An energy harvesting project

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

That’s interesting and I wonder if it’s because of the reason I suggested, that there isn’t time to process the radiant energy in electrochemical terms. Does JB give any further details as to why?

What I have shown is marginal so I’m hoping the use of the cap dump system will give much clearer results.

Other researchers are using the mechanical output of the primary load (rotary switching system) to drive a normal type of generator to produce regular ’hot’ electricity. Presumably they use the HV pulses to run a cap dump system as well to feed back to the batteries.

Another major issue is around the impedance of the system and the convenience of using SLA batteries, Lead Acid or Lithium, is more than offset by their high internal resistance. A typical 7Ah battery will be around 200-300mOhms compared to a fluid filed car type battery of 20-30mOhms. One is far more likely to see radiant effects with the latter which I will soon be examining.

Yes, in due course I will be trying to run a load off the battery being charged using both HV and cap dump pulses.

Lots of variations to try, which is far better than hitting a dead end!

J

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

In the videos of John Bedini*, he mentions that if you work in pure radiant mode (=just HV pulses), you cannot swap out the output battery for the input battery when the charge cycle is done. If you do so, he mentions that the batteries will both run down. (this in contrast to using a cap dump system). However, the first image of your post #66 shows it IS possible. But as you stated it does not yield the CoP that you calculated with your previous test setup.

Taking into account what JB said, you could try the following: Use the setup that you used for the initial CoP calculations (so no swapping, DC power supply as input), and run a resistive load directly off the output battery while it is being charged, while monitoring the power used by the resistive load. Or, alternatively, instead of putting 1 batty at the output, put two in parallel. It’d be interesting to see if the CoP of any of the above two mentioned setups come closer to your original calculated CoP values.

*EFV DVD 6: Inside radiant energy. @+/-10min

Regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

A relatively short update on what has been happening with the load testing. There is both good and not so good news, but it’s early days in the process.

On the good side there is clear evidence of energy gain, which is my primary objective scientifically speaking, but so far the predicted power outputs have not been observed and I would like a much clearer result.

There are various possibilities why this might be so. One of the main contenders is that in the CoP tests only one discharge/charge cycle is undertaken with time between for the energy and charge to be chemically assimilated. In live load tests, at the end of a charging phase, the battery goes straight into a supply phase and so there is little or no time to ‘process’ the incoming energy.

The graph below is an example of where the net voltage change after a series of swaps leads the battery voltage to be the same as at the start when compared to a control run (green plot) where the monitored battery received no pulses but only acted as a supply for the other battery to be pulse charged. This is only a short test run but it shows the principle, as mentioned in my piece entitled ‘Am I seeing an energy gain?’ where the receiving battery is not losing voltage as fast as it should give the energy it is supplying to the system.



However, I believe the system is capable of far more and this is sought to demonstrate the above point far more clearly and conclusively and I am exploring a range of developments to address that. These include revisiting the cap dump circuit to see how live load tests work with it. It had been sidelined given that the CoP results were poor but, given the apparent lack of correlation between CoP and actual power output, it may be better in practice than in theory.

I will also be investigating how changing the discharge voltage from the cap dump unit affects performance including using smaller higher voltage storage capacitors for a higher rate of delivery but at a lower charge. In addition, I will be experimenting with pulse combining whereby the high current pulses from the cap dump unit are temporarily accompanied by a burst of HV spikes to accelerate the charge delivered. This is something that Peter Lindemann commented that he and Bedini had found useful and this is illustrated in the graphic below. A prototype switching circuit has been constructed to use with the cap dump unit to test this idea in the coming month or so.








Lastly, I will be seeing how changing the three output diodes (IN5408s) for one Silicon Carbide C3D06065A diode affects the pulses to remove any possibility of ‘pulse throttling’.

Plenty to be getting on with as winter merges into spring.

[JulesP]

I should have some results to post in 2-3 weeks but from initial tests the device behaviour with swapping is very different from when doing single cycle CoP tests however accurate those may be.

This may change the way you want to proceed with your build. I will likely probably be looking to find ways to improve things performance.

