An energy harvesting project

[JulesP]

[continued]

CoP methodology

I have attached the CoP methodology I have been using with my SSG bifilar setup. Using this I am testing to see the effect of a wide range of variables including the transistor, diodes, start voltage, charging time, rest interval, charging + connection, use of insulated or uninsulated wire, rotor magnets, number of coils and core type - and the type of coffee I drink!

The findings will inform the v5 design currently in development, which is basically a form of SG, and which will most likely be the basis of an ‘official’ research study starting early next year for which I am now preparing.

The upshot of all this is that rotor switching with a trigger coil has significant performance advantages over SS at the moment since the optimum way to trigger the transistor with a square wave is not yet fully clear. I understand that JB was disclosing more and more on this in his later years, but this process was muddled by ‘personal’ issues in connection with those who took information on this topic without his permission.

In other words, the solid-state story, with regard to my work, has yet to be fully written and explored. Meanwhile, the rotor-based story is unfolding in a very positive way and will provide valuable material and understanding regarding how radiant energy behaves and can be directed toward a self-running system.

Bear this in mind if you choose to use the BD1 board since it will give the best results with a rotor setup, such as with your own SG, and not with the v4 stand-alone coil setup.

I’m also sure that my liaison with the company that works in this area will also positively contribute to the solid state story in due course.

It seems our posts are getting longer and longer!

Regards,

Julian

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

Here are my responses to your responses to my earlier responses etc . . . . . .

It is not completely clear to me when you refer to what in your setup, I restarted the beginning of this thread now a couple of times, but still unclear which part of your results refer to which setup/graph, but I’ll try to answer as best as I can/understand:

Looking at the 2 charging graphs I see:
Setup 1
230811: 5 coils in parallel, PWM, Commonground/generator mode. I assume then no magnets. So I
assume no rotor is used here, just solid state.

Yes, just using the SSG (BD-1) circuit in place of v4 with PWM to see how it behaved. I hadn't wound the bifilar coil at that point.

Setup 2
230812: 1 coil, trigger coil (=bifilar wound?), common ground/Generator mode (so NO classic radiant charging???). How did you determine the +/- correct amount of windings for the trigger coil & main coil? I assume then a rotor is used with 5 magnets (have the other coils been removed to prevent interference?) I assume the ‘ charging data using monopole charger’ information belongs to this setup.

Yes, no SG mode as that is not working on my setup (due to the way I have connected the out - to the supply +, but should work on the revised board I have sent you the files for as I’m trying a different connection in the revised design.

-You already made a good start with simplifying things to understand parameters better by going back to the simple PCB you now use. In case you’re using 5 coils go back to one coil for now, but it seems you did that in setup 2.

The other coils are all disconnected but sitting there are lumps of conductor so will certainly have an effect on the rotor. One piece of very important information that I have just confirmed is that the extra coils in my setup, while not electrically connected to the BD1, are indeed making a substantial and positive contribution to the CoP. Since radiant energy gets everywhere in the system, the extra mass that the coils provide acts like the extra plate mass in a larger battery. A recent test with all the extra coils removed, and so with just the bifilar coil in place, came in at 0.5 compared to 1.05 with the extra coils (with no cores) in place. I will see if putting the ferrite cores back in increases this still further.

This implies that with my SSG, if it is running with just a single bifilar coil, will not achieve OU despite all the refinements of the parameters. However, I have not yet installed the larger rectangular magnets onto the rotor circumference to more closely mimic the original monopole motor design, even if my rotor is not a larger diameter bicycle wheel.

The upshot of these findings is that radiant energy can and does use any localized conductors and magnetic material to distribute its effects and so a suitable array of magnetic/conducting mass will enhance the overall performance.

This is similar to my observation with the v4 in SS mode, that when I pulled out the rotor the performance went down since the rotor magnets were enhancing the fields in all the coils being triggered by the PWM.

This is one of the reasons why I plan to use five coils instead of one with 5+1 windings, the extra ‘magnetic mass’ will contribute to the effect. I will still be able to use a multiple-winding coil with the v5. For example, I could measure the relative performance of one 3+1 coil, taking up three switched channels, and then the remaining 4 coil slots will provide 2 x 2 coils in parallel taking up the last two channels. This will give a mix of three fully synchronized pulses together with 2 ‘machine tolerance’ synchronized pulses; if you get my drift. This can be compared to 5 ‘machine tolerance’ synchronized pulses.

-Discharging a battery to 5-10% of its full capacity is very deep discharging, I assume you are using a battery that is made for this kind of deep discharging? (Although I have to admit I did more or less the same in my initial tests with my Bedini sg in classic/radiant mode).
-A 40Ah battery sounds like a lot for a single transistor… then also recharging takes a long time (single coil, bifilar wound). This is potentially one of the reasons why you are not able to push to higher voltages. [/FONT]

I took the 40Ah down very far for a particular type of test but it has recovered it seems and is back up to around 12.5V and ready for later runs when I compare the 7Ah with 17,18,40 and 100Ah batteries. I now have a deep cycle 100Ah battery that should prove interesting.

The larger batteries are said to respond better to radiant energy as they have a larger mass and mass appears to be important. As you say 0.25A is small and so will take days to charge up such a battery but I have no reasonable way to change the current without reducing the effectiveness of the BD-1 via the tuning. No doubt using additional coils in parallel with this circuit will increase the current and charging effect. Also the v5, with its 5 separate channels will likely draw much more current.

I’m using 7Ah at the moment to be able to conduct 2-4 tests in a day while I explore the effect of changing the many parameters. Once I have tied down the responses then I will increase Ah.

In the 3^rd Bedini SG manual, page 26 under the heading “ Classic SG baseline input measurements”, there is some mention about amp draw. (I do see in your setup 1 & 2 a 7Ah battery mentioned, that seems more appropriate.)
When you’re using PWM, you can play with the duty cycle to increase the power, and see if you can push the voltage higher.

Yes, I have played with the duty while using the PWM to increase current but again, the CoP using the PWM is substantially lower than using the trigger coil.

