An energy harvesting project

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, Julian,

I didn’t dare to post here for a while after reading Gary’s opening sentence of post #118… Just kidding; As Julian responded already; it was in reply to attached document of his post #113.

I watched Peter Lindemann’s presentation “John Bedini’s Self-Recharging Monopole Motor”. https://emediapress.com/shop/john-be...onopole-motor/

And have the following questions and comments, the numbers refer to approximate time stamps, the sentences are paraphrased by me, for the exact sentence see the movie/presentation:

09.35 – Standard SG
-> So Classic SG / Radiant mode (not common ground/generator mode)

09.49 / 10.35 - Circuit boards, two motor drive coils.
-> Initially I thought it looked like an 8-transistor PCB, but if they actually are 2 boards (placed together so it gives the impression it is one), driving the two coils, I assume those are the 4-transistor boards: http://www.teslagenx.com/kits/tx-sg4...?category=kits

12.15 – input battery + output battery + large storage system
-> Large Storage system = large battery? Will this not start off-gassing if it is constantly connected in parallel to the output battery? Or because its size (capacity) id so big compared to the power of the coils, it will not get so easily to that point as long as the output battery gets swapped/used quick enough?

12.45 – Switch input and output battery
-> Topic that has come up a couple of times already: In other movies John said this was not possible in classic SG /radiant mode, that the batteries would run down if you’d do that in this mode. So is the difference here that there is a large storage system in parallel and that it IS possible in this specific configuration?

16.48 – Keep it at 0.25A
-> This is input power to PCB? If so, my interpretation in the context in which PL says it is; JB did not want to have too much output power (spikes) to the output battery.
But if I look at the setup; those 2x 4-transistor boards will have combined certainly more than 0.25A of input. Although in theory the resistors of the trigger circuit can be chooses so it would be less than 0.25A, but then I miss the point of having two PCBs.

24.53 / 26.25 – Voltage grounds out / but it was not
-> what does he mean by that? Just the fact that you cannot measure the HV peaks by putting a volt-meter on the battery terminals?

29.0 – If you haven't seen it run in your home, it is because the batteries are not able to elicit the process. Keep doing it and doing it and the process will show up.
->In general after doing multiple runs, day after day, I would not see an significant increase in the COP with my Bedini SG in common ground/generator mode. In general what did yield a higher COP was after the following: After the charge cycle was done, I would discharge 1Ah out of it. Then the next morning it would charge the OUTPUT battery again with the TeslaGenX charger, discharge again 1Ah out of it and only then start a new charge cycle with my Bedini SG.
In that those cases the COP could be quite high… incidentally above 1…. It gave me always the idea that it was more what that TeslaGenX charger did to the battery that made the COP high, rather than the machine I built -OR (maybe put more correctly) – That it was the solid state cap dump system that provokes an over unity effect in the battery, which my machine in common ground / generator mode was not able to… But with just doing charge/discharge cycles with my Bedini SG, I would not get COPs over 1, far from in general.
Would be interesting to talk with PL about this.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

I will reply to your post using categories as before:

COILS

While I found that the extra ‘magnetic’ mass in my setup contributed to CoP values, I have not undertaken enough tests to ascribe a degree of certainty to how much of an increase occurs. Repeatability is not my focus at this stage. Rather, by changing one variable at a time I have built up a picture of what factors are most important and which are less significant.

The same can be said of my comment about OU with the SSG, or more accurately, my SSG. I have had OU results but not consistently even with the same parameters. It’s value to me has been more in the area of comparing the use of a trigger coil and using the power transistors and R45 core.

By SSG here I mean a single bifilar coil with a welding rod core and the well-publicized SG mode circuit (monopole circuit). However, I have adapted that to run in Generator mode as well and most of my tests were done in Gen mode.

When I refer to an SG circuit then I mean the type described in the three SG e-books by Peter and Aaron.

During all my v4 tests (my own take on a rotor and solid-state version of an Aspden/Adams type generator) using the PWM, my rotor and its magnets were stationary in the middle of all the coils and it was noted that removing it dropped performance a significant amount.

I will clarify my coil arrangements and also those of the impending v5:

In my SSG there is one coil with a power winding and a trigger coil. In my v5, which is the v4 developed and informed by my ‘retro’ work with the SSG (BD1 circuit), I have wound the main coil with four power windings and one trigger coil. The other four out of five spaces for coils will use the v4 coils as additional recovery coils. With the five switched channels available, four will be used with the MC and the remaining single channel will operate with the four recovery coils in parallel.

