Solid State Battery Charger

[Michael Luton]

ZPDM you are absolutely right about the time constants and their importance and in figuring out what is going on. There really is math out there that covers most of what you are talking about. Also components are not pure, every component be it a resister, capacitor, or in inductor has components of all three. There is a big difference between a film resistor and a wire wound resistor in the capacitive and inductive values of those resistors even if they are are the the same resistive value. Also when you are working with this exacting of math the tolerance values for say an inductor become a pain. Once you have those values there are trig functions that will return solid values for most of the time constants you are talking about. That is where you get into Symbols with sub-notation. Such as Current (I) with a sub-notation of (i) instantaneous, (pk) peak, (min) Minimum, (av) average, (inf) infinite. Where this breaks down for our purposes is zero current and infinite current and for that you would have to use calculus for anything close to those extremes. Looking at John Bedini's notes and especially his early builds I believe this is the world he was working in. Remember he said English was his second language and math was his first language.

[Michael Luton]

You can throw out the conspiracy theorists on this one. Stienmetz simplified the trig to an algebraic function at the requests of engineers and electricians. For the engineers it meant going from hours to minutes of figuring with less chance of an accidental math error, and for the electricians working in the field the trig was not a option. There still are engineers out there that use the Trig and calculus, but don't expect much help from them. Even if they are willing, it is like they are speaking a foreign language. I know as I had to try to act as an interpreter between an electronics school staff and a couple Raytheon engineers at one time. It is also important to realize that engineers with their mathematics work in an ideal world where we live in a real world. We used to say the engineers designed a circuit and the technicians made it work. Now if you are thoroughly confused don't worry about it, that is normal.

[ZPDM]

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).

Yes, of course, great point Mike. I will hand draw the circuits that are tapped out by hand and either do the same or try the what is it "fritzing" program for the arduino circuits and also include the arduino code. It gets more complicated when we look at one wire stuff so very much worth doing. There is some high level weirdness with one wire rectification and things change in ways that are entirely unpredictable to me so worth at least trying to capture what is set-up. Just as one example, I kept seeing a residual 0.5 volts and was saying where is that coming from? Kept removing more and more components until all I had left was the inductor the diodes and the earth ground and it only went away once the earth ground was removed. So I would have to guess I am seeing the one wire version of an earth battery, one wire rectification of the telluric currents.

[ZPDM]

ZPDM you are absolutely right about the time constants and their importance and in figuring out what is going on. There really is math out there that covers most of what you are talking about. Also components are not pure, every component be it a resister, capacitor, or in inductor has components of all three. There is a big difference between a film resistor and a wire wound resistor in the capacitive and inductive values of those resistors even if they are are the the same resistive value. Also when you are working with this exacting of math the tolerance values for say an inductor become a pain. Once you have those values there are trig functions that will return solid values for most of the time constants you are talking about. That is where you get into Symbols with sub-notation. Such as Current (I) with a sub-notation of (i) instantaneous, (pk) peak, (min) Minimum, (av) average, (inf) infinite. Where this breaks down for our purposes is zero current and infinite current and for that you would have to use calculus for anything close to those extremes. Looking at John Bedini's notes and especially his early builds I believe this is the world he was working in. Remember he said English was his second language and math was his first language.

Hi Michael,

Yes it was from looking at that "electronics tutorials" site that I realized, of course the magnetic field will be forming most rapidly near the start. Was trying to figure out who are writing these tutorials, they don't give out much but you go to the reference designs tab and it is all Texas Instruments designs, so I think they are TI electronics engineers. I suspect I may have gotten carried away that the process tends towards infinity at 0 time. That's pretty radical on reflection. When I threw the results from their equation for voltage of a discharging cap at different times it looks like amp flow perhaps it just moves asymptotically towards a maximal value as it approaches time 0. Will make a quick video on it and why I am not certain exactly how it behaves. One thing is certain though amp flow will be maximal when a cap is first discharging and I would say likewise magnetic field strength is increasing at its maximal rate when an inductor is first charging.