If you use a trigger coil, you can reduce the base resistance, or better make it variable (see the second Bedini SG handbook) -> How does your signal from the magnetic field collapse/HV pulse look like? If the latter is the case your base resistance should be changed so it does single shots per magnet pass. As can be read in the 2^nd Bedini handbook -> with a variable resister you can ‘speed up’ your rotor after changing this variable-resister value when the machine runs. (but it seems you’re not running in classic SG mode, so the last parts is probably not applicable right now).

I have adjusted the trigger circuit as proposed in the SG-3 book, adjusting it so that the rotor runs fastest and with the lowest current. As the trigger circuit is acting like the TDC adjustment in an old type engine, then we want the lowest current which here is around the 0.2-0.28A mark.

I don’t see any way to increase the current without reducing efficiency and I don’t see the need to. It will naturally increase when the coils require it. The whole setup seems to display a feedback loop from the battery back to the coils in that the state of the battery, where it is on its charging profile, and various other factors, all affect the current demand of the circuit.

When you use 1 coils with trigger winding in classic radiant mode -> When the rotor is at full speed, is it single triggering, or do you see multiple ‘shots’ magnet pass?

I have only done one divider/scope for each of the transistors. Both have the clear ‘h’ shape and maybe that is a good thing as it indicates some current/charge component instead of just a potential-only pulse?

Pulse comparisons.jpg

I haven’t had the circuit run in SG mode yet, only Gen mode but it would be interesting to see how the pulse train looked. I have adjusted the trigger pot for maximum rpm and minimum current as specified in the SG-2 book.

Wouldn't multiple output pulses with each magnet pass be useful?

Charging Curvers: 230811 starts to look more like mine. Why did you not let it run longer? To see if the voltage would increase?

This charging curve didn’t seem to want to go much higher but only a much longer test would show if it would. The voltage seems to plateau out at around the 13V level and increased charging just seems to lock in the charged status more - but other tests will clarify that.

How long were you charging your 12Ah AGM battery to reach 15V and at what supply current? Also, have you tried measuring the current in the + charging cable? When I used a clamp meter on it I got a negative reading! Is that ‘negative energy’? Lol

Wow! Huge difference changing your connection, no?? Would LOVE to see something happening with ANY of my machines, but so far changing connections didn’t change a thing so far&#8230 [/FONT]

Yes, and you are already using a ‘clean’ direct connection with the v4. I have been using the connection hubs/studs that seem to have disrupted the flow. I am soon to test a direct connection straight off the Drain and then without the cable insulation. This might show if insulated or non-insulated cable makes a difference and this will influence the v5 board design.

Next build:
I&#8217I'd not go to using 5 coils until the charging profile issue has been solved in this mode, but up to you. If you want to go to 5 coils as you describe it with 1 trigger coil, it comes down to very accurate machining AND accurate manufacturing process of the magnets. This is not based on my own experience, but theoretical thinking for the same reason you mentioned: pulse synchronization. If you want to increase output power and go for the setup from the handbooks -> 1 coil, multi wound, + trigger winding.

In the v5 plan, as I say above, I do have the option of say a 4 winding coil (3 power and 1 trigger) and using the other 2 channels with the remaining 4 coil positions (so 2 coils in parallel for each remaining channel). I will also be adjusting the magnetics by attaching larger rectangular ones to my rotor (with the SSG) to see if the flux linkage will be improved over my 20mm dia rotor magnets. Should be interesting.

I’m confused about the solid state triggering: So in your setup nr 1 you use PWM to trigger the transistor (as in the image of post 108); no rotor. In the V4 board you were using a Mosfet with gate driver. So you’re question related “to how to drive the circuit with the PWM any differently than I have done up till now.” Is that you’re wondering how to drive the transistor in a different way?

When I first assembled the BD-1 it was of interest to see how it responded to a PWM input as used in the v4 since I had not yet wound the bifilar coil. I also wanted to see how the 2N3055/MJL21194 responded to a square wave input with just one of my regular coils (the other were not connected to this board).

My question is that JB designed a solid state setup but did not share it widely so maybe there is a way to drive the SSG/SG type circuit that is better than the way I have done so far (PWM/driver chip and FET). If there is then I would like to integrate it into my v5 so it can be used in comparison to the trigger coil method.

Yes, I got bigger CoPs with the v4 but they have a more ‘phantom’ voltage quality where the energy would not be there on discharge. With the BD-1 the CoP is closer to 1 but the energy available upon discharge is more ‘real’. If I had measured Ah in and out I would likely have got lower CoPs.

This is the main reason why I decided to go ‘retro’ to the SSG to see how the charging was different. It certainly seems to be although I don’t know exactly how or why.

The primary issue of the CoP values with trigger coil vs PWM is the effectiveness of the resulting pulses on the battery. For reasons that are not yet clear using the PWM is not as effective as the trigger coil. For any one trigger method, a higher supply current will reduce the CoP but here there is something different in the way the trigger coil works with the transistor compared to how the transistor responds to a PWM trigger. It may be due to a ‘resonance’ phenomenon in the transistor as I have heard it said that these two transistors are the only ones with the right qualities for producing effective radiant charging. I have no idea yet what those qualities are.

It is unclear to me whether you refer to the my built of your SolidState (SS) setup, or my Bedini SG build and in which mode. So I’ll try to answer them all.

I was referring to the v4 for supply currents but it’s helpful to have others too. With your SG I presume this is a 7-power and 1 trigger coil winding as per the book? I expect the current values are typical and they are much larger than with my SSG with its 1+1 windings.

With the v4 these are in a similar range to mine although the duty cycle will make a wide range of options there.

The current demand can have wide-ranging consequences. Firstly you may achieve better and faster charging that will probably contribute to you getting the curve shape you have however, the higher current will drop the CoP (larger denominator in the energy division) unless you are electing a proportionally larger radiant effect.

Once again it’s finding the sweet spot with each variable. Coil voltage (load value) is particularly important here and where there is a higher chance of radiant effects anyway (SSG/SG) then small adjustments can nudge you OU. Hence the supply options I built into the v4 and which will also be in the v5.

Lowering or raising the load coil V to around 12V, down or up from whatever the supply battery happens to give you, can be significant (as can various other factors!) A cheap Buck converter can be worth getting (e.g.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/314027833106) and similarly with a Boost converter. More to the point they help to maintain the voltage when the battery voltage is dropping over time.

