Solid State Battery Charger

[ZPDM]

Hello Energy Science Forum,
Aaron, Tom, Peter, Eric, R_S et al., may your Holydays be Blessed.

This series, though perhaps not who knows, will document construction of a solid state battery charger. It will be presented, at least in small part, as a series of simple didactic experiments for illustrative purposes. That might not be enjoyable for me, haha. This endeavor is in many ways for those new to the area, though for some old hands perhaps there is something here as well, Never know why people don't mention some of these simple things, is it gauche, has it not occurred to them or am I wrong? From these experiments the basis for an heck let's call it a SSG will be generated. As I said we will start very, really very simple, then drive on from there. I haven't built this yet, so who knows what we will see. If I had to guess this will be fun for those who are willing to tag along and maybe we see a couple watts or even more by the end! Maybe, maybe a finished "product" by Christmas, or a few months or such later, haha. Don't know how many videos involved maybe 8 maybe a dozen, will see how things go.

First Video: The Bridging Dioide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-pK...ature=youtu.be

[ZPDM]

Part II; Bedini and Utkin Diodes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRG_...ature=youtu.be

[mpgmike]

Kudos to you, ZPDM! I'm going to try to help you out here a bit. My intent is to create a quick schematic for each of the different configurations you illustrate in both of these videos and also the resultant waveform on a scope. Here is the first configuration:

[mpgmike]

Here is the 2nd configuration; charge Cap1, parallel diode, discharge into Cap2:


Please note that the scaling is not necessarily the same from post to post, as I am adjusting volts-per-division, and even time divisions to show the form of the wave more so than apples-to-apples comparison.

[mpgmike]

Same as previous, but with the addition of an inductor. C1 discharging through an inductor to charge C2:

[mpgmike]

I suppose I should have covered this previously, but...

In video #1 C1 = 1 uF and C2 = 100 uF. No other values were given, so I filled in some blanks to illustrate the points ZPDM (in my opinion) was trying to make.

I reserve the right to screw it up royally. ZPDM, if I get it wrong, please Please PLEASE let me know. I'll go back & do it again. This is not my thread, I'm merely trying to fill in some blanks (as best as I can) to help ZPDM get the point across.

I was most intrigued by the points made in the videos and felt compelled to add the missing schematics & scope shots that, in the videos, those tools were not available.

[RS_]

I am sorry ZPDM, but Mike's Schematics are correct... I would have drawn the same thing based on your first video..... and in a way, I have drawn his last circuit, with some more complex circuit idea's but with the switching on the negative rail, per JB's inverted cap pulsers circuits... i like your videos, you are showing a good effect.... keep up the good work....

Mike, how did you acquire the Oscope shots... real Oscope with real components tested or a SIM...?

[mpgmike]

I am using a PicoScope to capture the images, which I then convert to a GIF format that is compatible with this forum. I had to take a break from "helping" to conduct the business that pays my bills before moving on to video #2. As per ZPDM's comments, I will no longer be contributing to this thread.

[ZPDM]

Mike,
Am sorry, had a few, saw a number of posts brief in a row and assumed it was trolling and spam. I was wrong, please consider forgiving me, about the only silver lining is not having gone full Elon Musk and called you pedoguy. Very Sorry. To be honest I don't enjoy putting this material out or this thread I just feel like I should. Pretty much everything discussed to this point, while of some significance is essentially window dressing. The only concept that needs to be understood for OU from an inductor is the inductor time constant https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws...-circuits.html As can be seen the magnetic field is established over a number of time constants identical to the RC constant for filling a cap. So first if 63% of the field is established at 1 time constant and 100% at 5 time constants, at a minimum for 1/5 the amps one gets 63% of the magnetic field, which is a good deal. However the coil is also a magnetic choke, that is once the field is fully established the resistance equals the DC resistance in the wire, prior to this as the field is being established though there is also a reactive resistance component. As the example on the linked page notes a coil with a steady state amp flow of 10 Amps has an amp flow of only 6.32 amps at one time constant. This is because of the reactive resistance. So one is actually using quite a bit less than 1/5th the amps to establish 63% of the magnetic field. Also if one plugs in the numbers for amp flow at 1/2 a time constant it is at that time only 3.9 amps and this 1/2 time constant would establish 37% of the field, so things keep improving. That is also why the small caps work better. That is really the most important factor. Any inductor can be overunity it just needs to be hit with a sufficiently brief pulse and that sufficiently brief is judged within the context of the inductors time constant. The only drawback is if you are extremely early on the ramp up of the inductor maybe ten fold OU but if you are only putting out 5 milliwatts it might be preferable to be 1.5 OU with a somewhat lengthier charge time if it puts out 30 milliwatts. That is really all there is to it, after that one just wants to look for a decent way to parallel inductors and/or raise voltage to allow for some decent output. Will demonstrate how to set-up with an arduino and the OU in the fourth video. Again sorry for being a jack ass, hopefully with this off my chest I will now find this endeavor less stressful.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi ZPDM, thank you for sharing your work, watching with great interest.
I forgive you, no one is perfect in this realm, you realized you made a mistake and asked forgiveness, that is what matters.
peace love light

[ZPDM]