This is all shown in the layout image together with notes on the various charging options. I would expect the most effective charging to be seen with the HV (from the MC) concurrent with cap dump pulses derived from the recovery coils via the cap dump unit.



As indicated, one can use just one channel of the v5 such that it will be in effect the BD-1 and with the revisions.


SOLID STATE

My findings so far strongly indicate that using a PWM to drive a FET, while a very good way to drive one, does not produce as good results as a trigger coil and a power transistor. While it is possible to drive the MJL21194 with the PWM it is not ideal as these transistors are more current oriented while FETs are voltage devices. There must be more to the performance differences than that as the coils can in principle be switched on and off by either method, but it would appear something else is happening when the trigger coil is used that does not happen when a PWM is used. Perhaps some form of system resonance or maybe it’s because you need a degree of current with the electrostatic pulse and the MJL and 2N provide pulses that do that (their ‘h’ shape) while FETs tend to give the sharp spikes with less current component, and so a much smaller ‘h’ shape. That being so then one needs to drive the device with the appropriate trigger, which for the MJL is a current-based arrangement provided by the trigger coil.

I still believe that a solid-state option is both possible and desirable and I have included the option for a PWM input on the v5. With the formal research project starting early next year (details further down), then by then I may or may not have a solid-state version to use for it.

If any of your contacts have some views on this then yes, please ask them.


CoP MEASUREMENT

It is good to hear about the different ways that CoP is measured and I’m very open to refining my method in advance of the research study. I have used a fixed charging time so far as that is in keeping with only changing one thing at a time since charging time itself also affects the final CoP value.

As I say in my manual, the part of the charging profile you work on will affect the value due to the extrapolation used although here I’m hardly extrapolating at all since the input and output energies are almost matched in the two stages of the test.

Also, it is easier to conduct a test with a fixed charging time since one doesn’t need to keep checking on where the voltage is in order to stop a test. The voltage at switch-off is going to drop anyway to a degree depending on the interval before the discharge stage.

When it comes to the research study my method needs to be easily repeatable and stable, and of course, set in advance via the Pre-Registration.


CONDITIONING

I see what you are saying here but on the assumption that there is at least a little radiant component to my charging then that can at least start the ball rolling in that direction. My understanding of conditioning is that if you start with hot charging then that does not reduce the amount of ‘cold’ charging conditioning required anyway so there is little advantage to doing it to somehow prepare the battery. I will be consulting others on this issue.


OUTPUT PULSES

My current thinking is that in SG mode, with the output Neg connected to the input plus, the output pulse is having an effect on the supply side which may account for the double pulse. In CE/Gen that connection is not there and so there is no feedback to support a second pulse.

As SG mode on the BD1 has not worked properly I can’t comment on its effect on my PSU. With the v5 that should be testable.


V4 EXPERIMENTS

Regarding the supply current flow, having just wound my new MC (4+1), I thought I would do a test using the v4 board on a small 7Ah battery.

I connected up just one of its four coils and also one of the recovery coils and the current was about 1.2A. This resulted in a faster voltage rise in the battery and a shape similar to what you have obtained with your v4. But again, after 2 hours I still only reached a 12.8V peak, falling back slowly. I then did a discharge and derived a CoP of 0.35.

Here is the graph:



I think there is more that is similar now between our v4s than before, but it’s still not clear how and why you can get a 12Ah battery up to 15V after only a few hours. I’m less concerned by that than I was but it is annoying.


RESEARCH STUDY

The more formal research study will start early next year and be conducted transparently using the Open Science Framework (OSF). The project can be seen here: http://osf.io/ZTFUB

A link to see how the OSF operates is here: https://youtu.be/9YuNGB3vNOw?si=YDHj7o9KWQMQF8sv

Details of this can be seen on my updated website at: www.kerrowenergetics.org.uk

The aim here is to get this whole topic into a mainstream scientific journal, and if achieved it would seem to be the first time ever. This would get the ball rolling for further planned studies and, with the world’s various challenges that lie ahead, this topic cannot be ignored in building multi-faceted solutions and contributing to the energy aspect. With careful work, some long-standing hurdles and ‘boggle thresholds’ can be overcome. Well, that’s the mission - going in by the tradesman’s entrance instead of banging on the front door!


V4 DIFFERENCES

The only real difference between our systems that I can identify is regarding the ‘magnetic mass’. The presence of 4 other coils with ferrite cores (originally) in close proximity to the rotor magnets, is going to intensify some aspect of the resulting pulses, even if not the peak kV - that being limited by the avalanche rating of the active device.

