David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[tinman]

If this is too basic a question or if I'm missing something elementary feel free to ignore...


In the 3 bat efficiency data, why are you using 24 volts for P/IN to the inverter? shouldn't the P/IN watts to the inverter be calculated using the voltage the inverter is actually receiving 12?


I've not tried to calculate Power in/out on the fly like this before, I usually just keep rotating the batteries to prove to myself that it works. It sure would be nice to be able to use on-the-fly measurements with this...




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
nevermind, i c you are calculating the 24 volts as total going to the inverter as well as the 3rd battery....

Yes
The power the inverter is using,is calculated using the voltage across the inverter in both tests.

Quote David
When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free.

Unfortunately this is not the case,and the inverter consumes the same amount of power in each case-->you can see that from the video,and numbers i posted.

As Pomodoro said,the efficiency increase is due to the higher efficiency of the charging side of the circuit being included in the measurements--this is where i went wrong in the assumption that there was an increase in efficiency of the circuit as a whole,but it is only due to the efficiency difference between the inverter and charging side of the system. Even then,the total system efficiency is only 82.23%,and the missing 17.77% is being dissipated as heat by way of ohmic and chemical losses.

So,so far,all the power is accounted for,and i have not seen anything out of the ordinary yet--but we will keep looking.
I will bring the battery load tester home from work for the weekend,and we will have a closer look at the batteries before and after a good test run.


Brad

[SeaMonkey]

TinMan,

You're doing a superb job of evaluating the system.

This is the kind of detail oriented evaluation the system
has been in need of to determine whether any anomalous
energy makes an appearance.

And, also very importantly, whether the Lead-Acid Batteries
themselves are responsible for what appears in some cases
as the much sought after anomaly which is reported to be
"free energy."

Once again, excellent work!

We must recognize of course that there are occasions where
copious amounts of "free energy" do manifest under certain
conditions and with certain experimenters.  Daniel Pomerleau
is a prime example.

Unfortunately, when it manifests for most experimenters, it is
sporadic, fleeting and nearly impossible to account for.  That
is the nature of this "beast" and its "true source."

Let us hope that you are able to observe such an event as you
proceed with your tests and evaluation.

[minoly]

One thing I like about this setup Dave is the way you are keeping the charging battery 3 voltage "down" by having 12 batteries in that position in parallel. This also makes it so you are not charging and discharging at the same time. I had only used a 4 bat system like the tesla switch in the past. In addition using the DC to DC was/is very smart thinking - Thanks!

If I understand you, you are asking if the energy that "left" the two batteries in series is equal to the energy that went through the inverter PLUS the energy that ended up in the lower battery because the inverter and the lower battery are wired in series. Am I correct that this is your question? If so, the answer is "No". When you run the energy through the inverter and into battery three, the same energy gets used twice. Yes, there are losses in the wire from heat (friction) but essentially you get the same amount of energy in battery 3 that "left" the two primaries in series, and you ran the load for free. Here is a video I made to trying show what I am talking about. By the way, the measurements I took on this video were after the batteries had rested for two hours after running them so that voltages could "settle out" . The charged batteries always go DOWN after having rested for a while and the primaries always climb back up a little after resting for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD7a4bPS4o8


Let me be VERY, VERY clear. This circuit is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor is NOT the final solution. Matt's motor run on this circuit is NOT the final solution. Adding the boost circuit is NOT the final solution. You need ALL these things and more.You need the switching to rotate the batteries through the five different positions when battery 3 is charged up. You need five GOOD STRONG fully charged batteries that are not old and worn out. Each one will move through these five positions in this order. 1. Position One (as Battery one of the two in series)2. Position two (as battery 2 of the two in series)3. Resting Because it has been DISCHARGED in BOTH the previous positions)4. Position three (in parallel with one and two, charging)5. RestingYou need a generator run by the motor that can put out power so you can ADD a little power back into the system when it is needed. Nothing lasts forever, and cold and heat are the ENEMIES of batteries. The efficiency on this system will go up and down with the heat and cold. Without a generator to contribute a little extra when you need it, this will eventually come to a screeching halt. Without a generator run by the motor, you have NOTHING here that is going to get you what you want. It is the efficiency of all these things working together that get you the grand slam. But any decent generator is going to give you COP>3 or MORE if all these things are in place. It just IS. I have built it. It works. Getting all of this to work is NOT rocket science. We have provided MORE than enough information. But getting it to work is only the beginning. Then you need to figure out how to apply these principles to the construction of more advanced devices. That's where we are now, and we aren't posting that information. Maybe in a few months. People still won't accept THIS so why on earth would we share MORE.

[Magluvin]

Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

This also seems like a familiar argument of cap to cap.  Say for example 'if' we were able to do an electron count through the battery loop, even with a load in the loop, how ever much it takes to charge the reverse battery, that same electron flow is also moving through those other 3 batteries.

