is part of the swapper circuit. This file is also attached here.
Lastly, I have decided to undertake some additional experimentation using supercapacitors. Now that they have come down radically in price and size, some extra data using them will add further validation to the phenomenon. Although I believe that the suggestion that the energy gain is due to some chemistry artifact in the battery is not valid, since the batteries are never supplying energy at the same time as they are being charged, nevertheless, using pure electrostatics and fields to store the energy in supercapacitors will be both interesting and get round any questions over chemistry playing some unsuspecting role. Of course, as a scientist, I would have to be open to that possibility but from the work so far I can't see how it can be the cause of the energy gain and CoP>>1 results. The battery chemistry is, of course, central to the process of charging and discharging the batteries, but the suggestion that some chemical artifact is the cause of the energy gain may be due to a misunderstanding on how the tests are done and the role of the battery swapper. I will post any results of these experiments during December.
Happy discovering!
Jules
let's examine a standard transformer (of as high efficiency as current industrial manufacturing allows for)
Now, while in operation, let us place an outside inductance close enough to the transformer to effectively 'tap into' the field.
if the inductance of our 3rd coil is significant enough, harnessing this energy results in a decrease in the efficiency of the transformer.
this is standard knowledge, we use 3-coil transformers in many electronics. (transformers with more than one output)
if the coils and connected circuitry are identical (ideal case): output current will be approximately equal through both secondaries.
However, we know field currents to follow Ohm's Law!
Therefore, if the inductance of the 3rd coil is comparatively insignificant: efficiency of the transformer is NOT AFFECTED!
It is important to understand this.
almost the entirety of the excess field volume can be harnessed.
https://oconnell.fas.harvard.edu/files/sct/files/evaluation_of_the_shielding_effects_on_printed_circuit-board_transformers_using_ferrite_plates_and_copper_sheets.pdf (https://oconnell.fas.harvard.edu/files/sct/files/evaluation_of_the_shielding_effects_on_printed_circuit-board_transformers_using_ferrite_plates_and_copper_sheets.pdf)
this study from Harvard examines the process from the perspective of shielding in circuits, however, scientifically the same applies to currents induced in usable form.
the same applies in reverse (as such occurs in the bendini and other pulse/gen motor assemblies):
momentum of the rotor induces current in the gen coil, the field parameters (outside of the coil) affect the rotation of the rotor.
it would stand to reason, that if the gen coil were properly shielded: the negative effects would be reduced to ONLY the inductance factor of the coil itself, and NOT the back-emf.
heading back into the drive field, the same would apply.
now, instead of a shielding - we implement an inductor to absorb the unused portion of the field, thus not only reducing back-emf, but actually harvesting it.
Is that what you think ?
So what the difference between DC and a square wave and again whats the difference between those two
and a sine wave ?
I give it some thought !
sil
Bump , post #28 for topic info moved forward ( comments and attached links)
https://overunity.com/19286/an-energy-harvesting-project/15/ (https://overunity.com/19286/an-energy-harvesting-project/15/)
Quote from: JulesP on November 11, 2022, 04:57:21 AM
Hi all,
To address some questions, I started my tests with four identical coils and one 'litzed' coil, which is the format where you have several strands twisted together to form a trigger coil inside another. This is a system recommended in the SG books to do the triggering for the FET but I never found it to work. So during this year, I rewound the 5th coil to be the same as all the others. So they all have an inductance of about 350-400mH and around 12-15Ohms. When connected up in parallel then of course the combined readings will change to perhaps around 20-30mH and 1-2 Ohms.
The coils were not tuned in any way. I put on as many turns of wire as the plastic spools would take (~2600) and used a ferrite rod in the core. The coils are only doing the 'natural' thing of building up a mag field and then resisting the collapse when the current shuts off as described by Lenz's Law. In my opinion, there is no tuning of the coils required and the only 'tuning' of a sort is the matching of the PRF (Pulse Repetition Frequency) of the pulse to best suit the receiving battery, as described in my doc. This is not a resonant phenomenon but rather an optimisation to get the best results with the minimum energy input.