The pulses naturally carry a charge component and perhaps that is significantly enhanced by the extra magnetic mass. If you want any of my design drawings then I can send them over.

The first gallery on my site shows the early assembly and setup that is still at the heart of the v4/5. This is at: https://www.kerrowenergetics.org.uk/...ne-f5w4d-w3kbz

That lot will do for now

Julian

[JulesP]

Whatever extra is going in is not easily measured, hence the need to use the battery's response to measure any 'extra' energy input. Given the very low efficiency of the pulse-generating process itself, the fact that in several cases I got a CoP of around 1.1 strongly suggests that there is indeed something 'extra' going in.

[Dave Wing]

I hardly used meters on the output in the past, but now I use them all the time. The meter was the easy way to determine that my SG also had a flow of generating current charging the secondary battery, which is additive to the coil collapse and boosts charging output amperage.

I say this because I see in your build you appear to be using high inductance coils. Have you noticed anything extra going into your secondary batteries?

Dave Wing

[JulesP]

Hi Dave,

Input yes but not output normally since most meters will not respond fully to the pulses in the output line. Output energy has to be measured by its net charging effect on the battery and which requires a clear methodology.

It’s still worth putting a meter in the output line, analogue, digital and clamp, to see how each behaves. For example I put a clamp meter on the output line and it read negative while the input read the right normal value

Julian

[Dave Wing]

Hey fellas, just wondering if you measure input vs output on amp metres on your builds?

Dave Wing

[JulesP]

It’s good to know your method anyway as I will most likely need to tweak my ‘CoP measurement’ method.

[Gary Hammond]

Gary, in post #117 Rodolphe is describing my method of deriving CoP and not your one.

Oops. Sorry. I misread the post. My bad!

Gary Hammond,

[JulesP]

Gary, in post #117 Rodolphe is describing my method of deriving CoP and not your one.

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

1) In your method you keep the charging time constant. And wherever you end up as a final voltage level (after letting the battery rest) you extrapolate/interpolate to the voltage level you started with before discharging.
In my opinion you can get inaccurate COPs, since if your charging process stopped in the ‘steepest’ part of your of the full charging cycle, this will give an higher COP as can be shown on page 69 of 81 in your manual.

That's not what I did at all! I charged until the receiving battery reached 16.0 volts under charge and then stopped it and recorded the time it took. This turned out to be 35 minutes at 1.6 amps current draw from the primaries. This is plainly stated in post #44 which I link to here. https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...9921#post19921 I then noted the resting voltage one hour after I stopped the charge and it read 12.79 volts which was still a little higher than it would be if it sat over 24 hours. That would normally be 12.69 on that particular battery at the time this was done (2-15-2014).

This was in generator (common ground) mode which will keep raising the voltage well past the normal fully charged point of 15.3 volts and produce off gassing. I've taken it clear up to 17 volts and it still drops back to the same voltage range after resting. Because of this it looks on the graph like it is still in the steep range, but if you look closely you can see that the charge curve is beginning to flatten out when I stopped it at 16 volts. I didn't want to take it any higher because it was off gassing instead of charging.

Regards,
Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian, Gary

Thanks Gary for your input and corrections.

In response to your post #113 Cop measurement method:

We talked about this topic a couple of times. I do appreciate your take/point of view towards this topic and understand why you do it the way you describe.

It is not way that I myself prefer for the following reasons:

1) In your method you keep the charging time constant. And wherever you end up as a final voltage level (after letting the battery rest) you extrapolate/interpolate to the voltage level you started with before discharging.
In my opinion you can get inaccurate COPs, since if your charging process stopped in the ‘steepest’ part of your of the full charging cycle, this will give an higher COP as can be shown on page 69 of 81 in your manual.

2) The battery might respond very different by discharging different portions out of it. E.g. I get a different COP if I charge 1Ah out of my battery, than when I charge 0.5Ah out of it…
For the above mentioned reasons my charge cycle time is always a result, and never a set value. My set value is the voltage to where I charged the previous charge cycle: Then I know I filled up the battery to exactly the same point after taking charge out of it during the discharge step.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe and Julian,

Wouldn't multiple output pulses with each magnet pass be useful?
This is another question that Gary can answer probably better than me. What he told me is that in Classic/radiant mode one should aim for a single shot per magnet pass, which happens if the rotor gets close to its max speed and is tuned at least half decent. (So it can do multiple shots at starting up.).
I don’t recall sawing multiple shots ins generator/common ground mode…

With my SSG when running in radiant mode I get the best charging with TWO pulses per magnet pass. And in common ground (generator) mode I get the best charging of all, and it is always at one pulse per magnet pass. The wave forms are different between "radiant" mode and "common ground" mode. I only get single pulses in "common ground" mode even at start up.

