Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An energy harvesting project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Happy New Year.

    I’m rather busy at the moment and can’t be diverted with lots of Qs from your not being able to wait till the Manual is released.

    At the moment everything is going well for me to do so on 23rd. If something unexpected happens to change that, like me getting ill, then I will say so, if possible.

    I posted plenty of material in the research docs to keep minds occupied

    Incidentally, depending on how you plan to mount the coils you might want both in and out leads to be at the same end.

    All the edge terminal blocks are 5.0mm pitch (so spanning three holes on the PCB). E.g. H18 is a two pin terminal block inserted over three holes on PCB and missing the middle one. I use just the 2pin type and combine to 4 as required: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234615666086?

    The header pins are straight 2 pin, 2.54mm spacing and so for example, H20 will be inserted into both holes as a test point. I strongly suggest you wait for the detail before filling in gaps with some guesswork. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/265539912049?

    There will be a couple of additional components in the list for the PCB, namely mounts for easy active device switching.

    Julian
    Last edited by JulesP; 01-08-2023, 01:34 AM.
    'Consciousness came First'

    Comment


    • #47

      Hi Julian,

      Thanks for your answers and feedback.
      I don’t think it is a matter of me not being able to wait till the manual is ready, but a misjudgment from my side of sharing my enthusiasm for the project.
      You did indicate in our communication that you value planning and efficient use of time, which I could have paid more attention to. Will do so.
      Good luck with the manual, looking forward to it.


      Best regard,
      Rodolphe
      Last edited by pearldragon; 01-08-2023, 10:43 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Hi Rodolphe,

        I just didn't want to open the floodgates to questions yet when I am still fine-tuning the design and all the text. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I hope in the fullness of time it is realized in good results.

        I am also having to plan for what comes after the power tests which will be to show proof that the energy is coming from the 'environment' and not the electrolytes being consumed as a 'fuel' under the effect of the pulses. Quite a challenge that one.

        Jules
        'Consciousness came First'

        Comment


        • #49
          Hi Julian,

          No worries, I understand. And your clear focus can only by applauded.
          I hope there will be a little flood-gate-question-moment between the upcoming manual and your next quest (although it sounds also very worthwhile!).

          Best regards,
          Rodolphe

          Comment


          • #50
            Hi all,

            Contrary to expectations, I have now managed to complete the installation of the replication PCB and checked it against all the diagnostic checks in the manual, about 2 weeks earlier than expected. The extra time I had assigned for potential problems was not needed and so the manual and associated appendices are now complete together with the Gerber files with some minor adjustments to the PCB.

            All the files are uploaded to the Mega link given earlier: https://mega.nz/folder/YUM0nLoT#bYpLIazqMM5K2IrEQjghDQ

            and also to this Dropbox link at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/td55b8675...cFUT2T07a?dl=0

            I’m sure questions and comments will arise but I will address any in batches rather than every few days or so.

            There’s still plenty to do besides the power tests due to start in a few weeks, such as preparing a discussion paper for how to prove that the ‘consumption’ of the electrolyte is not involved in the measured energy gains.

            Believing it isn’t is a long way from the evidence that it isn’t and this question is pretty much as important as showing an energy gain in the first place, and for which the power tests hopefully will give the much-needed confirmation.

            Onwards

            Julian
            'Consciousness came First'

            Comment


            • #51
              Congratulations on the release Julian, will be sharing it in my network.

              Cheers,
              Raymundo

              Comment


              • #52
                Just a quick note to say that I have corrected a couple of typos and a wrong figure in Table 7 (p37) of the Manual and have replaced the file for downloading as required.

                J
                'Consciousness came First'

                Comment


                • #53
                  To aid in acquiring components, I have provided a BOM using Farnell as a reference for item order numbers. For those items that can't be got on there, I have provided links to other sources.

                  I attach this document but it is also now in the 'PCB Files' folder on the main link.

                  Julian
                  Attached Files
                  'Consciousness came First'

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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
                    Attached Files
                    'Consciousness came First'

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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.
                      Click image for larger version  Name:	Weidmuller 1716330000.png Views:	0 Size:	282.7 KB ID:	73991

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        How do you fit those orange sockets to the PCB with the solder holes that are already in place on the board?
                        'Consciousness came First'

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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.
                          Last edited by pearldragon; 01-21-2023, 01:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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

                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by JulesP; Yesterday, 01:44 AM.
                            'Consciousness came First'

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                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.

                                'Consciousness came First'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X