The circuity I have assembled is straightforward electronically speaking even though it may look complicated. If there is any 'magic' going on in this device it is where the pulses meet the battery electrodes. My working theory, one that I can't test with this setup, is that the high dV/dt (~10E8 V/s) is stressing the local space around the battery terminals and causing a local and temporary coherence in the vacuum that results in a short 'scoop' or burst of charge into the electrode vicinity. The battery then processes that in the normal way. I have no evidence of that and my research is primarily to demonstrate a phenomenon of energy gain (harvesting) and not to determine the pathway or mechanism of the energy influx. That may come later, and in the inductive scientific method, it should.
I also wanted to mention that I have added some more documents to the Mega files.
Firstly, I have revised the 'Suggestions' doc to include a paragraph (p9) regarding my suggestions on the essential elements of a generator that could be assembled based on my findings. There is no need to build a device as 'complicated' as mine and one can omit the rotor system and cap dump circuit. My design was as such only because I had to accommodate all the possible variables to find out what worked and what didn't. Although I said that I would be required to produce a revised PCB design to accompany my forthcoming paper, I have decided to bring that forward to before the end of the year to help those wanting to replicate a build. So I will prepare a revised PCB design, and the Gerber files for anyone to be able to get it printed, which removes those parts that I found not to be essential. It will be accompanied by a set of assembly notes.
For those new to this thread, the link to the files is at the bottom of the attached and revised 'Suggestions v2' doc
Also, I have added another file to the folders called 'Battery Swapper & Timer Circuit' that explains how that works and how to set up specific swap times using the CD4060 chip which is part of the swapper circuit. This file is also attached here.
Lastly, I have decided to undertake some additional experimentation using supercapacitors. Now that they have come down radically in price and size, some extra data using them will add further validation to the phenomenon. Although I believe that the suggestion that the energy gain is due to some chemistry artifact in the battery is not valid, since the batteries are never supplying energy at the same time as they are being charged, nevertheless, using pure electrostatics and fields to store the energy in supercapacitors will be both interesting and get round any questions over chemistry playing some unsuspecting role. Of course, as a scientist, I would have to be open to that possibility but from the work so far I can't see how it can be the cause of the energy gain and CoP>>1 results. The battery chemistry is, of course, central to the process of charging and discharging the batteries, but the suggestion that some chemical artifact is the cause of the energy gain may be due to a misunderstanding on how the tests are done and the role of the battery swapper. I will post any results of these experiments during December.
Happy discovering!
Jules
Hi all,
As some of you are keen to have a go at a build and have been asking about the main components etc., I attach the wiring diagram for the 'replication' circuit and have uploaded it to the 'Circuits' folder on the same Mega link. If anyone new to this thread needs the link again let me know and I will post it.
As discussed elsewhere, this is an updated PCB to the one I have been using for all my tests and is based on my findings of what works and what doesn't as, in my opinion, is not worth the effort and cost including parts that contribute little or nothing to the performance. This significantly simplifies the design, build, and components required.
The new PCB has now been designed and is currently with https://jlcpcb.com/ for printing. I will assemble this board and replace my current one to check that everything works before I release it for others to use as Gerber files. Also, I have yet to write an extensive 'assembly manual' explaining everything about it, together with a parts list, and I hope to have that, and the board checked, by mid-December. Meanwhile, some of you may find the attached circuit helpful to use with what you already have or are compiling by other means.
A fascinating trip around the facility where these PCBs are made can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljOoGyCso8s&t=1423s
Also, I have now tried the 120k5, 150k5 and 170k5 FETs with the 1800 diode. There is a small improvement on CoP between the 95k5 and the120 and a bigger change between the 120 and the 150 but not so noticeable between the 150 and 170. Some battery formats (Ah and chemistry type) show a bigger improvement than others. Best CoP so far with an 18Ah LiFePO4 battery is 53.2 but I can't say what that translates to in continuous Watts until I do power tests at the start of the year.
From my few tests so far with the supercapacitors, it appears that the battery chemistry is an important part of the phenomenon. That might mean that the pulses affect the chemical bonds in a way that draws vacuum energy in, just as with cavitation in water which is considered by some to draw in ZPE for the reentrant jets. This is just my speculation re the chemical bonds and I will need to consult with others who are working on that particular front.
For the best overall performance, without a big increase in Rds (Drain-Source resistance), the 150 works well but my new board will allow two FETs to be installed and then jumpers to select which one fires.