Here's a link to one of my old posts where I discuss this with Alvaro. https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...7843#post27843

Regards,
Gary Hammond

[pearldragon]

In response to your post #113:

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.
Well, I’m still a couple of question down the path: why does my V4 board perform SO different than your one, that in any of the tests I did I did not go over 0.45 COP (Ah). But yes, comparing that specific battery with my Bedini SG commonground/generator mode, the latter would perform better --> 0.55-0.62 COP.
Going back to an easier system like the BD-1, might give better starting point - > hopefully make our results more similar.
Although having those magnets in the middle, and rearrange my coils like you have them ( in a circle around the magnets/rotor) is something that has my interest too...

It seems our posts are getting longer and longer!
This one proves the opposite

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian, in response to your post #112:

“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.”
That is huge… did you repeat both test, to test for repeatability??

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.
I’m not sure if that conclusion can be drawn so quickly… That term might apply for your setup, but not necessarily for somebody else who’s setup is slightly different (different magnets, amount of magnets, battery etc) . (With SSG you mean common ground/generator mode, I state it here for other readers; the terms start to pile up referring to the same circuit . I prefer to stick to the terms used in the handbook to avoid confusion.)

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.
Ok, this is very interesting information too. Are you saying that in all the reports you published, regarding the V4 board, you had the rotor in the middle (doing nothing) and the coils around it? If so, than I should strongly consider changing my coils setup to something similar with magnets (rotor) in the middle and redo my tests…
You loose me completely again in the next part haha. Let’s do a sentence by sentence interpretation and see if I got it right:

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.
-You mean here 5 coils, bi-filar wound, instead of 1 coil with 5 power windings and 1 trigger winding (=5+1).
The extra magnetic mass comes here from the cores?
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.
-1 Coil with 3 power windings (using 3 of the active devices) and 1 trigger winding , triggering the 3 active devices.
-2 sets of 2 coils in parallel, triggered then by the trigger wire of the 3+1 coil?
This will give a mix of three fully synchronized pulses together with 2 ‘machine tolerance’ synchronized pulses
-Based on this sentence I would understand that the 2 sets of 2 coils in parallel are NOT triggered by the 3+1 coil, but botg sets have one of their coils bi-filar wound.

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.
In case you’re interested, I think I still have a 8 channel PCB lying here from TeslaGenX. (but you might be just as quick making it yourself, and making it more versatile while doing so.)

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?
I need to think this through a bit better to confirm it, but the fact that you see the h-shape defined with the transistor and just a peak with the MOSFET, might also have to do with the speed with which the MOSFET operates. Maybe if you zoom further in you’d see something similar in the MOSFET pulse/signal, but again need to think this through a bit more. Gary can probably give an answer with a bit more reason behind it .
The image under this text does not work, can you repost?

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.
I completely understand your question now. During the week suddenly I understood what you meant and had the same question myself (if that was the correct way of doing it). I’ll put it on my list to discuss this with some of my friends who are into electronics, and will come back on this (I just don’t expect it to be very soon….)


Wouldn't multiple output pulses with each magnet pass be useful?
This is another question that Gary can answer probably better than me. What he told me is that in Classic/radiant mode one should aim for a single shot per magnet pass, which happens if the rotor gets close to its max speed and is tuned at least half decent. (So it can do multiple shots at starting up.).
I don’t recall sawing multiple shots ins generator/common ground mode…

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
Still no strange response from your PSU? With the small BD-1 boards?

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?
8+1 --> 1 power windings, 1 trigger winding

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
In the tests I did with your V4 board, so far I have NOT changed this value… kept it in all tests at 12V; I first wanted to see a change in COP by changing the frequency.

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?
The thing is that you at the moment you do not know if any of your systems are able to generate enough power/input for the battery to be charged to higher voltage levels… I’f you’d know that for sure, there would be no reason why you could not do it with a pulse machine/charger. So with that uncertainty there, I’d try to eliminate that in the beginning -> first charge with regular charger till you see nothing changes anymore -> repeatable results. Then you know at least that you battery is as far conditioned as your regular charger can do.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[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