Was reading Tom Bearden's description of the theory for John Bedini's battery chargers last night http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Bedini.pdf The language is pretty thick but there are a few take home messages that come through. Much of the "magic" is occurring in the battery, that is made clear. Part of that being that the electron current runs in gets mashed up against the battery plates and if you cut the power off then, before the current has a chance to exit through the electrolyte to circuit negative, some of the current either washes back into the battery and/or generates its own inductive spike as it comes off the battery plates. Also as the electrons ping up against the much heavier lead ions they impart momentum to them that lets the lead ions keep rolling along for a time even in the absence of electron current. At least that was some of what I could get from the document. So, even though I think its worthwhile to be trying to figure out how best to get the strongest inductive spike for the least input of energy, there are simply so many variables that, that might not be the optimal approach for battery charging.

[Michael Luton]

My experience came from College textbooks for the trig portions I was talking about. So as not to come across as a know it all or a college educated fool, a little of my back ground. I was an electronics tech in the navy and was given a 6 mo advanced theory course as a re-enlistment incentive. We as students did the circuit trig analysis and the instructor did the calculus proofs on the board using Fourtiere analysis. After getting out of the Navy 20 years ago I haven't actually used used the math and probably would fail if I tried, however I remember the concepts. If you could find the old Navy WWII Basic Electrical training manual or the Basic Electronics training manual they would be very helpful in the time constants and things you are talking about even though they contain a lot of vacuum tube circuits.

The charging theory was to hit the battery with a potential with as little current as possible and have the battery to provide the current to dissipate that potential. Further if you could get the timing right on the pulses it was theoretically possible to get the battery to ring like a resonate tank circuit. Possible? Maybe. My one successful end result with a negatively charged battery was by accident. I was working on a capacitive dump circuit for a SSG when the run battery went into a negative charge and ran the SSG for 10 days. Great right? Nope. I replaced the run battery with an identical battery without changing a thing and could not replicate the results at all. I worked with that circuit for 6 months and never was able to replicate the results even in suggestion. At this point I would not even rule out an astrological alignment situation. Good luck and keep doing what you are.

Michael

[mpgmike]

Folks, I gotta say that I have absorbed much of what Tom Bearden has published. Furthermore, I have also looked into Bedini, Tesla, Grey, and many many others’ technologies. I have conducted my own experiments and came to the (perhaps over-simplified) conclusion that Bearden over-complicates the simple things. What do I mean by that? Bearden extrapolates on “negative resistance”, “negative time” , and other abstracts that we (as mere mortals) could not possibly understand. Frankly, I'm not sure Tom really understands what he publishes (?) as he is a theoretician. However, there are numerous references to working models that indeed proliferate viable increased efficiency concepts.

Looking at many "free energy devices" that claim to tap into the "aether", I can clearly see an alternative model explained by “the recycling of electrons" theory (think in terms of Bedini's 3-battery system). First and foremost, the first 2 videos published in this thread by ZPDM (in my opinion) do not tap into the "aether" to harness additional energy, but simply capture and re-capture electrons as they cycle through a typical (as per the electronics textbooks) LC circuit; with the addition of a critically-important diode. I have created on my test bench circuits that merely recycle electrons, after they have performed useful work, back to the "source" to do work again. This is my take on the Bedini SG. This is also my take on the Tesla Switch. I had in my possession at one time a Methernista Testicatika (Swiss community) “over unity” device. Again, an energy input was run through an electron recycling process to deliver what appeared to be “over unity” (effectively it was).

I only wish to caution experimenters that "over-unity" technologies may be merely "electron recycling" technologies. As a clue, look past our current model of electrodynamics as postulated by Lorentz (he referenced both Heavyside and Maxwell but only Lorentz’s theories exist in our current textbooks). Heavyside “codified” Maxwell’s observations & theories, but as a caveat allowed for “observations that didn’t fit the current mathematical model”. Maxwell practically drove himself mad trying to account for external influences that didn’t fit within the “closed circuit” theory. Lorentz ditched anything & everything that didn’t fall within his ‘preferred’ theorem. Essentially, Lorentz (and all modern models of electrodynamics) work with only “closed system” examples; effectively discounting and throwing away any possibility of outside (ambient) influences.