This is the procedure I would do with a new battery OR when a battery has been sitting on the shelf for a while:
Do charge cycles with a REGULAR charger, while monitoring the charge profile. Discharge with CBA, somewhere between 8-20% out of the battery (but always the same chosen value). Repeat this process until your charging profile becomes stable. That means +/-same charging times & same max voltage where the charger stops charging. Depending on the battery this can easily take up 10-15 cycles… (NOTE: I needed to do it this way since I disconnected my regular charger after 10h of charging during the initial cycles when the battery was still not charged. Would I have left the charger on for longer, I might have needed way less cycles…) [/FONT]

Thanks for sharing your conditioning process. Why do you think that you shouldn't start IPC (inductive pulse charging) straight away with a new battery? Is there an essential need for regular charging first?

[Continued in next post due to character limit]

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

I will respond to your longer post over the next week but to your last post then yes, I would be happy to send you the Gerber files for printing and the components list. However, I have one spare board left I think, in which case if you email me your address I will post it to you. But again, I have made a few revisions to the first board, like including an SG/GEN switch option and if you prefer I will send you the updated circuit and Gerber files for the latest version.

The components list will be emailed (I will need to update it with some useful links)

J

Good luck with the house upheavals!

[pearldragon]

As a next step for me I was considering using a new PCB v4 build, bypassing anything I do not need for the basic functionality (e.g. the whole swapper circuit). But now I'm considering to start testing with that small PCB you're using at the moment as well...: Much simpler, and therefore also easier to compare results with your, and once we're a bit aligned -> build up to more complex stuff again.
What do you think about this?
May I trouble you for the manufacturing files of that PCB and a list (with links) of the components that you used?

(Still in the switching housing transition, will be very busy in the upcoming 2 months, but at least I can try to order the components already).

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

My SSG Observations:
It is not completely clear to me when you refer to what in your setup, I restarted the beginning of this thread now a couple of times, but still unclear which part of your results refer to which setup/graph, but I’ll try to answer as best as I can/understand:

Looking at the 2 charging graphs I see:
Setup 1
230811: 5 coils in parallel, PWM, Commonground/generator mode. I assume then no magnets. So I
assume no rotor is used here, just solid state.

Setup 2
230812: 1 coil, trigger coil (=bifilar wound?), commonground/Generator mode (so NO classic radiant charging???). How did you determine the +/- correct amount of windings for the trigger coil & main coil? I assume then a rotor is used with 5 magnets (have the other coils been removed to prevent interference?) I assume the ‘charging data using monopole charger’ information belongs to this setup.

-You already made a good start with simplifying things to understand parameters better by going back to the simple PCB you now use. In case you’re using 5 coils go back to one coil for now, but it seems you did that in setup 2.
-Discharging a battery to 5-10% of its full capacity is very deep discharging, I assume you’re using a battery that is made for this kind of deep discharging? (Although I have to admit I did more or less the same in my initial tests with my Bedini sg in classic/radiant mode).
-A 40Ah battery sounds like a lot for a single transistor… then also recharging takes long (single coil, bifilar wound). This is a potentially on of the reason why you’re not able to push to higher voltages.
In the 3^rd Bedini SG manual, page 26 under the heading “Classic SG baseline input measurements”, there is some mentioning about amp draw. (I do see in your setup 1 & 2 a 7Ah battery mentioned, that seems more appropriate.)
When you’re using PWM, you can play with the duty cycle to increase the power, and see if you can push the voltage higher. If you use a trigger coil, you can reduce the base resistance, or better make it variable (see the second Bedini SG handbook) -> How does your signal from the magnetic field collapse/HV pulse look like? When you use 1 coils with trigger winding in classic radiant mode -> When the rotor is at full speed, is it single triggering, or do you see multiple ‘shots’ magnet pass? If the latter is the case your base resistance should be changed so it does single shots per magnet pass. As can be read in the 2^nd Bedini handbook -> with a variable resister you can ‘speed up’ your rotor after changing this variable-resister value when the machine runs. (but it seems you’re not running in classic SG mode, so the last parts is probably not applicable right now).

Charging Curvers:
230811 starts to look more like mine. Why did you not let it run longer? To see if the voltage would increase?

Wow! Huge difference changing your connection, no?? Would LOVE to see something happening with ANY of my machines, but so far changing connections didn’t change a thing so far…

Next build:
I’d not go to using 5 coils until the charging profile issue has been solved in this mode, but up to you. If you want to go to 5 coils as you describe it with 1 trigger coil, it comes down to very accurate machining AND accurate manufacturing process of the magnets. This is not based on my own experience, but theoretical thinking for the same reason you mentioned: pulse synchronization.
If you want to increase output power, I’d go for the setup from the handbooks -> 1 coil, multi wound, + trigger winding.
I’m confused about the solid state triggering: So in your setup nr 1 you use PWM to trigger the transistor (as in the image of post 108); no rotor. In the V4 board you were using a Mosfet with gate driver. So you’re question related “to how to drive the circuit with the PWM any differently than I have done up till now.” Is that you’re wondering how to drive the transistor in a different way?

Solid state triggering:
“So one of the features of the next build will be the option to drive it with a PWM, as is done with the v4 replication build.” So the V5 will have an option for a Mosfet and Transistor.

“The general view is that triggering via a dedicated trigger coil works best and I have certainly got better results using that compared to a PWM trigger with the SSG PCB. In the few CoP tests I have done with it I got 0.7 with the trigger coil and 0.4 with the PWM.”
You mean with this new tiny PCB? -> With the V4 PCB you got COPs (single cycle) that were way higher.

