Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gary's "Complete Advanced" SSG Build

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

  • Hi Gary,
    Since the TGX chargers came in a couple of weeks ago I did some new measurements which results I’d like to discuss with you, enclosed the results I refer to below:

    Cycles C220401 / C220402 (Baseline)
    Where intended as a new baseline, to make sure I stared off at the same point I stopped last time. The COP was +/-66%, while when I stopped when my chargers broke down last year I was at +/-70 % with the same batteries. This also showed in the lower amperage draw than expected. So was a bit in doubt why the COP was a bit lower, but continued with the Back Pop Circuit (BPC) tests.


    Cycles C220501 / C220502 (BPC)
    Performance was lower as previous 2 cycles, so preliminary conclusion is that the BPC did not yield any improvement. However, during cycle C220502 the amperage draw came back to the level where I expected it to be (for the baseline), so did another baseline run.


    Cycles C220503 (Baseline)
    COP was back in the ballpark where I left off last year. Why it now performed better than in cycles C220401 / C220402 I’m not too sure about. I did some charge/discharging with the TGX/CBA before starting my first cycles to condition the batteries, but maybe I did not do it enough.


    Cycles C220504/ C220505/ C220506/ C220507/ C220508/ C220509
    (New output battery,
    Yuasa - YB14L-A, 14.7Ah 190A(CCA))
    After doing some TGX/CBA charging/discharging with this new output battery, cycle C220504 with its COP of 104% gave me good hopes that I finally had a winner battery. However, that initial euphoria was quickly brought back to reality with cycles C220505 COP 84%/ C220506 COP 71%/ C220507 COP 72%. Which brought it back in the ballpark of the output battery used before; around the COP of cycle C220503.
    I then had a new hypotheses; that the high COP of C220504 had more to do with the TGX charger, than with the SG, and that its effect faded out over a day or so (as reflected in C220505 / C220506).
    So rather than starting a next cycle in the same manner, the day after I finished C220507 (and discharged 1amp out of it), the next day I first charged the output battery for 1.5h with the TGX charger, then discharged 1Ah out of it and then did a new cycle; C220508 COP 80%. Not as high as the first cycle with this new battery, but definitely higher than C220506 / C220507. I tried the same the next day; C220509 COP 95%.
    That left me with a couple of questions:
    1-Why does the COP of the cycle increase drastically when charged/discharged with the TGX/CBA before starting a cycle with the SG? Is the Cap dump mode (as in the TGX charger) actually more efficient than the SG/CG mode?
    2-Why did C220504 COP 104% / C220508 COP 80% / C220509 COP 95% yield such spread in results?
    3-Did Gary charge his output batteries with the TGX charger as well (and discharge afterwards) before he started his runs he did for me with the 5.5Amp AGMs in parallel?
    4-Gary mentioned that for him the connections made a big difference, would my AWG 10 wires which are a mix of copper and aluminum be the bottle neck? Should I replace them with pure copper ones?


    Question 3 I could answer myself by re-reading through this whole thread, found the answer in your post #29: You did NOT charge the output batteries with the TGX charger before charging them with the SG.

    Question 4 I think I can answer as well: NO the wires are not the bottle neck, otherwise the COP of 104% from cycle C220504 would not have been possible either…

    Any input/thoughts are welcome Gary. I’m not sure how to proceed.

    Could you maybe tell me the exact brand and type of your AGM batteries you tested with/reported about in your post #29? The Lawn & Garden batteries you use I cannot get here, but maybe the AGMs I can…


    Thanks in advance,

    Best regards,
    Rodolphe

    151 - 2022-05-20 - Attachment 1.pdf
    Attached Files
    Last edited by pearldragon; 05-22-2022, 03:38 AM. Reason: Typo: "out batteries" -> "output batteries"

    Comment


    • In the attachment some impressions of the Back Pop Circuit (BPC) that I used for cycles C220501 / C220502.

      Note that the batteries you see connected in the pictures are not the batteries I used for the cycles. The ones I used for the cycles are the black Yuasas you see on the far left and right. And for cycles C220504/ C220505/ C220506/ C220507/ C220508/ C220509 I used the clear Yuasa second from the right as output battery.

      152 - 2022-05-20 - Attachment 1.pdf

      Comment


      • Hi Rodolphe,

        I must admit that I got a little "brain fog" trying to understand your attachment 151.

        1-Why does the COP of the cycle increase drastically when charged/discharged with the TGX/CBA before starting a cycle with the SG? Is the Cap dump mode (as in the TGX charger) actually more efficient than the SG/CG mode?
        This is actually two questions and I'm not sure how to answer either one other than I only use the Teslagenx chargers to charge all my batteries. I have three different models shown here http://teslagenx.com/chargers.html . The TX 10A-12 (10amp), the TX-2A12 (2.5amp), and the TX-1AU universal charger (1amp at 1.5 to 24 volts). When charging batteries rated from 12AH on up, I usually use the TZ-10A12.

        2-Why did C220504 COP 104% / C220508 COP 80% / C220509 COP 95% yield such spread in results?
        This would only be a guess on my part as I wasn't there to observe. There must have been some variable present between tests.

        3-Did Gary charge his out batteries with the TGX charger as well (and discharge afterwards) before he started his runs he did for me with the 5.5Amp AGMs in parallel?
        As pointed out in post #29 it had been about two weeks since they were charged.

        4-Gary mentioned that for him the connections made a big difference, would my AWG 10 wires which are a mix of copper and aluminum be the bottle neck? Should I replace them with pure copper ones?
        You answered your own question, BUT I always try to keep the impedance as low as possible and match wire type, size, and length on both input and output to keep everything balanced as best I can.

