An energy harvesting project

[JulesP]

It’s been quite a while but the first study was completed in May and the first paper from that was published in August and is available on the following link:
https://doi.org/10.33140/JEEE.03.04.05
or in the attachment.

The second and very necessary study, to determine if the energy gains are derived from the internal chemistry or the local environment, is underway and a published paper is expected around the start of the new year.

In the first paper are links to all the methodologies, data gathered and its analysis and also to full replication details for those wishing to reproduce the findings.

To my knowledge this is the first scientific paper to demonstrate and report on energy gains resulting from flyback pulses and where the highest gain was 1,375% (CoP - 13.75) with a LlFePO4 battery.

Julian

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

-Yes, always drawing 1Ah out of it.
-The last test I did with the V4 board and a AGM 12Ah, that I charged till 14.8V and then stopped the test: 112min

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

(Finally sorted my login!)

On your discharge graphs are you drawing down the same amount of energy (Wh) or charge (Ah)? It seems what you are saying is that if you let the charging complete fully then the battery will benefit from the ‘conditioning’ whatever the earth mode.

When a battery is conditioned then I believe its capacity will improve which is why your voltage drop is less on discharge for a specific Wh or Ah. That all fits.

I was looking back at some of my early records and found a few cases where the 7Ah battery voltage rose to around 17V. That is encouraging to see that a higher voltage is possible. How many hours charging on the v4 would it take to reach the top plateau? When I have a pause in my research study measurements I will try pulse charging for much longer to see if the values goes above 13.5V if left. It’s possible that it hasn’t as I haven’t left it long enough. It doesn’t change my CoP measurement protocol but it would be interesting.

To condition a battery I will continue to use the RC-2A12 which takes a reasonable amount of time for an 80Ah.

There’s also plenty more for you to explore with the v4 and the replication manual for the study will again be a type of v4 with a single test socket for several types of device with the PWM module.

Julian

ps. Just finishing the control measurements with the Pb-acid battery in the research study. Links to on going data will be put up as I upload it to OSF or via the ‘Research Data’ page on my site at https://www.kerrowenergetics.org.uk/research-data

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

In response to your post #152

In the first video call you had with PL, where you were discussing my charge graphs, he commented that I should have let the charge continue till it was completely finished, meaning till the charge graph ‘flattened’.

In the second video call with PL where I participated, I mentioned that in Common-ground/Generator COP would drop over the course of multiple consecutive cycles… Thinking at that moment the cause lay in that particular mode of operation.

However, after that video call I started my test in Radiant mode and noticed that in the discharge graphs the end voltage would drop lower and lower over consecutive cycles…
Now I tried what PL suggested in the first place: Continue charging till the curve flattens.

Result: The end voltage seems not to drop anymore, and if anything, be slightly higher. I need to run a couple of more cycles to confirm this completely.

I share this since my guess is that in this area also lies the issue why you can get only overunity in 1 cycle and not over multiple consecutive swap cycles: once a battery gets conditioned, you should be able to charge it way above 15V… I’m at 16V at the moment with an AGM 12Ah battery… My guess is that as long as your charger cannot achieve that, you will see the same result as I have; meaning that the voltage of your battery will drop over consecutive cycles.

Regards,
Rodolphe

[Dave Wing]

Bedini SSG is a supposed to be a motor / generator, John took the 1984 machine and made the SSG as an all in one unit. If that is true we should have motor coils and generator coils. Peter alludes to the 1984 machine being powered by it’s own generator by dumping the capacitor and or generator windings across the primary battery powering the machine.

Just some food for thought, if anyone is interested.

Dave Wing.

[Dave Wing]

Here I have quoted Mr.Adams from page four of the article… Pulsed Adams Electric Motor Generator —Update—

‘…Thirdly, from the repulsion pulse of the stator at point 'x? (refer to pulse angle of Drawing TD-G001, Figure 1). Fourthly, the rotor is given a further pulse from the collapsing field (a few degrees from point 'x in Figure 1).”

The machine is a motor/generator, so what is the purpose of the generator? Some thoughts that come to mind are…

1) Does the power coil collapse go to the generator coil?
2) Does the generator coil have a capacitor across its winding to collect the power coil collapse?
3) When the generator coil circuit is switched or opened do we send that coil collapse to the power coil winding, in the proper polarity to push the magnet rotor away, for the second time, away from the X* point as Adams described?



Dave Wing

[Dave Wing]

Continued…







Dave Wing

[Dave Wing]

Next article…Adams Update…

[Dave Wing]

Continued…

[Dave Wing]

Here is some more…

These two following articles are very interesting and offer some very good insight into the Adam’s type motor. Hope you find these two articles interesting.

[Dave Wing]

Here is some Adams articles from Nexus magazine if your interested.

[Dave Wing]

Hi Jules,

Thank you for sharing your hard work.

I am just throwing this out there…

As an example if we increased the coil core and rotor length to 1 foot long and kept the diameter of your rotor to 3 inches (I think your current rotor is close to 3”) and increased the length and the cross sectional size of our conductor to match a new 1 foot long rotor with the necessary magnets to match.

Note: We will build this new coil from 10 awg wire (for example) and it will keep the same ohm value as your current power coil. The new coil will have the same ampere turns as your current coil but will be of much bigger dimensions than your existing power coil.

1) We made our rotor coils longer and the amperage draw will be the same value as our smaller coil.
2) The magnetic flux of our 1 foot long coil will be vastly increased over the 3/4” bore power coil.
3) Using a 1 foot long rotor with magnets to match will have a large increase in torque production over your 3/4” cored power coil.
4) Flyback energy will increase as well over your 3/4” power coil.
5) More magnetic attraction will take place as the rotor is attracted into the 1 foot power coil core.
6) Stronger magnets like neo’s will yield more shaft energy.