“For some reason, the supply current with the trigger coil is substantially higher which accounts for the lower CoP”
This seems contrary to what you stated above. I would expect the sentence to be:
“For some reason, the supply current with the PWM trigger is substantially higher which accounts for the lower CoP”

Answers to questions
Question 1
It is unclear to me whether you refer to the my built of your SolidState (SS) setup, or my Bedini SG build and in which mode. So I’ll try to answer them all .
For extensive data and graphs, see attachment.
Summary:

Bedini SG Classic Radiant mode, Output battery: AGM A
Input: PSU input 12.3V @ 0.805A

Bedini SG Generator / Common ground mode, Output battery AGM A
Input S2 + S3 in parallel 13.22-12.87V @ 1.78-1.53A

Bedini SG Generator / Common ground mode, Output battery S1 (FLA)
Input S2 + S3 in parallel 13.29-12.93V @ 1.94-1.5A

Solid State Charger, V4 PCB Generator / Common ground mode, Output: battery LA1 (FLA)
Input: PSU 12V @ 1.57-1.36A

Question 2
I think this is answered in question 1

Question 3
This is the procedure I would do with a new battery OR when a battery has been sitting on the shelf for a while:
Do charge cycles with a REGULAR charger, while monitoring the charge profile. Discharge with CBA, somewhere between 8-20% out of the battery (but always the same chosen value). Repeat this process until your charging profile becomes stable. That means +/-same charging times & same max voltage where the charger stops charging. Depending on the battery this can easily take up 10-15 cycles… (NOTE: I needed to do it this way since I disconnected my regular charger after 10h of charging during the initial cycles when the battery was still not charged. Would I have left the charger on for longer, I might have needed way less cycles…)

Then start using an pulse charger (Bedini SG or solid state) and repeat; that means don’t change any variable until you get more or less stable results. I expect within 5 or 6 cycles.

Question 4
You’re the Solids state Guru here, not me . But as can be read in my other comments, not quite sure which situation we’re talking about.

Question 5
No, but also not looked for it. If you doubt the values of the CBA, I’d say contact WestMountain Radio (and keep me in the cc please ): They’re pretty responsive to inquiries.
Post 109 - Attachment.pdf

[JulesP]

Here are the remaining relevant pics re the above post:

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

I have again summarized a range of issues under sections to make it easier for you and others to follow. I will gather any queries at the end.

My SSG Observations:

I have completed a 24hr run and two 12 hr runs of my SG device (strictly an SSG) to see if ‘radiant effects’ show. The 24h run was using the PCB version of the circuit and the other two were with a hardwired version (components connected with wire and connecting blocks) rather than PCB tracks. Here I was checking to see if the PCB format was somehow interfering with the radiant energy flow.

The graph below shows that again my voltages are not going above 12.5 for a 40Ah battery discharged down to about 5-10%Ah, so with very little of its charge left. It took most of the 24h to reach 12.5V and the supply current was around 0.25A. I don’t have a way to increase that and perhaps it is too low to charge well with spikes of only 130V.



So far then, the SSG has not demonstrated radiant charging in a clear way despite a few others seeing such with their builds. However, I have made progress on the charging curve differences, in fact, I think it is now 'half' solved.


Charging Curves:

The issue of why you are getting the curves you are, and up to 15V, has been perplexing, but I think I have part of the answer, or at least the charging profile is now very similar to yours, just that the voltage is still 'low'.

In going through the various possible causes of the problem, I looked at the connection from the HV output to the battery. As you may recall, I don't have an unbroken connection but go first to a connection stud where other related connections meet up (see pic), before going on to the battery. I wondered if the stud was somehow radiating away energy. This is a possibility given that this type of energy travels along the surface of the conductor and, since the junction is not covered in an insulating layer and presents a significant junk of metal, it may cause a 'disruption' to the flow. So I have done some measurements using a direct connection (see pic) with both the v4 and the BD1 (SSG) to see how it changes things.

I was pleasantly surprised that with the v4 (parameters shown on the graph) the curve shape was much closer to yours and steeper at the start. It didn't reach above 12.75 during charging but I think this is a major breakthrough. So I have now done an SSG test using the direction connection as in the pic below that. The first obvious change is that the rotor is now spinning at close to 700rpm compared to 350-400rpm before. The derived CoP is now 1.16 (60 mins left after charging and discharging). A distinct improvement













Next build:


The logic of going back to build the SSG has now proved fruitful in that the next battery of tests will refine what parameters work best and I will report on these in a few weeks. The obvious development is for me to now use five coils, as in my usual arrangement, but each with its own transistor. While I could make a 6-winding single coil (5 power and 1 trigger), as in the SG books, I will try 5 separate coils, and where one of them will have the trigger coil (probably use the SSG coil I have recently made for those two windings). While pulse synchronization might be an issue, the accurate machining of my rotor may prevent that. Besides I could easily instead consider the 4 additional coils as 'recovery' coils and the single and trigger winding as the main drive coil.

The idea that the five coils I have used up til now, being in parallel, might be dissipating their energy into each other before it reaches the output diode, has been suggested, and the next build will test that idea. Others have said that parallel coils work very well. With everything else the same, it will be a useful comparison anyway.

Here is the draft PCB then for v5 and where I am still waiting on any thoughts about how to drive the circuit with the PWM any differently than I have done up till now. The exposed copper output tracks give me the option to thicken them with solder for lower impedance.

Since the limit of images attached is five, I have attached the next 4 images to the following supplemental post.

Pic in next post


Solid state triggering:

The results from driving the SSG using a PWM are significantly worse than when using the prescribed trigger coil, so if I am going to include an SS option on the v5 board then I would need to ensure that it was being triggered in an optimum way. So one of the features of the next build will be the option to drive it with a PWM, as is done with the v4 replication build.

The general view is that triggering via a dedicated trigger coil works best and I have certainly got better results using that compared to a PWM trigger with the SSG PCB. In the few CoP tests I have done with it I got 0.7 with the trigger coil and 0.4 with the PWM. For some reason, the supply current with the trigger coil is substantially higher which accounts for the lower CoP. These CoP values will be better though, now that I am using a direct connection.

One very positive observation using the SSG is that any elevated voltages obtained after testing, do not evaporate as soon as I put a load on them with a discharge. They are not like the ‘phantom’ voltages (from high levels of surface charge) that result from using 2 - 4.5kV spikes from earlier tests. My growing understanding of battery conditioning is that it is possible to charge with a mix of 'hot' and 'cold' electricity to customize the battery's conditioning response. These details are emerging from the company with whom I am exchanging ideas etc. I'm sure in time some of these innovations will bleed into my updated manual and device for others to use.