I would be ok with uploading a parts list for the forthcoming PCB within the next week if anyone wants a head start on that issue. It's going to be 99% correct. The other components for the rest of the device will come in December.
J
Quote from: JulesP on November 15, 2022, 02:56:30 PM
... Best CoP so far with an 18Ah LiFePO4 battery is 53.2 but I can't say what that translates to in continuous Watts until I do power tests at the start of the year.
...
Hello JulesP,
That's a heck of a claim. Please run the simple test which I outlined previously. You have the set-up and it shouldn't take long. Thanks.
bi
For easy reference:
Quote from: bistander on November 06, 2022, 03:07:37 PM
To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.
If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi
You don't need a complicated switching system for a 2 battery system. It can be set up so that Battery 1 feeds into battery 2, then battery 2 feeds into 1 in the next part of rotation.
A cop of 53 is an outrageous claim. Did you mean 1.53?
Hello,
my test.
(1) Pulsmotor Test mit zwei Akkus je 12v - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFx5dGRZtK8)
Lota
Quote from: AlienGrey on November 13, 2022, 11:35:56 AM
Is that what you think ?
So what the difference between DC and a square wave and again whats the difference between those two
and a sine wave ?
I give it some thought !
sil
Fourier shows us that equivalence can be drawn between all of these.
Julian
I did start a mirror topic here ( just sorted my account there after few years no access)
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/511656-bedini-style-generator-for-peer-review-cop10-plus#post511656 (http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/511656-bedini-style-generator-for-peer-review-cop10-plus#post511656)
Respectfully
Chet K
Chet
Note
The file you are trying to download is no longer available
[/b]
Sil >:(
AG
Yes it was mentioned previously!( post 17 -18 and the work around
https://overunity.com/19286/an-energy-harvesting-project/15/ (https://overunity.com/19286/an-energy-harvesting-project/15/)
PLEASE :mention if the newer links don't open, it would not be the first timeWe had problems with link access in different parts of world!
Respectfully
Chet K
Quote from: JulesP on November 06, 2022, 01:33:50 AM
My original link is being 'neutralised' by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it's under 15MB.
I should have my 'suggestions' doc ready today (uk time).
A quick comment about 'looping'. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc 'Load Testing' where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.
For those who haven't read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate 'level of confidence'.
I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.
Anyway here are the two main docs I'm sharing at this time. Another will come later today.
J
Hi All;
I think that I have experienced this phenomenon before way back when I was assessing my Bedini SG setup and the (LAB) Lead acid batteries were not making progress and were slowly discharging over time.
When I added 4 LIFEPO (lithium iron phosphate battery) batteries in series out of my digital camera instead of charging the LAB battery the LIFEPO batteries received a better charge than the 120 VAC charger where instead of lasting three (3) days they would last well past a week!
This was mentioned in my posts from way back when I mentioned this effect but I can't figure out how to search my posts to quote it.
If anyone can find the post where I mention being able to charge the LIFEPO batteries better than the LAB then please post a link to it, I think it may be important as far as a proof of replication of how the short sharp shocks have an effect where LIFEPO batteries work in this setup better than LABs.
I think that it would be worth revisiting this circuit with all LIFEPO batteries and the switching circuit as proposed by the OP insted of LABs.
Thanks all,
Paul
Hi all,
Just to update you regarding the replication manual that I am preparing for those who would like to replicate my device and findings.
The manual explaining in depth how to replicate the device is almost ready at approaching 80 pages and around 25,000 words, plus additional material in Appendices, including various relevant research papers.
The new PCB v4 has been received and is under construction but ongoing postal strikes here are delaying the arrival of a few components that are required to complete the circuit build. Until I have done that then I can't finalize the text of some parts of the manual, for example, the diagnostics section.
So generally everything is coming along fine but I won't make the manual 'live' until the PCB has been completed, installed, and checked. Nevertheless, I am providing the link to the folders below so that you can explore the additional material and the research papers while awaiting the manual and PCB files. I also attach a photo of the new board being assembled and screen grabs of the front cover and contents of the manual. I am hoping it will be up before Xmas and if not then soon after.