Punch line?? Don’t over-complicate things. If you get results (like ZPDM), run with it. It may or may not be because of additional energy input from the aether (there are certainly definitive examples of tapping the ZPE). Just capture what you do, and replicate it. Simple enough. Just consider "electron recycling" as one of the options in your list that inevitably might include ZPE as the "effective mechanism".

[ZPDM]

Per Mikes comment here are a some hand-drawn circuits and notes. When we get to having a try at building a charger and/or various versions of a charger I'll use Fritizing to present something clean. Need to plow through the one-wire video, that will probably be some hand-drawn circuits as well, much of the time I was just tapping the earth ground around different places and saying oooh that's neat, how about that one. Don't want to get too deeply drawn into one-wire unless it proves necessary. Unpredictable, makes no sense, can't figure a way to conceptualize it, heard something about 1/4 wave ratios and a dark lord and the end of the world but please don't hurt me Gandalf not in any ways unnatural. Sorry, here are some diagrams, ideally I don't have any diodes oriented wrong, it is straightforward, the Bridging and Bedini Diodes are blocking diodes the Utkin is a conducting diode. Last image in next post

[ZPDM]

Page Six

[ZPDM]

My experience came from College textbooks for the trig portions I was talking about. So as not to come across as a know it all or a college educated fool, a little of my back ground. I was an electronics tech in the navy and was given a 6 mo advanced theory course as a re-enlistment incentive. We as students did the circuit trig analysis and the instructor did the calculus proofs on the board using Fourtiere analysis. After getting out of the Navy 20 years ago I haven't actually used used the math and probably would fail if I tried, however I remember the concepts. If you could find the old Navy WWII Basic Electrical training manual or the Basic Electronics training manual they would be very helpful in the time constants and things you are talking about even though they contain a lot of vacuum tube circuits.

The charging theory was to hit the battery with a potential with as little current as possible and have the battery to provide the current to dissipate that potential. Further if you could get the timing right on the pulses it was theoretically possible to get the battery to ring like a resonate tank circuit. Possible? Maybe. My one successful end result with a negatively charged battery was by accident. I was working on a capacitive dump circuit for a SSG when the run battery went into a negative charge and ran the SSG for 10 days. Great right? Nope. I replaced the run battery with an identical battery without changing a thing and could not replicate the results at all. I worked with that circuit for 6 months and never was able to replicate the results even in suggestion. At this point I would not even rule out an astrological alignment situation. Good luck and keep doing what you are.

Michael

If you have an arduino it is really easy to figure out the time constant of your coil. Give the coil a real long pulse say a 1/10th of a second, capture that pulse into a cap and measure the voltage and let the whole thing rest after your one pulse, so no pulse train just the pulse and then 5 second delay. Say from 20 volt input you saw 10 volts in your cap, now decrease the pulse to 1/20th of a second maybe you see 10 volts again, so coil still fully saturated. As you continue to decrease the pulse length at some point the spike voltage will begin to drop, when it has dropped to 63%, that's your time constant. So in this example if at 2 mS you saw a 6.3 volt spike, 2 milliseconds is the time constant for your coil. Certainly wouldn't want to pulse longer than that, maybe you shoot for a pulse length of 1/10th the time constant. I do think now, eventually there are diminishing returns with shortening the pulse length, it might be you have to at least hit the battery with "something", but at the same time you sure as heck don't want to be too long with your pulse length and be wasting your input current without appreciably increasing the magnetic field strength.

[ZPDM]

...