Overall I don't think my SSG is best equipped yet to show radiant effects as much as an SG, but it is showing some traits that are better than the v4 (my one that is). In particular, the voltages rises are less 'phantom' and more load-sustaining, even if the resulting CoP is below or just above 1 at the moment. The 1.12 value I have so far achieved is more 'solid' than those based on high levels of surface charge. Things can only get better from here, and perhaps the peak voltage achieved during charging is not as important for CoP results as was previously thought.


Internal resistance:

The question of the battery's internal resistance is important, and indeed so is the impedance at critical points in the system. Having just acquired a new deed cycle 100Ah battery, I thought I would put my milliohm meter across the terminals (see pic) to see if I could do a direct measurement of the IR. I had hoped it would give me a reading directly but that doesn't seem to happen. I think the chemistry has to be active in discharge for the electrolyte ions to contribute to the internal resistance pathway.

Yes, one can use the CBAs system and I have the enhanced package for that, but the values are way too high for a fluid-filled battery and so presumably include all the cables and other resistances. I was told one can insert a value into the software to offset that but I haven't found it yet.


Pic in next post



Battery size:

With all these issues in getting the higher voltages, certainly, the battery itself may be another major factor. To test this I am going to pulse charge the brand new 100Ah one which has a substantial mass. Mass is turning out to be one of those key factors in OU observations. In effect, the bigger the battery the better the response.

With this in mind then I recently was introduced to the work of Ossie Callanan from Australia. His self-running system uses an 'accumulator' that is, in effect, a third battery. He argues that the single charging battery is not able to process all the pulses but that the accumulator bank of batteries (dead and heavily sulfated ones he uses) can absorb the pulses and then apply its response back to the single charging battery. Every so often the supply and charging batteries can be swapped over or the charging battery replaced with another and the energy from the swapped-out one used.

The logic behind this approach seems similar to the 'three' battery system JB and others have talked about. I expect that the mechanisms behind them are similar.

Pic in next post

Here is a graphic depicting the comparison with the standard Generator mode. Are these functionally the same, despite the obvious polarity swap and the coil being switched at the top instead of the bottom (with corresponding diode reversal)? If they are then it would be relatively simple to add an accumulator to the current setup to observe a 'three battery' system.


Pic in next post


Queries:

1. What is a typical supply current for one of your 15V peak charging cycles with the AGM battery?


2. Do you have any charging graphs for other batteries besides the X1 AGM battery?


3. From your observations, how many cycles do you think it takes to reach a satisfactory 'conditioned' status?


4. Any thoughts on the optimum solid-state coil triggering?


5. Have you found an adjustment in the CBA-enhanced software to allow for cable resistance with IR measurements?


I will report on parameter comparisons with the SSG in the near future.

Julian

[JulesP]

Gary,

Having now acquired the video and watched it, I must say it’s a brilliant exposition on the really important aspects of these devices and also of the larger social context of where these devices sit.

Most valuable!

J

[JulesP]

Hi Gary,

I would imagine that, apart from showing actual devices, the videos have more info than the SG1-3 books? I’m sure they will be of interest. I’m also liaising with Peter on the issues.

I have installed an ‘SG’ circuit board and will be able to wind the dedicated coil soon.

Regards

Julian

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Julian and Rodolphe,

Rodolphe asked me to respond to his observations of the radiant affect on the PSU as discussed in the last two posts of this thread. I did that in a PM to Rodolphe. But I would also recommend a download from E-Media Press for each of you to purchase, which helps explain what's happening in these circuits. It's a $17 package of two videos (one by Arron and one by Peter) as well as a simple PDF file drawing of the circuit under discussion in the videos. https://emediapress.com/shop/john-bedinis-self-recharging-monopole-motor/

Regards,
Gary Hammond,

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

It’s been a while since your post but, with so much going on at the moment, I will only be able to reply once a week.

Wiring modes:

I think our wiring depictions agree. My main point is that, despite the ‘Generator’ mode being considered to give better results, I get the best results so far in SG mode, primarily due to the reduction in the supply current. Hopefully, that will change in the future.

At the moment I can’t explain why my ‘Common’ mode is not affecting your PSU (or supply battery when used) in the way it was affected in your SG build. I expect some explanation will pop into view at some point. However, I see the fact that my design doesn’t interfere with your PSU as further evidence that it is not producing full radiant effects; so as a negative. I would be more encouraged if it did upset a power supply, which might be expected if ‘radiant’ energy was more evident. So it’s not that the V4 circuit has or has not got one or other components, or that its Common Earth mode is somehow significant, but that, as a system, its radiant effects are minimal.

The spikes will impact the supply battery in SG, Gen and CGM modes since the battery, or the positive terminal in SG mode, is connected to the spike pathway in some or other fashion. How it impacts it is not known or clear at the moment.

In the same way, different batteries result in different current draws, even if their voltages are the same. The micro energetics are clearly complicated. In my earlier text, I meant to say T opens, as the spike appears when the transistor has just opened, as per regular electrical theory.

Charging Profiles:

I am particularly interested in the charging profiles you have obtained with the v4 board. After several hours you have reached approaching 15V, even if it does drop back again a lot. I have so far only achieved approaching 13V, but then I have not regularly charged a battery for 3 hours continuously.

I wonder if the different type of terminals used by us to connect the coils makes any difference?

I have just started to see how an SG circuit performs using one of my present coils (14 Ohm). I have not yet wound a new one incorporating a trigger winding so, while I’m setting up to do that, I’m running the BD1 board using the 2N3055 transistor, IN4007 output diode, in SG or Gen mode and using the PWM module in lieu of the trigger coil. The board can be switched to use the MJL21194 transistor, an Silicon Carbide output diode and, as mentioned, run with a trigger coil.

First observations are positive in that the residual voltage increase after 30min charging is significantly higher than I have seen using my system. Also the raised voltage is more 'solid' and not prone to vanishing the moment a load is put on. Compare a 3 hour charging curve I did yesterday with the BD1 circuit, with one of yours. A very different shape and yours is more in line with that presented in the SG-2 book (see third graph). Your one fits very well with that, ignoring the rapid fall off after turning off. If only it was clear why ours are so different, that would solve a large part of the problem.