So here is the link to the replication folders and where, for the time being, the 'Manual' and the 'PCB Files' folders are empty.
https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ
For those who are dubious of the CoPs so far obtained then the full methodology is provided in the Manual. Power tests are soon to follow and where the maximum power demand that can be sustained by the system, with battery swapping enabled, will be undertaken such that neither battery drops its voltage below its starting value. Even though these further validating tests are not yet done, the approach is laid out in the Manual. Not too long to wait now but it depends on the postal strikes.
Julian
While this may not be proof of JulesP's work I suggest anyone doubting it they look at his Author blog PDF file in the download provided. That's an impressive amount of education in related fields. :o I tend to doubt he has made any SUE's (stupid user errors) in this work. I haven't read this whole thread but if the claim of 53 COP has been made I'd tend to believe it if this was correct and not 1.53. Clarification on that point requested. I would also agree that at some point having the system looped and running a load for a long enough time which would exceed the potential in the batteries would add to the proof of COP > 1.
QuoteTesting will involve incremental increases to the load to find the point at which a voltage
drop is recorded following the recovery phase after a series of cycles. From that value the
maximum power output that can be sustained is derived
The PDF reads as if the load test hasn't been done at the time of writing. No-one with a bedini has had remotely near the proposed gains. I have not seen one online achieving any overunity.
A COP of 53 means I could run a 1000W bar heater off a cheap car battery for over 30 hours without charging it at all.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I agree that a CoP of 53 is very large and I now think that some of that is due to the Battery Management System installed in Lithium batteries that is interfering with the measurement process. However, even if it is that high that doesn't mean high power levels as that depends on the energy applied to the generator and also the time involved in the charging process. In this case, it would be more like 200W.
As I have repeatedly said, the power tests have yet to be done to confirm useful power and you are right in that full proof of useable energy is not yet there from my work. CoP results are only a part of the story and the manual I am writing will just allow someone to replicate them. Once the power tests are done in early 2023 then I will update the manual. I have only written the manual at this stage due to various requests to be able to replicate my findings and, in some cases, to improve on peoples' builds that already exist.
I am posting another report here from using capacitors instead of a battery that shows that the battery chemistry is fundamental to the energy gain process. Now, this can mean either of two things - one that the electrochemistry is itself the 'fuel' for this process and so over time the battery will decline in its normal function or, secondly that the chemistry is a necessary and important intermediary in an energetic process and pathway yet to be determined.
Further tests will need to be devised to sort that lot out.
QuoteI am posting another report here from using capacitors instead of a battery that shows that the battery chemistry is fundamental to the energy gain process. Now, this can mean either of two things - one that the electrochemistry is itself the 'fuel' for this process and so over time the battery will decline in its normal function or, secondly that the chemistry is a necessary and important intermediary in an energetic process and pathway yet to be determined.
So to date, even though you claim a COP >> 1, your batteries do run down over time? You believe that your automated switching circuit will fix this?
I would like to see this simple test conducted.
bi
Quote from: bistander on November 06, 2022, 03:07:37 PM
To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.
If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi
Quote from: bistander on December 13, 2022, 02:08:43 PM
I would like to see this simple test conducted.
bi
I concur.
Quote from: Dog-One on December 14, 2022, 02:22:51 AM
I concur.
Yeah doing this with a battery is an energy waster, try it! but doing it with capacitors is a different game!
look on the JB site I did a pcb for that device, I will try and find it and post it.
The Ron Coles device from the JB site it uses a 555 sqr wave to drive the charge caps and switching (purity is paramount!)
NPN PNP full bridge.
SIL
PS building the thing is your risk. Sil
Hi all,
Contrary to expectations, I have now managed to complete the installation of the replication PCB and checked it against all the diagnostic checks in the manual, about 2 weeks earlier than expected. The extra time I had assigned for potential problems was not needed and so the manual and associated appendices are now complete together with the Gerber files with some minor adjustments to the PCB.
All the files are uploaded to the Mega link given earlier: https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ
and also to this Dropbox link at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/td55b8675vvqtbg/AADzPSKMOI8q_YM1cFUT2T07a?dl=0
I'm sure questions and comments will arise but I will address any in batches rather than every few days or so.