Looking at many "free energy devices" that claim to tap into the "aether", I can clearly see an alternative model explained by “the recycling of electrons" theory (think in terms of Bedini's 3-battery system). First and foremost, the first 2 videos published in this thread by ZPDM (in my opinion) do not tap into the "aether" to harness additional energy, but simply capture and re-capture electrons as they cycle through a typical (as per the electronics textbooks) LC circuit; with the addition of a critically-important diode. I have created on my test bench circuits that merely recycle electrons, after they have performed useful work, back to the "source" to do work again. This is my take on the Bedini SG. This is also my take on the Tesla Switch. I had in my possession at one time a Methernista Testicatika (Swiss community) “over unity” device. Again, an energy input was run through an electron recycling process to deliver what appeared to be “over unity” (effectively it was).
.. If you get results (like ZPDM), run with it. .

Hi Mike,

That is one reason I used capacitors and tapped it all out by hand. I don't know myself how to call it recycling when you have one bucket of charge and end up, granted at a much lower voltage with eight buckets of charge. Even stranger if you consider that electrons are supposed to be the smallest unit of charge. If that is so did seven buckets of electrons and their associated mass come into being? I never mentioned the ether, Conservation of Energy is demonstrably BS. Energy may be created and destroyed. Creation is not God, there is no offense in saying creation may be added to and subtracted from. Maybe there is an ether, until there is reason to feel otherwise I don't care as regards the bridging and Bedini diode experiments. The findings follow from Faraday's Law of Induction, which thus far I have seen hold valid. Not sure to what extent I am joking here, but generally when a law actually has a name attached to it, Boyle's Gas Law, Faraday's Law of Induction, Newton's Laws of Motion, they hold up better than some anonymous proclamation.

Moving on, are you willing to share more about the Testatica, is it a variant of a Wimshurst Machine? Thank you for the compliment about getting results, I would say regarding experimentation, If you find yourself in a hole (i.e. found something interesting), keep on digging!!!

[ZPDM]

Six minute video concerning a DC "Node" Motor.
https://youtu.be/Mart9ULDAyI

[mpgmike]

I will look over your diagrams and get back to that.

In reference to "recycling electrons" in your circuits, if you view things as taking a teaspoon full of water (electricity in this case) and dumping it into a bucket & then measuring 7 teaspoons worth of water, it is impossible within the laws of electricity as we were taught them. However, if you merely view the 2nd capacitor as a dipole, and the first capacitor "charging" or "stretching" the dipole, then my theory might have a chance.

You are effectively creating an LC Tank Circuit. Without the diode, you discharge the 1st cap through the inductor and the oscillations affect the whole circuit uniformly. As oscillatory swings go positive, the dipole charge on the 2nd capacitor increase. When the swings go negative, charge is diminished in the 2nd capacitor. When the oscillations peter out, the effective Coloumb charge from the first cap is dispersed throughout the whole circuit; equilibrium has been found. Measuring the charges work out mathematically.

By adding the diode, positive oscillations charge the dipole of the 2nd cap. When the LC oscillations between the 1st cap and the inductor go negative, the diode prevents the depletion from the 2nd cap. When the oscillations go positive again, this second round of positive charge potential adds to the dipole effect of the 2nd capacitor. Here is where the teaspoon & bucket analogy no longer works.

You have noted that as the charge potential of the 2nd cap builds higher and higher, the effect diminishes. This is because the source potential from the 1st cap doesn't have sufficient delta to have much of an effect on the 2nd cap. Your LC Tank Circuit with the added diode merely acts as a charge pump to polarize the dipole in the 2nd cap. Effectively, you could harness this energy usefully. The high gains could add to the efficiency of a larger circuit with a load so long as the voltage difference between cap1 and cap2 is sufficiently large.

A suggestion might be Bedini's "2 batteries on one side and one on the other" design. Charge a parallel array of larger (2nd) capacitors to a low voltage from a primary LC/diode oscillation circuit; your experimental circuit. When you have, say 10% of the target voltage on the array, stack them in series to deliver a full voltage charge downstream (to the load).