Your battery is an AGM and not fluid filled, yes? And what was the resistance? Still 14 Ohms?










I have just measured the peak spike voltage at 130V and it is possible that the type of active device is of much greater significance than previously thought. That and the coil impedance, and where a 4 Ohm coil will probably perform much better than my 14 Ohm one.

I don’t know much about the other chargers you refer to. Do the Teslagenx chargers result in a CoP>1, if they are based on Bedini’s original circuits? If not, why not?

From memory Gary told me his best CoP was around 1.05-1.1.

I will pass on any useful ideas and data as they emerge, but on a weekly basis or thereabouts.

Regards,

Julian

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

I’ll go in through your response in a bit of a chaotic order. The reason that I do this is that I see that we’re starting to misunderstand each other regarding some definitions and interpretations and I want to address those items first hoping to get our thought trains back on track there

Common ground mode & Generator mode:
You’re defining the two as different, the difference being an extra diode. As I understood from Gary (and I agree) this extra diode is only there to prevent the input and output battery from (partially) equalizing instantly when the circuit is fully connected when the input battery would sit >0.6V in resting voltage higher than the output battery, assuming a diode with a Fv of 0.6V. If the input battery would sit >1.2V higher than the output battery, you’d even need another extra diode. If your input battery resting voltage is <0.6 than the output battery, you can leave it out.
The terms Common ground mode & Generator mode come from page 21 of the Advanced Bedini SG manual, are used interchangeable there and so I’ve used them interchangeable as well: there is no difference in operation principle.

Common ground (CGM) mode & Generator mode (GM) impact on PSU
“I hear what you say about my common earth mode being somehow different than generator mode, regarding the use with a PSU.”
My point was not that your Common Ground mode has a different effect on the PSU than Generator mode. As described above, they’re the same, that diode does not change its workings. What I intended to convey, is that although your circuit is in theory as much an CGM/GM as the circuitry in from the advanced Bedini SG handbook is, the same PSU that I used for the Bedini SG in CGM/GM was unusable with the Bedini SG CGM/GM, and can be used for your circuit. In other words, some of the component (maybe from the auxiliary circuits) in your circuit change the impact on the input (PSU), (and so on the input (battery or PSU)).

“If JB’s design and intention were to have the HV spikes affect the supply battery as well in Generator mode, then please indicate the proposed pathway.”
In my responses below I leave cap dump circuit out of the equation for no since I did not experiment enough with it so say something sensible about it.
In the two images on the left side, Fig 3 of your last posted document “DEVELOPMENTS UPDATE”, there you see that the input (battery or PSU) is included in the circuit when the HV spike is discharged in CGM/GM.
Although you’ve indicated it almost the same already in Fig 3 in your update, in attachment 1 another way of visualizing it. What JB intended (in my opinion), since the input is in the circuit when the HV spike discharges, it draws current from the input in its wake. So what hits the output battery, is a HV spike in combination with some normal current. (although I’m not sure if ‘normal’ here is the correct term).
You might not expect it, but BOTH in Classic SG mode AND CGM/GM the input (battery or PSU) receive some sort of pulse from the coil discharge. If you measure at your input battery you’ll see it on your scope.

“When it comes to SG mode, then I can see how the impact of HV spikes on the receiving battery can also affect the supply battery. Even if C and S were not in the circuit (i.e. no cap dump circuit), the two batteries are effectively in series and so some charging effects will be carried through to both when transistor T closes.”
But what happens is opposite to what you describe here: it is when the Transistor OPENS (=not conducting) when the spike takes place. With the transistor open (=not conductin), the input (battery or PSU) is at one terminal disconnected; where it connects to the transistor -> emitter side. But, as mentioned above, if you measure around the terminals of the input battery, although it is only connected with 1 terminal during the HV spike discharge you WILL see a spike there as well…
(in case you’re interested I do have somewhere a CBA recording of my Bedini SG in CGM/GM where I completely disconnected 1 of the terminals to the input battery, connected my renaissance charger to the output battery, and still would see that it would charge the input battery AS WELL!!)

Charging profiles
Please find the data you requested in Attachment 2 (24Ah FLA) & Attachment 3 (12Ah AGM). Just to clarify: these high voltages I mentioned in my previous post are at the peak of the charging cycle, NOT resting voltages.

Classic SG mode 20% less energy draw
“You refer to SG mode as radiant mode but so far the only advantage I have seen in using that mode is the reduced supply current, down to about 20% of that in common earth mode.”
According to the advanced SG handbook the CGM/GM uses indeed a bit more energy but the output is more as well resulting in a net higher COP. That is according to Lindemann’s setup.

Bedini SG
“With your earlier SG build you seemed to be getting some good charging but, if it were performing as Bedini et al. proposed, then surely you would have got a clearer CoP>1”
“This adds weight to my plan to use the original SG circuit to find out where and why many SG builds have not been as successful as hoped. As I say in the report, one can’t expect to build a more powerful version if there is a fundamental ‘pinch’ point or blockage in the basic build. All we do is complicate the problem and make it harder to achieve our goals.”
See my last post #206 in the thread where I discussed/compared/upgraded my Bedini SG as much as possible to match Gary’s results:
https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...g-build/page14

Renaissance battery Garger TeslaGenX
http://www.teslagenx.com/chargers/tx...egory=chargers
This is HV spike cap dump charger. So like you’ve been experiencing with. Also discussed in the Intermediate handbook, with the difference that it is a Solid State version (like yours).

Testing with 1 & 5 coils
“Since you mention experimenting with more or less coils, here is a graph showing the use of 1 - 5 coils.”
I only did full charge/discharge cycles with 5 coils.
Only to test individual parameters I sometimes connect just 1 coil to make sure I isolate the parameter and don’t have any interference from multiple coils.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

Post 102 - Attachment 1.pdf
Post 102 - Attachment 2.pdf
Post 102 - Attachment 3.pdf

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

I designed my generator to have a common earth since that allowed for a battery swapper that switched just the positive line. I have recently modified the V4 circuitry to allow switching between common earth, classic SG, and generator modes and where the generator and common earth modes are the same except for the inclusion of an extra diode in the former.

