About US2003/0117111 patent

[Nanuhi]

Hi everybody,

I have a question about John Bedini's US2003/0117111 patent. John always says that it is very important to interrupt negative rail when charging a battery. And all of his schematics do just that. But in this patent one could see interruption of positive pole of battery. If it is a mistake in schematic?

[Faraday88]

Hi everybody,

I have a question about John Bedini's US2003/0117111 patent. John always says that it is very important to interrupt negative rail when charging a battery. And all of his schematics do just that. But in this patent one could see interruption of positive pole of battery. If it is a mistake in schematic?

Hi Nanuhi,
Very things imply in this Patent here also so no mistakes in 'schematics'... first figure out what it means to 'Interrupt the Positive or Negative rail..in terms of the Radiant..patent schematic need not be the way it actually function..but they cover the sense.. another note: just again try to figure out the Fig :6 and Fig:7 and what meaning they carry with them...Geometry...Inductive ..Capacitive...modes of Energizing ect.. I too have pondered on this patent for a long time(over 3 years now..) and still discovering each new tit bit very time I look up at it.. another aspect is the Power source block..this one is expandable and possibly linked with other Bedini Patent..mind you it says that ''the Circuit can Charge a Battery whose Voltage is higher than the source Charging it''... and that ''it is able to convert the form of the Power''... the trigger is another part..in the schematic say item 66 is coiled around an axis(not shown) is a straight but not coiled''what does this all mean...????

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Nanuhi]

Hi Faraday88,
I read your "explanations" more like an abstract philosophy. I used to be practical in fields I feel some sense. The question is appeared after reading of some explanations from RS about understanding different methods of charging. To interrupt negative pole in an aspect of charging battery (not driving a motor or heating element) seems important to me.

I am not absolutely new in this field. I used a similar technology (before I heard of JB) to charge a batteries and a few other things ... though not with a big success. But despite of it it gave me some understanding of a processes.

It is curious if Tom_C or RS (or someone else who really experimented with the circuit) think that there is not a grate importance to brake a positive rail instead of negative one?

[Nanuhi]

Hi All,

Sorry for my previously stupid questions. Here is another one.

I rearranged switching banks for at least two reasons. 1st, it is switching negative now. 2nd, it was a problem with commutation - the least voltage needed to work (to open the FETs) was at least twice as battery voltage. And it was a leakage of battery voltage if there is no input source presents (through fet's internal diodes).

Now everything is looks much better but I can not understand the following thing. If there is no input power and I connect a battery, its potential is transferring to capacitor as well as to input source (red and green wires). How it is possible?

Thanks for any idea.

[wrtner]

Hi everybody,

I have a question about John Bedini's US2003/0117111 patent.

I think this application has proceeded to patent. 6,677,730
See http://www.pat2pdf.org

The new text may have updates or alterations.

[RS_]

JB has told me that switching the neg rail works better with the energy flows in and around the battery's.

and if you are doing back popping, that switching both rail's during the back pop, so the drive battery is completely disconnected from the drive circuit during the cap discharge back pop, that switches just the neg rail....... have a circuit Sch for this, that has never been posted. I will post it someday soon, when i have the 2011 window motor kit up and running with this circuit..........

ps working on printing the Hall effect switch holders and timing wheel on my new 3d printer, and should have this printed soon.......

[Faraday88]

JB has told me that switching the neg rail works better with the energy flows in and around the battery's.

and if you are doing back popping, that switching both rail's during the back pop, so the drive battery is completely disconnected from the drive circuit during the cap discharge back pop, that switches just the neg rail....... have a circuit Sch for this, that has never been posted. I will post it someday soon, when i have the 2011 window motor kit up and running with this circuit..........

ps working on printing the Hall effect switch holders and timing wheel on my new 3d printer, and should have this printed soon.......

Hi Rs,

The Switching of Any one Terminal works best with Inductive Fractionation...while Switching both the terminal during the Cap dump is the way to go for The Capacitive Fractionation.method..the reason of the difference according to me goes beyond just the 'isolation aspect between the I/P and O/P circuits'...
My Explanation: For Capacitive Fractionation: when during the Discharge of a Potential Charge across a Negative Resistor(Battery)which is infact an Invertered form of the UNCHARGED Capacitor, the Transference of the Negative resistivity which is now the Inverted form of the Discharging Capacitor's dielectric requires that the two plate electrodes of the Capacitor become one,the view of making the electrode one is by having a PLASMA link which is the spark that occurs at both the terminals at the instance of Cap discharge there (try seeing Spark at both the terminals simultaneously it is quite difficult thing to do manually...) thereby allowing the transference of the Potential Charge in the form of Negative Dipole to become a part of the Battery being charged. (If a Battery is a Negistor, then a Capacitor is a Posistor (not a resistor))
For Inductive Fractionation: Which end one switches depends on what mode he is using (either Gen mode/ SSGmode) Negative end(NPN Transistor) if Normal ssg mode and Positive end(PNP Transistor) if Gen mode... the reason for this difference shall be posted later..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Nanuhi]

RS,

Thank you. Yes, the drive battery is disconnected. But I test it that way because I plan to use it with solar panel that gives no drive during dark hours. So, it seems to me that device should react to this...

I would be glad to look at your circuit.

[Nanuhi]

Meantime, I am testing the device and there is strange thing happens. Scope probe on to battery contacts. Spike appears only when the battery is disconnected from cap. When it is connecting there is usual up voltage shelf. Strange... Looks like there is too slow on time... But sometimes it appears. 1 to 20 or more time cycles.

forget to mention that the charging battery is almost dead.