Im not saying you have, but often builders don’t remember to include the mechanical shaft output. With the large coil we should have more shaft rotational energy for no more current used, coupled with more flyback energy to be recovered.

As a side note the Bedini pulse motor will generate from passing the north faced magnet, on the rotor, which is additional and additive to the flyback energy, it will travel through the secondary charging diode along with the coil collapse, if the coil inductance is high enough.

The negative section of the Bedini SSG waveform will send energy back to the supply or power source. Both positive and negative waves can be seen by having your oscilloscope hooked up across the power coil when the machine is running and disconnecting the power supply and watching the scope.






Dave Wing

[JulesP]

Hi all,


This post details the results and findings from developments over the last 4-5 months in preparation for the first research study in early 2024.

The report offers some useful advice for those seeking to show a CoP>1 by making some straightforward changes to the supply current via modifications to the coil configuration. Some developing theory is also explained which addresses why these changes produce the results they do.

Rather than try and post all 16 pages of it here, I have listed the 12 main findings. These are mainly focused on current limiting measures, coil configurations, and CoP measurements with the highest so far at just over 3. This bulleted summary can then be explored more fully in the attached report.


Key Findings:

1. For a given coil and battery arrangement, the ‘energy influx’ is reasonably consistent within certain input energy limits, such that changes to the input current are the main cause of the changes to the derived CoP.

2. Energy influx and battery charging are not synonymous. Good battery charging rates will tend to be accompanied by lower CoPs for a given setup since the increased supply current used for higher charging rates will bring down the CoP for a relatively consistent energy influx.

3. An improvement in CoP will result in a lower charging rate due to the lower supply current and given that, for a specific set of device parameters, the energy influx is reasonably constant.

4. Fine tuning of the base resistance circuit at various points during a test run is required to maintain the minimum supply. Supply current increases with rotor rpm and so can be used as a guide to find the ‘sweet spot’. For optimum CoP regular adjustment is needed throughout a test run.

5. The response of the battery is highly dependent on its internal resistance and ‘interaction cross-section’ for the additional ‘energy influx’. That is affected mainly by the materials used, the internal design and the charge capacity.

6. An AGM battery has a lower internal resistance than a flooded battery due to its thicker plates designed to cope with ‘Stop-Start’ vehicle use.

7. Calculating the ratio of the total coil inductance L (in mH) to the AT value will give a useful ranking order and indication of whether the CoP performance will be improved with a different coil configuration.

8. Although not tested thoroughly yet, CoP is expected to have a positive temperature coefficient in that a higher battery temperature will result in a higher CoP due to the recognised effect of temperature on reversible electrochemical reactions.

9. Interlacing high-intensity ‘Cap Dump’ pulses with HV pulses does not improve the CoP due mainly to the significant increase in supply current required. While HI/CD pulses may offer some advantages in specific settings, there was no observed clear benefit in terms of CoP.

10. The ‘Assembly & Guidance Manual ‘ released in early 2023 and based around the V4 PCB using a MOSFET and a PWM module, will be re-released in 2024 since by using a reconfiguration of just three of the single-strand coils, it can demonstrate a CoP>2 even though the battery charging rate is low.

11. Scope traces only show a two-dimensional presentation (normally voltage) of a ‘multi-dimensional’ event.

12. Good battery charging and CoP measurements are aiming at very different goals, albeit technically related. To switch between the two may require significant adjustments to your setup.


- - - - - - -


This is the last development report I will be producing as attention is being re-directed to the impending research studies. For those wishing to follow them, the public viewing link is: http://osf.io/ZTFUB

Further details are also given at the end of the attached report. This may also be viewed on this OSF link: https://osf.io/tz59n

Happy New Year


Julian

[JulesP]

Hi Rodolphe,

I have also found that the coil rotor gap is very important. Too close and it impedes the rotor rpm and too far and the battery response drops off. I haven’t had the double pulse phenomenon (I think).


The ‘h’ shape is a bit of a conundrum and someone called Glenn Ramsey and I have been exploring the factors that produce and influence the ‘h’ shape using simulation software. If it is possible to emulate it then it may be possible to create a solid state version that performs as well as a rotor in terms of charging to CoP ratio. On this particular journey it will become clearer exactly what causes the ‘bump’ and how important it is in producing good performance.

The South Korean development is not in fact a new idea but I am 95% sure is a development of the Bearden MEG and the ‘Lead Out Energy Resonance Generator’ by Lawrence Tseung. He had an entry in Patrick Kelly’s manual and has a patent at:
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2011143809A1/en

Some of you may recognise Tseung standing by the console and he has been working on this idea for over 15 years. Clearly big investment has allowed his team to ramp it up big time with a very modern twist. However, as you say, there is no technical information to back it up and the use of the term ‘bandwagoning’ seems an attempt to find a term for what cannot be explained within current electrical theory. The 11 new Laws they describe creating rather misrepresents the meaning of the term Law in Science.

Is the reported efficiency due more to the ac power factor not being taken into account? No doubt there will be plenty of opinions on this one.

I’m waiting to hear back from them but I’m not that hopeful of any detailed information. If I find out any more I will report it here. Let’s hope their technical skills are better than their website ones!

Julian

[pearldragon]

Hi Julian,

Regarding the South-Korean company: Would be nice if they break through. However, I can send you another 5 or more links of companies which claim to have free energy...: but have not seen it come to marked so far... And this particular website does not remotely live up to a standard one would expect of a professional company that would have this technology that far developed as they claim...


Regards,
Rodolphe