A good diagram to see the earlier 'common earth' only wiring is on the front cover of the manual. The common earth connection point is clearly visible at the top left.

The figure below shows the recently revised v4 wiring to be used with the new Low Sided Cap dump circuit that I am setting up and testing now. Notice the change to a 'non-combined' earth post for the mode changes, compared to the original V4 design.



You refer to SG mode as radiant mode but so far the only advantage I have seen in using that mode is the reduced supply current, down to about 20% of that in common earth mode.

This is certainly helpful in allowing any net charging to be more visible compared to the drain on the supply battery (see Fig 4 in my latest update report and below), but so far it has not resulted in more radiant energy effects being observed.



With your earlier SG build you seemed to be getting some good charging but, if it were performing as Bedini et al. proposed, then surely you would have got a clearer CoP>1.

This adds weight to my plan to use the original SG circuit to find out where and why many SG builds have not been as successful as hoped. As I say in the report, one can’t expect to build a more powerful version if there is a fundamental ‘pinch’ point or blockage in the basic build. All we do is complicate the problem and make it harder to achieve our goals.

So not having 'Classic SG' wiring in my original design is only part of the reason why I need to take a temporary lateral step.

I hear what you say about my common earth mode being somehow different than generator mode, regarding the use with a PSU. Looking at the classic SG and generator modes on the right of the first diagram above, I’m not clear how generator mode results in HV pulses impacting the supply battery. My common earth pathway is effectively the same as the Generator one but without the extra DG diode. With reference to the ‘Generator mode circuit’ diagram on the right, the HV pulses meet the capacitor and are absorbed there. Possibly some could reach the receiving battery directly, but there is no obvious pathway for them to find their way to either pole of the supply battery on the left. That suggests that in your SG build there was some ‘accidental’ pathway where they could do that. I certainly can’t see one in my V4 build which is why you don’t get that interference. If JB’s design and intention were to have the HV spikes affect the supply battery as well in Generator mode, then please indicate the proposed pathway.

When it comes to SG mode, then I can see how the impact of HV spikes on the receiving battery can also affect the supply battery. Even if C and S were not in the circuit (i.e. no cap dump circuit), the two batteries are effectively in series and so some charging effects will be carried through to both when transistor T closes.

I have not been able to take a battery above approximately 13V with either HV or cap dump charging. The over potentialisation of the electrolyte is a feature of radiant charging and the fact that others have been able to hold voltages for a period of time over 12.7V indicates that other processes are at work that go beyond the ‘normal’ thermodynamics . The electrochemistry is such that under normal charging it should settle back to around 12.7V when fully charged, even if charged at 14.2V to drive the process forward in a normal charger.

You say you have reached 14.84V with my design which is very interesting. Can you clarify the FET used, PRF, duty, charging time, and supply current? Presumably, no swapping was used there. Do you have any voltage-time plots you can share, with or without swapping; like mine here? This one shows the result of 'punctuated' swapping where after each swap a rest period is allowed to allow the voltages the settle. if even a moderate degree of radiant effects were occurring then we should expect to see a significant and stable voltage rise - not a gradual net decline.



I usually find that the charging rises quite fast but levels off around 13V so there’s an issue to explore. I haven’t used a Renaissance charger or similar but I assume these are HV pulse systems?

When you got voltages of 14.8V with your SG and the v4 generator, do they remain there or, over an hour or so, fall back down to perhaps only a fraction of a volt above the starting value, as mine do?

The high values of CoP I derived were based on the voltage changes as described in the manual. I have recently heard of others who have observed this so-called ‘phantom voltage’ effect. This is where increased voltages in the receiving battery vanish when the battery is put under load. It’s as if the voltage increase is not secured into the electrochemistry but perhaps lurks as a surface charge on the plates.

Regarding the CoP graph, I didn’t go beyond the tails shown in that case. Once it was clear that the CoP was rising, then I focused on that area. Besides I have never achieved a CoP (based on voltages) lower than 1.7 with HV pulse charging. However, as I am finding out, this does not translate to an equivalent CoP in terms of power, possibly due to a lingering 'Surface charge effect - the effect that causes the substantial initial voltage rise during charging.

Since you mention experimenting with more or less coils, here is a graph showing the use of 1 - 5 coils.



It is strange that you get a spike ‘tail’ compared to mine. I think doing what you are doing is the only way to define out why. One can bypass the driver by taking the chip out and inserting a small jumper lead between pins 2 and 7 of the dip socket. This takes the input signal straight to the output pin. The jumper lead is made with two small legs extracted from a socket and some fine wire (see pic). The driver output should be a fairly clean square wave.



Re page 74 of the manual (not 73) discharging at a rate of 3A (0.42C) is not extreme for a 7Ah battery, especially for just the 20mins required to drop 1Ah. The battery is then left 1 hour to settle before any charging. Try 1A for an hour for comparison, but heat is the issue and the battery spec sheet tells you the maximum safe discharge rate. With my battery (LP12 -7) the maximum discharge current for 20mins is 8-9A so I’m well below that.

Lithium batteries do respond well to radiant charging but it will be far more interesting to compare performance when I get to see some actual radiant effects. The charging gradient is shallower than with LAs so for a given energy input the voltage rise is less.

Yes, if I increase the PWM duty cycle the supply current goes down, which is the opposite of what I would expect. I settled on 65% for my tests. I have not yet got my hear around why the supply current behaves this way. It's as if the circuit has to acquire a certain amount of energy for the coils to do what they need and if you give it less time to do that, by reducing the duty cycle, then it has to up the current to achieve its needs. Sounds almost conscious!

When using the cap dump system then I found that the optimum cap charging occurred at a PRF of 54Hz and 40% duty and where using 1.7kV over 600V gives a modest improvement of about 20% and not nearly 3 times better, as one might expect.