There's still plenty to do besides the power tests due to start in a few weeks, such as preparing a discussion paper for how to prove that the 'consumption' of the electrolyte is not the source of the measured energy gains.
Believing it isn't is a long way from the evidence that it isn't and this question is pretty much as important as showing an energy gain in the first place, and for which the upcoming power tests hopefully will give the much-needed confirmation.
Onwards
Julian
Just a quick note to say that I have corrected a couple of typos and a wrong figure in Table 7 (p37) of the Manual and have replaced the file for downloading as required.
J
To aid in acquiring components, I have provided a BOM using Farnell as a reference for item order numbers. For those items that can't be got on there, I have provided links to other sources.
I attach this document but it is also now in the 'PCB Files' folder on the main link.
Julian
A quick update: Load tests are underway that should indicate if a 'genuine' energy gain is occurring. Despite my CoP test results, there is going to be a difference between single-cycle tests and end-to-end cycles as used with battery swapping where there is little or no time for the chemistry to migrate within the electrolyte. The extent of that difference is as yet unclear. Some initial results will be posted in due course.
J
Hello Julian,
Must say this is a very interesting project and I'm impressed by the detail and style of your interim work.
One thing I'm not clear on is whether you have used bifilar coils, a la John Bedini, or (as seems more likely) just a single wire? Also, do you think you would notice a difference if the other style coil was incorporated?
Looking forward to seeing your final report.
Best Regards,
David
It's been a while Julian... Hope you are well.
How is this going? What are your plans?
All the best,
D2
Hi Dsquared,
There was so little interest from this site that I stopped posting and stuck with just the 'energy science forum'. Hence I have only just seen your PM.
To answer your question, all my coils are single wire and my trigger is a Hall sensor. I did build a trifilar 'litzed' wire coil originally but I found the tuning difficult and went for the sensor instead. Using that my rotor accelerates up to about 3,250rpm. However, I will be experimenting with a single bifilar coil soon with a PCB-based original Bedini circuit. This may seem like going backwards but I came into all this from a tangent and didn't build a conventional' SG machine like so many others.
My research rig is designed to test and explore a wide range of factors but first, it would help to experience what JB did (also see below) as he went to great lengths to make it straightforward to replicate.
To summarise the current state of affairs, the predicted power outputs based on the earlier obtained CoPs did not come to pass, which begs the question of what was happening that caused those very clear and pronounced results.
I am making adjustments to my setup, such as modifying cap dump circuit to a 'low sided' version and changes to the coils to 'backtrack' in a sense to get the sort of results from the original SG machine obtained, and then work back up to find what results in 'radiant' effects and what doesn't.
I am also now working with someone who has achieved such and has a patent out on and more to come regarding an energy/charging system on the basis that I will acquire the 'palatable' scientific evidence of what his group has observed for years and in a repeatable way. I've signed an NDA so don't ask who, what, and where 😉
However, they are aware of my role in presenting such info and details for replication by anyone out into the open, so it's just a question of the timing of what is put out and when.
Did you get to see the 'replication manual'? I completed this in the spring to allow anyone to replicate what I achieved up to March this year.
If not, the manual and a lot of Appendices material can be found at:
https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ
There is a lot there to interest the researcher, including my other related interim reports and papers from others regarding challenges to the 2nd Law etc.
Over the next few weeks, I will be writing a document on how to measure the various outputs from a rotary-based system, namely the receiving battery, the rotor, the cap dump system and a rotor energy extraction system. This was covered in the SG-2 ebook but I think there's a lot more detail that would be useful to the serious researcher, whether or not 'radiant' effects are being observed.
But when they finally appear, it will be very handy and, of course, this material will be added to the updated manual, whenever that comes about.
Julian
Thanks for your reply Julian...
I'm surprised that this forum hasn't shown more interest - one of the few highly detailed attempts to produce the effect everyone here is looking for!
Quite a 'mystery detective' story you paint (sorry to mix metaphors), but I'm glad to hear you're still 'on the case' - and getting some synergistic help also (no, I won't ask).
I have seen 'a' manual - from January. Have you an updated 'spring' version then?
I look forward to reading more of your findings and advice, but in the meantime I will check out the energy science forum.
Wish you great success and thank you once again for your efforts!