J

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

Thanks for your elaboration/post #60.
Once I get to the point that my setup is build, and having some experience under my belt, will for sure consider doing some of the verifications regarding my questions (e.g. the diodes).
I’ll be on a holiday for a while, but will have a look now an then here on the forum for updates. Looking forward to read through your article of post #61.
Most of the parts/components from the list I have ordered, should all trickle in in the upcoming weeks.
Regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

Thanks Gary,

It is also worth remembering that in the original story of the SG device, built by Shawnee Baughman, it describes not how the device ran some external load, but that the batteries were not running down as expected, based on what the device was consuming, but lasted much longer - which annoyed her science teachers!

In other words, the energy drain in running the device was being offset to a significant degree by the effect of the pulses on the battery.

Just repeating this observation should be seen as a substantial success.

J

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Julian,

Something to help the disheartened when it comes to seeing evidence of an energy gain.

Following on from comms with a developer, who contacted me describing their setup and who was trying to gather some evidence that their device was showing some indication of an energy gain, I have put together some thoughts on this important question that may be of use to others.

Sometimes the evidence of an energy gain is 'hidden' in plain sight.

The attached doc will explain and has been added to the Manual Appendices folder.

JAttached Files

• Am I seeing an energy gain?.pdf (56.7 KB, 1 view)

Last edited by JulesP; Today, 09:12 AM.

Thanks for posting this to encourage others. It is well written and explains things I've struggled to explain to others.

Gary Hammond,

---

[JulesP]

Something to help the disheartened when it comes to seeing evidence of an energy gain.

Following on from comms with a developer, who contacted me describing their setup and who was trying to gather some evidence that their device was showing some indication of an energy gain, I have put together some thoughts on this important question that may be of use to others.

Sometimes the evidence of an energy gain is 'hidden' in plain sight.

The attached doc will explain and has been added to the Manual Appendices folder.

J

[JulesP]

To elaborate:

The diodes (D3, D4, D5) UF5408: I assume they are fast enough, since you were able to measure the MOSFET peak/avalanche voltages with you voltage divider. Is that the reason why you did not use potentially faster silicon carbide diodes?
(Although correct on the parts list, in the electrical schematic they are still indicated as 1N5408)

I used the standard IN/UF5408 as they are easily available and when I first used them the fast silicon carbide diodes were not available. I haven’t focused on that aspect of possibly improving the kV with them.

Also, I’m not in a position to try them yet as I need to keep my components and build the same for the next stage of testing; but you certainly can. The suggestion is that they will allow through a higher kV before the avalanche kicks in with the active device. Even if that is so and you get higher kV, bear in mind that higher kVs don’t necessarily mean higher CoPs but its another dimension to some tests you can explore. As I say in my Foreword, people will bring in new findings and insights, just as I hope to in the future.

Reading at the bottom of page 54/top page 55 of the manual, I read that the COP showed a dip with 4 coils. Assuming that you tested them arranged evenly spaced in a circle, like in Fig 41, could the geometry had an influence on the COP? In other words, if the coils would have been further apart, (and not positions in any geometrical arrangement), could it be that using 4 coils would not have shown a dip in the cop?

My ‘number of coils' test was not ‘balanced’ but moved around the group. So one on its own, then two next to each other and so on. This means that there would be a larger gap between several of the spikes and I assumed that would make little or no difference. Add it on to your to do list for an interesting experiment.

On page 59, the text around Fig 48;
you speak of potential degeneration of the battery after much pulse charging. John Bedini seemed of the opinion that the pulse charging was a way of extending the life time of batteries and even exceed the manufacturer stated performance. Curious to read that you experienced differently.

The issue of possible battery damage is young and in no way clear to me. It is very possible that the increasing calendric age of a battery that is being charged with a regular ‘hot’ charger, is causing that by not fully removing the natural build up of Lead Sulphate on the plates. If the harder (covalent bonded) type forms then it takes special steps to break that down to the softer, ionic bonded type (so Peter Lindemann shared with me).

When I get to look at the battery State of Health (SoH) then some of these issues will become clearer so at the moment I have no good evidence for any particular position on it but only some suggestions based on the observed drop in capacity. So it could be down to regular battery charging and as yet I also have no ideas about how pulses can improve matters other than the pulses may ‘over-potentialise’ the electrolyte and help in the aforementioned breakup of PbSO₄ crystals - before they fall to the bottom of the battery and become out of reach to any remedial measures!