Regards,

Julian

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

Complete misunderstanding (my side) regarding function of your machine (Classic SG versus Generator mode)
Reading your post/document post #99, I realized I have been misunderstanding in which operation mode your machine has been working… (If I’d spent a couple of minutes to check the schematic more in depth I would have known though.):
I was under the illusion that your machine (as you initially designed/uploaded it) was working in Classic SG mode (pure radiant). Now reading your post #99 I see that it is Common Ground mode (or Generator mode, in the Bedini Handbooks both terms are used).
This means that my comments of posts #67/#93 still hold in abstract form, but not in relation to you machine: Only classic SG mode = Pure radiant. Common ground/generator mode has also something else drawn from the input battery. I’m not sure if you can call this ‘something else’ regular current, but how I understood it from the DVDs (and Garry) is that you should be able to swap the batteries when charging in this mode.
Now also I finally understand whey you decided to go back and test with the Classic SG setup (pure radian). As explained, I continued to not understand what you’d learn from it since I was under the impression that your machine was running in the same mode. It was not. It all makes sense now.

Another reason why I was under the impression that your machine was running in classic SG mode (pure radiant) was the following:
When I first started testing with my Bedini SG, in Classic SG mode (pure radiant), I used the same PSU as I use now as input. When I modified my machine later to Common ground/generator mode and tried continuing using my PSU as input, it went bunkers: it made all kind of clicking noises (safety/overload switches being triggered) and the power supply was everything but constant. This was due to the fact that in this mode the PSU was exposed to some/part of the HV spikes too, which would trigger safety/overload relays/features.
However, when I used the same PSU as input on our machine it did NOT show this behavior at all… Why it does not, is not clear to me yet. I guess some of the components eat up that spike before it hits the PSU… but that means your system DOES perform different than Bedini’s circuit in Common ground/Generator mode, meaning that potentially your input battery does NOT gain the benefits of receiving part of the spike too… However the fact that it does not, does make it way easier to find the sweet spot with a stable PSU as input. But would be very worthwhile knowing which components in your circuit are responsible for this change in behavior.

Another thing that might (or might not) relate to this: In your report of post #99 you state that you’ve not been able to charge above 13V. Have you tried playing around with the Duty cycle to influence this?
On my Bedini SG I could indeed go up to 15+V, I don’t think I tried as high as 16V, but assume it would have been possible if the batteries chemistry would allow it.
With the battery were I’ve done the majority of testing with on your machine (24Ah, LA), I normally charged to 14.3V, since in that area was also where my regular charger would charge it to (after doing several cycles with it).
With the 12Ah AGM I charged to 14.84V, since that was the point I charged it to with my Renaissance charger from TeslaGenX before discharging 1Ah out of it. I did notice though (since I was too late to shut off your machine) that it could not push it over 14.84, but it actually declined back a bit while leaving it charging (accidentally). I’m pretty sure that if I would have charged it beyond 14.84V with the TeslaGenX charger, your machine would have charged it to that value as well. By playing with the duty cycle I probably could have pushed it further if I wanted to.

Update on tests:
As mentioned before I tested from 40Hz-160Hz, played around a bit with Duty Cycle and different active devices, but all with little effect on COP, around 42%. When factors did have effect, it was mainly influencing the COP in a negative way, but nothing that showed in improvement. A friend of mine suggested that instead of discharging 1Ah out of the battery I could also go for a lower amount (e.g. 0.5Ah) to test faster. Seemed like a good idea, but in practice this resulted (unexpected) also in a drop of COP.
Looking at Fig 52 out of your manual (also in your post #98) I used increments of 10Hz judging that with those steps I would see a hint if a sweet spot was getting closer. When I thought I saw a potential hint, I decreased steps to 5Hz, but all to no avail.
Since the battery I was testing with (see post #97) was the one that also gave the worst results with my Bedini SG, I decided to give another battery a try that gave better results with my Bedini SG: A 12Ah AGM battery: Xtreme 82-216#, 12Ah
https://xtreme-24.de/shop/public/AGM...arkenware/2454

When in the first run it also showed 41% I decided to stop testing and reconsider my setup: That these two different batteries gave almost the same COP, gave me the idea that there is another bottle neck in my setup at the moment.

Question: Looking at that Fig 52 (post #98), the bell curve shows COP 1.37/1.38 at the ends. How does the COP look in the areas further away from the peak? Is it all above 1, or did you to have the majority of the COP points in the 0.4 / 0.5 range? And thus it could be that I just did not scan far enough (that would mean above 160Hz, since I find it unlikely that the bel curve would be below 40Hz).

Strange and persistent Tail on HV spike:
One of the things I would like to find an answer to before continuing is why this “tail” shows up on my spike on the scope. You suggested that this could have to do with the (horizontal) scale on my scope. It is 5ms on my scope, and in your post #96 it is 4ms, so in the same range.
I tried the following to test see if it would influence this “tail”
-disconnected 4 of the 5 coils and connected the remaining one without the M5 bolt to eliminate potential too much capacity from the coil to the PCB (these M5 bolts connect the enameled copper wires from the coil to insulated stranded wires that go the PCB -> No effect
-disconnected 4 of the 5 coils and removed the welded rod core material (so air coils) -> No effect
-disconnected 4 of the 5 coils and filled the core with a ferrite core (coil inductance 400mH) -> No effect
-Reading your post #99 -> replaced the input PSU with a battery -> No effect

Next thing I plan to do is connect my scope again to the output signal of the FET driver and again have a look how this signal looks like with ‘HV LOAD” switch switched ON (and with another scope connected) between the output test point. Regardless how the signal looks like I might try to switch out that FET driver again and see if that makes a difference.

Regarding your COP test method, page 73 of the manual:
1. -> As showed in my previous posts, I would not do just one cycle with regular charger and take that as a reference, but do this a couple of times until the peak voltages of the charging process with the regular charger stabilizes. This applies both for new and uses batteries.
2. -> As mentioned before a discharge rate of 3A on a 7Ah battery is huge. Again, I have not tested with Li-Ion batteries yet, as you mentioned; they might handle it better than AGM/LA.

Duty Cycle:
The unit to set the frequency and duty cycle seems to work in reverse regarding Duty Cycle: When I increase the Duty Cycle (on the display) my amp draw goes down, while when I decrease the DC on the display my amp draw goes up. Do you experience the same?
Best regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

DEVELOPMENTS UPDATE

Here is an attached summary of recent work, developments and trends.

Julian


Developments Update.pdf