[mpgmike]

I thought of another way of explaining my theory. Don't think about filling a bucket with teaspoons. Instead, think of it as stretching a rubber band, or maybe winding a clock spring. With every positive cycle in the LC Tank oscillations, the rubber stretches a bit more. Or you could say with every positive swing of the LC Tank oscillations the clock spring gets wound a bit tighter.

With the diode, every time the LC Tank oscillations go positive where the positive swing voltage potential > (2nd capacitor voltage + the diode drop), the 2nd cap gets "polarized" a bit more. The amount of polarization = the voltage/coloumbs of energy contained within that swing cycle (- diode forward voltage).

[Michael Luton]

The biggest thing to remember is that we are taught and use models for electrical work. These models are not really what is going on, but instead a workable representation that is easier for us to understand and work with. The real thing is much more complicated and harder to conceptualize. For example if you want more depth of understanding what and how electricity works, check out Erick Dollard's information on electrical transmission lines. We have really gotten away from the circuits and equipment in the digital age that lent a lot of understanding to electricity that guided people like Erick. While maybe making the learning curve different, be thankful you don't have to work with things like waveguides, mag-amps, and tunable klystrons. By the way a negative resistance in a component is nothing complicated, it is just a breakdown region in that component. Not too uncommon in semi-conductors. Just look at the characteristics curve for a common 2N2222. This was a common biasing point in better equipment for stability reasons not for gain.

The take away I'm trying to point out is do not shy away from developing your own model in your own head. This can help you see and understand in your own way. Often what I'm really looking for in these threads is not a right or wrong, instead I'm looking for a different way of seeing things to help my own model. As said by Don Campbell “If you want to make small changes, change the way you do things. If you want to make major changes, change the way you see things.”

[ZPDM]

I will look over your diagrams and get back to that.
...

You are effectively creating an LC Tank Circuit. Without the diode, you discharge the 1st cap through the inductor and the oscillations affect the whole circuit uniformly. As oscillatory swings go positive, the dipole charge on the 2nd capacitor increase. When the swings go negative, charge is diminished in the 2nd capacitor. When the oscillations peter out, the effective Coloumb charge from the first cap is dispersed throughout the whole circuit; equilibrium has been found. Measuring the charges work out mathematically.

I also visualize the AC rectification as one wave of the AC traversing the diode in conducting mode, then becoming trapped in the capacitor as it sees a blocking diode if trying to exit. I disagree that everything works out mathematically. We have the textbook definition for charge in a capacitor C*V. Discharge a 1 uF cap at 10V into an empty 10 uF cap and one experimentally observes both caps at 0.90909... volts. Charge was conserved initially 1uf *10V = 10uCoulombs. 0.90909*1uF + 0.90909*10uF also equals 10uCoulombs. When we add in the bridging diode we see not 0.9090 Volts in the big cap but say 2 volts. In which case in that cap alone there are more than 18uCoulombs. There is excess charge. Granted it is at too low a voltage to run back to the source, but there are too many coulombs. I don't bring the "ether" into it as it just adds complexity without saying anything new, I would just say that our meters show rectification of magnetic flux creates charge. That isn't very controversial it is just Faraday's law of induction, the only surprising part is to see that an input of one 1 coulomb may yield an output of 5 coulombs. But as I said the excess charge is at a low voltage and it, for me at least, is difficult to transform that voltage above one's starting voltage without the excess charge getting lost.

"With every positive cycle in the LC Tank oscillations, the rubber stretches a bit more. Or you could say with every positive swing of the LC Tank oscillations the clock spring gets wound a bit tighter."

If I understand you, I think we agree. This is also what I was mentioning in the first video, that it is the magnetic flux from the LC Tank oscillations that is bringing about the excess charge. If the tank is ringing like a bell, is the addition of a rectifying diode like adding a wet cloth to the bell, does it dampen it? Probably be difficult to see but might be worth trying. To be honest it may even be that 99% of the charge is from rectification of the first swing of the LC tank circuit and even though it is ringing, at this point can we even be sure if the ringing is adding a lot of charge?