I say through, but mean electrons in and electrons out by way of the pos and neg plates

So if we had 10 batteries in series, and 1 in reverse, how ever much electrons go through the reverse battery is how many that will go through the other 10. Not saying that would be a good idea to try, but I just used it as an example of extreme loss, it would seem.    It would seem that 10 batteries lost as many electrons from the neg plates as the single reverse battery gained, and like wise with the gain of electrons in the poss plates vs the loss on the reverse battery pos plate.

So say we had 10 fully charged batteries, and 1 reverse battery that just for example was used for a bit and it lost Neg plate electrons and gained Pos plate electrons. Well for those 10 batteries to recharge that reverse battery, there would need to be at least the same amount of electrons going through the complete loop in order for that to happen. I know batteries are not the same as caps, but the reasoning should still be close.

So playing with sim a bit, Im finding that adding the load in the loop, resistive or inductive, I am thinking the reverse battery would get charged the same whether there were a load or if the batteries were direct, and the load would only affect the time the reverse battery gets to full charge. Naturally, again, I would not recommend the 10 to 1 direct, but if the batteries could take that kind of charge and discharge, I think that the loss from the 10 and gain in the 1 would be the same as having the load in line.  Adding a load inline should only slow down the transfer from the 10 to the 1, which would increase the time to charge the 1. I cannot see that any more would be taken from the 10 or any less getting to the 1 by having a load in inline. Current through the loop is the measure of electron flow basically. And that same amount that flows into the 1 in order to get it fully charged, is the same amount of current flowing through each of the 10. When the 1 is fully charged, then that is how much current over time it took to do so.


Think. 10 batts in series, but only the plates of the batteries at the ends of the string are changing electrons with the reverse battery. All of the batteries should experience this gain and loss of similar proportions over the course of the charge time. Strange to think about.

Or, 10 to 1 direct would be a huge loss condition, and adding the loads inline convert those losses into work instead.

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags

[citfta]

Did a little play on sim with the idea.  Something strangely familiar seeing it on the screen, like back in school where this would be shown as how the 1 reverse battery would create a voltage drop as a whole to the load. But I do not remember it showing what happens to the reverse battery as it is charging.

This also seems like a familiar argument of cap to cap.  Say for example 'if' we were able to do an electron count through the battery loop, even with a load in the loop, how ever much it takes to charge the reverse battery, that same electron flow is also moving through those other 3 batteries.

I say through, but mean electrons in and electrons out by way of the pos and neg plates

So if we had 10 batteries in series, and 1 in reverse, how ever much electrons go through the reverse battery is how many that will go through the other 10. Not saying that would be a good idea to try, but I just used it as an example of extreme loss, it would seem.    It would seem that 10 batteries lost as many electrons from the neg plates as the single reverse battery gained, and like wise with the gain of electrons in the poss plates vs the loss on the reverse battery pos plate.

So say we had 10 fully charged batteries, and 1 reverse battery that just for example was used for a bit and it lost Neg plate electrons and gained Pos plate electrons. Well for those 10 batteries to recharge that reverse battery, there would need to be at least the same amount of electrons going through the complete loop in order for that to happen. I know batteries are not the same as caps, but the reasoning should still be close.

So playing with sim a bit, Im finding that adding the load in the loop, resistive or inductive, I am thinking the reverse battery would get charged the same whether there were a load or if the batteries were direct, and the load would only affect the time the reverse battery gets to full charge. Naturally, again, I would not recommend the 10 to 1 direct, but if the batteries could take that kind of charge and discharge, I think that the loss from the 10 and gain in the 1 would be the same as having the load in line.  Adding a load inline should only slow down the transfer from the 10 to the 1, which would increase the time to charge the 1. I cannot see that any more would be taken from the 10 or any less getting to the 1 by having a load in inline. Current through the loop is the measure of electron flow basically. And that same amount that flows into the 1 in order to get it fully charged, is the same amount of current flowing through each of the 10. When the 1 is fully charged, then that is how much current over time it took to do so.


Think. 10 batts in series, but only the plates of the batteries at the ends of the string are changing electrons with the reverse battery. All of the batteries should experience this gain and loss of similar proportions over the course of the charge time. Strange to think about.

Or, 10 to 1 direct would be a huge loss condition, and adding the loads inline convert those losses into work instead.

Thinking on it a bit more.

Mags

Hi Mags,

What you are saying sounds perfectly logical.  Except having worked with this system for at least a couple of years now I can tell you a fact that messes with what you are saying.  The fact is the battery that is in series and connected to the load ALWAYS goes down faster than the other series battery.  As far as I know none of us have been able to come up with an explanation for why that happens.  And the type of load seems to make a big difference in how efficient the system as a whole is.  So far the best results have been with an inverter as the load and using a boost converter to maintain a steady voltage for the inverter and charging battery.

Just a little more information for you to think about.  Thanks for your interest.

Carroll