Thanks Skywatcher I appreciate your interest and kind words. It was however, Mike that I was a jerk towards and I will feel bad about that for some time, hopefully someday he will find it in his heart to forgive me. But with your interest it does seem worth driving on and plowing forward, I will start on another video. A lot of ideas and theory have congealed over the past few weeks, will see if it comes together with building something, which I am thinking now may perhaps be even in the microwatt range. That is not as relevant as just confirming whatever I am able to that may be true. If so, those far more talented and experienced than myself such as R_S and Mike might have fun running with it. In a nutshell, I suspect it is best, unless maybe you have a ten amp power supply, and even then, to pulse with caps. I will try and give the theory in a paragraph and will go into more detail in video. Resistance is not always a single value it is only such in steady state conditions. In such conditions Ohm's law applies, however in nature such steady state conditions are almost certainly the exception rather than the rule at least that's what my neurons say. The link I posted in a previous comment gave one example of dynamic resistance that of an inductor charging, early on there is a very large inductive resistance component that chokes off amp flow, this recedes as the magnetic field fully forms leaving one with a steady state DC resistance. Another example of a dynamic resistance is charging a capacitor, though in this case one is dealing with capacitive reactance. It charges quick at first, slows then stops. The electrons bump into a wall and pile up. The rate at which this occurs again follows a time constant like the inductor. Now on "electronics tutorials" in graphing the amp flow in a charging capacitor they conveniently quote Ohm's Law as the maximum amp flow for the charging (or discharging cap). Seems pretty arbitrary to me, the resistance is flying all over the place, indeed in an ideal capacitor after a few dozen time constants the resistance is essentially infinite, there is no amp flow. If resistance is not constant why is a formula with resistance as a constant being invoked? If (assuming no inductive component to our ideal capacitor) resistance is "infinite" after numerous time constants, what is it between time 0 and time 1?

A real world capacitor will have some leakage, so there will be some very, very minute amp flow. How about considering a conductor as an extremely leaky capacitor, won't it likewise have a variable resistance as seen with a capacitor charging? At start-up the (capacitive) reactive resistance will be essentially zero, however, when it achieves a steady state instead of blocking essentially all current it will allow much of it. All electrical resistance is composed of the interplay of these reactive and capacitive reactances. So now we may apply this to an inductor being charged, at start-up the highway is empty, no capacitive resistance. Electricity takes off at enormous speed to almost immediately encounter the traffic cop of inductive reactance. The inductive reactance cop slows things to a crawl, however the highway is still empty. This implies two things, 1) at start-up between time 0 and 1 the coil will take all the amps you care to throw at it. I have a three or five amp power supply, but for that brief instant it will take much more than that, not that this current will reach circuit negative quickly, it becomes choked off by the magnetic field 2) Initially all that current goes towards establishing a magnetic field, it encounters no other resistance. As the traffic cop of inductive reactance slows traffic to a crawl other cars begin crowding the highway (capacitive resistance). As these cars slow traffic inductive reactance abates and a steady state is achieved. Without making this into a dissertation, one can see how the opposite happens with a cap discharging into a coil, at time zero amp flow is almost infinite. Any cap should saturate a coil, with larger caps a lot of energy is "wasted" afterwards in maintaining a steady state. In terms of the inductive spike, radiant spike, displacement current, back EMF whatever you want to call it, as per Faraday, spike magnitude is a function of the strength of the magnetic field times the rate of change. It doesn't care if the maximum field strength was maintained for ten hours or ten nanoseconds it only cares about how much it changed and how quickly. This is why small caps do better, they establish the same maximum strength magnetic field but maintain it for less time, and again the radiant spike doesn't care how long you maintained the steady state. Theoretically small caps should do better and better and better, the only limits being the switching speed(recitification speed) and power dissipation of your diodes and whether you can switch the whole thing fast enough to get any reasonable power from the smallest caps. The above I would say is another way of expressing how voltage leads current. Also and lastly if one accepts the above there is no longer any worry about is it back EMF is it radiant spike, the back EMF is the radiant spike, the textbooks are just grossly off about what the maximum amp turns are that may be seen in a coil as they are applying Ohm's law to a dynamic resistance. Back EMF/radiant spike can transform voltage as the initial amp flow in the coil is quite great. The initial stages of charge or discharge of an inductor are perhaps what I suspect Bedini and Bearden might call a broken symmetry.

Thanks again for the support apologies again to Mike, will get out a video in a week or so I hope if not sooner.

[mpgmike]

ZPDM, after reading your first 2 posts, containing the videos, I remarked to my wife how I perceived you as one with formal education in the field of electronics, yet somehow able to keep an open mind to observations that don't fit the textbooks. I told her how I was being dazzled by your brilliance. I told her how I'd love to work with a guy like you. I must confess, that made your chastisement taste all the more bitter.

With that said, I've had a couple days to get over my pride and again focus on your genius work. I appreciate your apology and accept. I also feel confident it won't happen again, so I can contribute freely without worry of backlash. Please continue on this most fascinating journey. I'll make the popcorn.

[ZPDM]

Hi Mike,

Ah that's a relief to hear and thank you. When I realized how badly I mis-interpreted things I felt like a real *******. My education is as a physician, was railroaded out of the FDA and now am just cranky. I approached and learned electronics working on the John Bedini projects, so I suppose you are right that not really knowing what "normal" electronics is has probably helped. I don't know about genius work, I am not sure I know what I'm talking about, but I've nailed down the "mad" part and so am at least half way to genius I suppose. I am very thankful for the encouragement though. There are a lot of other interesting findings to look at so I will try and throw together more video this week.

[ZPDM]

A branch current
https://youtu.be/v91bJAQ6-Pg

[mpgmike]

I beg of you, kind sir; could you please sketch out the connections? Even if it isn't in formal schematic format, just draw boxes, label them, and run lines to represent your wires. I found it rather difficult to follow the "bouncing ball" in your 2nd video, but I'm left clueless in this 3rd video due to image resolution, or something. I will try to replicate what you post, make up a cleaner schematic for you, breadboard it, put it on my scope & share the waveforms (with your permission, of course).