All the best,
D2
Quote from: JulesP on June 24, 2023, 11:28:28 AM
Hi Dsquared,
There was so little interest from this site that I stopped posting ...
Julian
Hi Julian,
There was interest but lack of understanding why you ignore my simple request. I assumed you had done the test and realized true result. So again, please do the following test. Thanks in advance.
bi
Quote from: bistander on November 06, 2022, 03:07:37 PM
To demonstrate COP > 1, do this.
Start with two batteries, identical.
B1 is fully charged (100%SoC). B2 is partially charged (80% SoC).
Place B1 as Run battery. Place B2 as Receiving battery.
Run system until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch (manually) B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B2 and B1.
Run until B2 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Switch B1 and B2.
Run until B1 is fully charged, to 100% SoC.
Repeat as long as you can.
If the needed run times decrease with each cycle, you have something interesting.
If you are soon, after a few exchanges of B1 and B2, unable to reach 100% SoC on the Receiving battery, COP < 1.
bi
Quote from: bistander on June 24, 2023, 11:56:03 AM
Hi Julian,
There was interest but lack of understanding why you ignore my simple request. I assumed you had done the test and realized true result. So again, please do the following test. Thanks in advance.
bi
Do your own tests - that is, if you can figure out how to do that...
I will look into it if it fits with my current program of work and developments. I think at the time it didn't.
Quote from: JulesP on June 24, 2023, 12:03:45 PM
I will look into it if it fits with my current program of work and developments. I think at the time it didn't.
Thanks for the reply. Please seriously consider it. You have the apparatus and it would only take a few hours. And doesn't require undivided attention.
bi
I already have data that shows the CoP<1 for the battery with my current setup. I will post some tomorrow. Also bear in mind that in deriving the total CoP you have to include the rotor (if you have one) and any extraction system as well. The cap dump output would be part of the battery result.
J
Quote from: JulesP on June 24, 2023, 01:51:55 PM
I already have data that shows the CoP<1 for the battery with my current setup. I will post some tomorrow. ...
J
That's news to me. I was under the impression that you interpreted your testing and theory that you had overunity, meaning more real output energy than input or somehow able to capture and use "free" energy to do useful work, ie. COP > 1. If you are now saying that it was not, then no need for the test. It would only reinforce what we know.
Thanks. bi
It's a bit more complicated than that. I will give more info tomorrow
SUMMARY UPDATE
Hi all,
What follows is a summary of some of the data and developments from recent months to give a general picture regarding power performance. By that I mean seeing what happens under load (but without any additional external load) rather than with just voltages, as used in all my earlier CoP tests.
Looking at the first graphic (Fig 1), the setup here is with HV pulses going directly to the receiving battery and the supply and receiving battery being automatically swapped every 10mins. The battery being monitored by the CBA is battery 2.
The top section of the graphic shows battery 2 being charged initially for 10mins before then becoming the supply battery. The swap cycle was repeated three times and then the device turned off. As annotated, when battery 2 becomes the supply, with each cycle, its voltage drops a little lower under load, and also when being pulse charged, it does not quite reach back up to where it was on the previous swap cycle. However, when switched off and allow to recover, the battery ends up at the original starting voltage.
This suggests that there is some 'compensating' influx to offset the inevitable losses in the circuit.
The lower half of this graphic shows what happens when the same process and cycles are used, but during the charging phases, the pulses are turned off. So battery 2 being monitored is showing the supply stages, as before, but this time there are no pulses being received to provide charging. This then is like a control experiment and the resulting overall small voltage drop suggests that the pulses do in fact make a difference.
The second graphic (Fig 2) brings together two plots and shows a similar outcome. The red line is with the HV pulses being applied and the green line with no pulses during the charging phases. My interpretation of this is that, since the red plot shows the resulting voltage drop after testing is zero, then it is reasonable to conclude that any energy influx occurring during the charging phases is enough to offset the power draw during the supply stages, calculated to be 9.5W.
So this for me is good evidence that something is happening but it is not a strong enough effect yet to match the projected outcomes of Bedini and others regarding charging voltages in particular.
When it comes to using a cap dump circuit, the results are less positive.