Of course will gel batteries all the electrolyte is held as a spongy gel but it is still possible to damage them by eager chargers that try to push too much current through them as dry out the gel and where the water is forced out through the release vents.

Page 64, fig 52 And any other measurements like Table 7 (page 37):
When you did a particular measurement, with a certain set of parameters, did you do these measurements several times, to see if the COP stayed stable? Or are they all one-off measurements?
I ask this since with my Bedini SG I was having a lot of trouble getting stable/constant COP reading while keeping parameters constant…

I would do a series of ‘one offs’ to home in on a particular parameter and then once I was happy that it was optimum I would do a few repeats. Statistically speaking, if two results fall within each other’s ranges, then they are considered the same.

For example, a CoP of 3.5 ? 0.8 means the true values lies in the range 2.7 - 4.3. So if another reading has a value of 4.6 ? 0.9 then its range is 3.7 - 5.5. They may look quite different but statistically speaking their ranges overlap and so they are considered to be ‘not statistically different’. I have had readings that are almost identical with everything the same. It’s just a matter of degree as the whole point of uncertainties is to quantify the lack confidence in your readings based on all the factors that go to make it up.


I am keeping a list of small changes for the v2 whenever that becomes due.

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

The following are just some general questions/ponderings. Not necessarily waiting for a direct answer, and certainly not holding me back in the build.

The diodes (D3, D4, D5) UF5408: I assume they are fast enough, since you were able to measure the MOSFET peak/avalanche voltages with you voltage divider. Is that the reason why you did not use potentially faster silicon carbide diodes?
(Although correct on the parts list, in the electrical schematic they are still indicated as 1N5408)

The following page references refer to the manual:

Reading at the bottom of page 54/top page 55 of the manual, I read that the COP showed a dip with 4 coils. Assuming that you tested them arranged evenly spaced in a circle, like in Fig 41, could the geometry had an influence on the COP? In other words, if the coils would have been further apart, (and not positions in any geometrical arrangement), could it be that using 4 coils would not have shown a dip in the cop?

On page 59, the text around Fig 48;
you speak of potential degeneration of the battery after much pulse charging. John Bedini seemed of the opinion that the pulse charging was a way of extending the life time of batteries and even exceed the manufacturer stated performance. Curious to read that you experienced differently.

Page 64, fig 52 And any other measurements like Table 7 (page 37):
When you did a particular measurement, with a certain set of parameters, did you do these measurements several times, to see if the COP stayed stable? Or are they all one-off measurements?
I ask this since with my Bedini SG I was having a lot of trouble getting stable/constant COP reading while keeping parameters constant…

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

For those who would like a working battery swapper circuit, I attach the one I am using in the v4 PCB. Of course, there are others but for some, a leg up can be helpful.

Jules

[pearldragon]

I probably would just solder 3 small wires on the board and connect those to 3 screw terminals of the orange socket. You can bend the legs of the mosfet a bit, so you can still mount a heatsink unobstructed. On the bottom of the heatsink I would then use a bit of double sided tape to give it rigidity/so it stays vertical.
Alternatively, one can solder 3 pins on the PCB and and then put the top of the pins in the screw terminals of the orange socket.
I ordered the parts of your BOM as well, once I have it all here I'll have a look what most practical.

[JulesP]

How do you fit those orange sockets to the PCB with the solder holes that are already in place on the board?

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

I read through your description of the sockets for the TO 220 / TO 247 and ordered them. I think all will be very clear once I receive the parts/have them in my hand.
An alternative might be the following for the TO 247 socket, Farnell nr 2673306, see image:
https://nl.farnell.com/weidmuller/17...pos/dp/2673306

Best regards,
Rodolphe

P.s. For those who did not read the manual yet and order straight from the BOM: ID 29 (TO 247) is version 2x5. This is indicated in the manual.

[JulesP]

Rodolphe has found a couple of small inconsistencies in the BOM so these have been corrected and is attached. Please also see the note about the fitting of the larger TO-247 mount. It's not easy to find one that does the job well without some form of modification. Not an issue for many of you I'm sure