David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[ramset]

Carroll
I could not remember who had the frosty battery

Thanks.

I too feel that this is all going the way it should and will eventually be understood.
unfortunately I feel responsible for some of the confusion here ,I had asked Dave to help with some replications
last year
{Brad started one]
and then My eye surgeries started and I could not even Move my eyes for almost 8 months to read or anything else.




Just an update
the batteries are hopefully being picked up today [thanks to member PhysicsProf and others  ]

I hope we can just slow down here a bit and let Luc move along with out making him feel the need to
Rush.
it will be good to finally understand what is happening here.

Please ??

respectfully
Chet K

[DrJones]

  Thanks for the work you're doing, Chet, and yes, I'll be glad to help out wherever I can.
  Glad to see some progress!     (aka physicsProf)

[Dbowling]

For those of you who don't know, Luc, who is currently doing the testing, did a couple videos on YouTube in March of 2016 where he basically debunked this system as something that absolutely shows NOTHING extra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s


Both Matt Jones and I attempted to explain what was incorrect about his assumptions and testing, with little success. Pretty much the same thing that has happened every time I have brought this setup to THIS forum.


But while I believe that both the motor and the batteries Luc is using do not meet the specs for what I consider minimum to get a CONSISTENT positive result, Luc has already shown 238 watt hours of work out of two batteries and one DISCHARGED battery that only hold 120 watt hours. So even had the third battery been fully charged he would have already exceeded the number of watt hours available. And he is not done with the test yet. We will see where he ends up.
I have kept the data from the numerous test results he has posted on a Mac spreadsheet that has an xlsx extension, so I cannot post it here. But I have it if anyone wants it. Otherwise, you can watch his 18 (so far) videos of the testing and extract the data on your own if interested. When he is finished, I will take a screen shot of the spreadsheet and post it.

[tinman]

Brad,

You are mixing up two totally different scenarios.  The statements you highlighted in red were made several years ago when Dave was describing the original circuit he was working with that used a "dead battery" that appeared to be able to furnish unlimited amounts of power from some unknown process.  Several of us were fortunate enough to stumble across at least one of those batteries.  I have personally seen one of those batteries connected in the 3 battery circuit supply 100 watts of power for over 12 hours and the primary batteries actually went up a couple of tenths of a volt.

Duncan was fortunate enough to find one that had so much extra power it actually frosted up the battery and the terminals while running.  Unfortunately none of us were ever able to determine why only certain "dead batteries" were able to do this.  We believed it had something to do with the crystalline structure of the "dead battery".  Also even more unfortunate was the discovery that if you turned off your system, then when restarted it would almost never go back to being able to produce excess power.  The batteries would start to repair themselves and that was the end of the excess power.

In that system we had a small motor connected between the primary batteries and the special "dead" battery.  But all the loads were pulled from the dead battery, not from the motor.  The motor was only used as a source of pulses to energize the "dead" battery.  After a few years of searching for the secret of those special "dead" batteries we gave up on that idea.



Carroll

If you want to belittle Luc's efforts after being asked to hold off you should at least do it about the system he is testing and not something from the past that was far different from what is being tested.

I in no way belittled Luc--in fact i did the very opposite,so why that statement Carroll?

If you want to look at some one belittling Luc,then what about this guy.

Quote Matt:No both measurements aren't correct unless you apply the math. The only number that matters is the difference between the 2 poles. LUC knows this but because of his ego he does not want YOU to believe it. Thats why we get no TEXTBOOK reference for measuring a battery or battery system HIS way.
When measuring a battery you cannot crack the case open and measure in the middle somewhere of your choosing and avoid all other sense of reason.

Attached are the 4 Benitez patents that explicitly layout how he measured his system and came to terms with his results. LUC will avoid at all cost trying to share any reference to his very unique measuring system because it is BS. He is not here to learn he is here to ensure your failure. For what reason I cannot comprehend.

Did you tell Matt off Carroll ?.

But what we learned led Dave to continue with the 3 battery generating system using only good batteries and drawing power from the motor and not battery 3.  THIS IS THE SYSTEM LUC IS TESTING!

And that was the exact system where Matt and Dave said Luc was measuring it wrong--which he was not--and the same applies if it were a dead battery in position 3.

Power consumed by battery 3 that is used to charge battery 3,is the voltage drop across the battery x the current through the battery--regardless of what is on either side of the battery.
You just dont get to make new shit up to suit your needs.

So,both Matt and Dave paid out on Luc,saying his batteries are too small,and he is measuring it wrong,and will never see any positive result's.

But now have a look at Daves last post here,where he thinks Luc is getting positive result's--best friends now--Luc is a good bloke.

I removed my last post,but now realized i should have left it.
Thankfully TK read it before i removed it,and he will see that in no way did i belittle Luc.

Im done with walking on egg shells--after this much time,we should have advanced from the well know tricks batteries play on us.

To answer all your other comments on this post--icing batteries,battery voltages going up after hours of work--i guess you have all the video proof of this?.

I thought you were better than this Carroll.


Brad

[tinman]

For those of you who don't know, Luc, who is currently doing the testing, did a couple videos on YouTube in March of 2016 where he basically debunked this system as something that absolutely shows NOTHING extra. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4chWT3Ap0&t=2s





But while I believe that both the motor and the batteries Luc is using do not meet the specs for what I consider minimum to get a CONSISTENT positive result, Luc has already shown 238 watt hours of work out of two batteries and one DISCHARGED battery that only hold 120 watt hours. So even had the third battery been fully charged he would have already exceeded the number of watt hours available. And he is not done with the test yet. We will see where he ends up.
I have kept the data from the numerous test results he has posted on a Mac spreadsheet that has an xlsx extension, so I cannot post it here. But I have it if anyone wants it. Otherwise, you can watch his 18 (so far) videos of the testing and extract the data on your own if interested. When he is finished, I will take a screen shot of the spreadsheet and post it.

And how did you arrive at the 60 watt hour capacity of each battery Dave?.
Did you just go 5A/hr X 12 = 60?.

Both Matt Jones and I attempted to explain what was incorrect about his assumptions and testing, with little success. Pretty much the same thing that has happened every time I have brought this setup to THIS forum.

Lucky you just cant lock this thread when things arnt going your way