Fig 3 shows six swap cycles of 3min each using 53mF storage caps producing discharges at a frequency of 0.468Hz. As you can see there is a gradual reduction in the voltage of battery 2 in that it does not receive enough input during its charging phase to offset its output during its supply stage.
So this I see as evidence that no 'radiant' effects overall are occurring when using the cap dump circuit, accepting the fact that the CD circuit's role is to convert 'cold' electricity into 'hot' electricity. So here any energy influx that might be occurring in and around the coil is not sufficient to translate to the storage capacitor and then on to the battery.
So I would say the evidence is mixed but indicates promise. Also, we must bear in mind that JB did not advocate battery swapping and that once a battery had been exposed to radiant energy, then its use as a supply source would damage components. And yet Babcock uses a 3min swapping process with his system, keeping his two batteries in what he refers to as an 'entropy free' state, and he then extracts useful energy from his rotor (250W he claims).
The fact that my swapping does not destroy any components might be seen as additional evidence that radiant energy effects, while being hinted at, are not strongly present at the moment.
Since I came to this research from a different direction than many have and never built an original SG or SSG device, I am going to make some reversible adaptations to my setup to test the original JB design to try and observe some 'radiant' effects. I can then work back up toward my current setup. This should allow me to determine the crucial factors for radiant charging and what blocks or limits it.
Furthermore, I am going to try a low-sided cap dump unit instead of the high-sided one I designed (required because of the swapping arrangement I used) as well as allow for various wiring configurations to be used and compared. My setup has always been a 'common ground' setup but I have observed an 80% reduction in supply current when using the 'classic SG' configuration. The various configurations are shown in Fig 4.
Other developments have included the use of pulse combining where a capacitor discharge is accompanied by a short burst of HV pulses (Fig 5). This requires a dedicated relay system but the results so far are only marginally better than with discharges only. However, once clear radiant effects are observed, then this may make a much bigger contribution. Additionally, I am starting to use up to 4.5kV pulses with the IXYH30N450HV (IGBT) to see how that changes things and also developing an induction-based rotor extraction system to feed some rotor energy back into the receiving battery (Fig 6).
Another point of interest is that those who have observed radiant charging report that the receiving battery will easily reach voltages topping out at about 16.5V. The fact that mine never go above about 13V suggests that I'm not 'fishing in the deep pool' yet. The prospect of reaching these higher voltages suggests that using the Faraday constant alone, in determining the standard voltage of a lead acid cell (2.05V), is fundamentally wrong and needs to include other factors in the context of vacuum energy input (or from wherever).
My recent work with other parties that have indeed been 'deep sea fishing' for years now, gives me hope that I will get to that stage in the near future. I will chart the journey and, as with the first manual I completed in February, I will update it with material making it possible for others to achieve the same, while at the same time not infringing on their specific intellectual property for their patented applications.
The other document I will soon prepare is one describing how to measure the various outputs from a device, that is from the receiving battery, any rotor and energy extraction system, and the cap dump unit, as mentioned in an earlier post. The SG-2 book addressed it built I feel more detail is required, and with examples.
So there you have a catch-up summary, but which I am not getting into too much debate about it here. The reason I post on the other forum more is that there is actual replication going on of my earlier work based on the manual I released.
I quite understand why others will want to wait until there are clear positive results. There is no need for everyone to go through all the 'failure' stages too. As a scientist who will be feeding into the mainstream peer review process, that is important for me to be able to experience what works, what doesn't, and why, but others have no need to.
With that in mind then, it's a game of patience and perseverance. I have spent five years on this so far and I fully expect to spend another couple of years; but the pace at which I am approaching the stage of 'success', that so many are also waiting for, is actually accelerating, so I am increasingly optimistic!
It is quite significant that the reports I have put up on ResearchGate, the international networking site for scientists and researchers, have reached a combined 300 reads. Clearly, there are others in the wider arena who are interested or curious.
Julian
PS Please excuse the large graphics - I'm used the size required on a different site :)
Hi Julian,
Thanks very much for that detailed summary of progress. Wish you well with taking that forward and will watch with keen interest.
After your earlier reply I went over and spent a couple of hours reading the long form of all that on the other site and will watch there also. As you say, more activity in replicating your work there so the pooled activity will hopefully bear fruit.
All the best,
D2