        Regards,
        Gary Hammond,

        Comment


        • Hi Gary,

          I understand that the sheet contains a whole lot of info that is not so clear on a first glance… in the attachment I included a small file hoping to make things a bit more clear.

          1) As can be seen in the cycles C220504 COP 104% / C220505 COP 84% / C220506 COP 71% / C220507 COP 72% / C220508 COP 80% / C220509 COP 95%, the COP is always higher when before starting an SG cycle, I first charge the output battery with the TGX* charger for 1.5h, let it rest for 45min to 1h, drain 1Ah out of it, let it rest for 1.5h and only then start the SG charge.
          In cycles C220506 COP 71% / C220507 COP 72% I did not do the TGX/CBA charge/discharge in the morning before starting the cycle and there you see the COP as I would expect it to be.
          CycleC220505 COP 84% is the exception to that, and my explanation for that is that it was done on the same day as C220504 COP 104%, and therefore was still affected by the TGX charger that same morning.

          Since the TGX chargers use cap pulsing, I came to my question whether the cap pulsing mode would actually be more efficient that the SG/CM. But this is not in line with what you’ve measured/concluded.

          So that than brings me to the following preliminary conclusion:
          -If the in the SG/CG mode should yield the highest efficiency, but I only get the highest efficiency when I pre-charge/discharge my output batteries with the TGX/CBA, then there is still an issue with my machine.
          -OR-
          -The SG/CM is actually not the most efficient mode, but the cap pulsing mode is, but then your previous conclusions (and those of the handbook) about this would be erroneous.
          I think the first conclusion is more likely .


          *I have now 2 off TX-2A12V-EX2, see attachment. The difference in the two is that one has a bigger capacitor inside than the other. My smaller batteries I charge with the one with the smaller cap in it. But with the one with the bigger cap in it still can charge my input batteries (2x 30Ah in parallel = 60Ah) to 15V without a problem.
          You answered your own question, BUT I always try to keep the impedance as low as possible and match wire type, size, and length on both input and output to keep everything balanced as best I can.
          Is there a place where you read about keeping both input/output wires the same length? And/or keeping input & output wires the same length?

          Could you maybe tell me the exact brand and type of your AGM batteries you tested with/reported about in your post #29?
          (The Lawn & Garden batteries you use I cannot get here, but maybe the AGMs I can…)


          Best regards,
          Rodolphe

          154 - 2022-05-22 - Attachment 1.pdf
          154 - 2022-05-22 - Attachment 2.pdf

          Comment


          • Hi Rodolphe,

            Is there a place where you read about keeping both input/output wires the same length? And/or keeping input & output wires the same length?
            This was information John Bedini put out years ago on some of his websites and in some of his videos. I first became aware of this maybe ten years ago and have done this on nearly all the builds I've done since then whenever possible.

            Could you maybe tell me the exact brand and type of your AGM batteries you tested with/reported about in your post #29?
            (The Lawn & Garden batteries you use I cannot get here, but maybe the AGMs I can…)
            These are 5.5AH Maintenance-Free SLA Sigmas Tek brand batteries that I ordered here sometime prior to 2020. https://www.batterysharks.com/8-UPS-...s12-5.5_x8.htm

            Since the TGX chargers use cap pulsing, I came to my question whether the cap pulsing mode would actually be more efficient that the SG/CM. But this is not in line with what you’ve measured/concluded.
            I think the concept of "more efficient" may be causing some confusion in understanding between us. The cap pulsing is better for the battery and usually results in the battery holding a higher charge for a longer time. It will also rejuvenate sulfated batteries. To me, this makes it "more efficient" than any other charging method, even if it's not always the fastest. And I usually refer to fastest charging as "best" charging which probably isn't the proper way to express the "fastest charging". It's the old Quality vs Quantity argument.

            The "fastest" charging time for me has always been with the SG/CC method. But the stored voltage doesn't stay as high or last as long as when I charge the same batteries with the TGX charger. However, contrasted with straight radiant charging, the SG/CC charged batteries can be used to power inductive loads including the SSG. John Bedini frequently referred to the common ground mode as the "generator mode" because the results are more like charging with a conventional alternator or hot charger.

            Regards,
            Gary Hammond,

            Comment


            • Hi Gary,

              Thanks for the link. Exactly those batteries (brand/type) I cannot get here either. But I’m considering to switch out my connection cables based on what you’ve wrote here and in previous posts, e.g. post #115 / also looking at the images again on your website.

              I was using an FET multimeter to momentarily check my amperage draw. I suspect it had a higher internal resistance than the ammeter you used. I also used lawn and garden battery leads directly bolted on each end to the batteries and SSG terminals. These are either #6 or #8 AWG cables with soldered terminal ends. I also had an automotive battery disconnect switch bolted between the input battery negative terminal and negative cable lead to the SSG with smaller leads in parallel with the switch going through the multimeter. I would then momentarily turn the switch off to get a reading on the ammeter which was in a much higher resistance part of the circuit.
              See my answer from the second quote above where I was using #6 or #8 cable. My machine is currently reconfigured with #10 AWG and spring loaded clamps on the battery ends. All clamps and ring tongue terminal ends are soldered connections. These do not perform as well as the battery cables, but still give me a COP of 1.0 to 1.1. The entire machine is also reconfigured from what it was in my early tests with the two fans.
              I don't have any accurate way to check the resistance of any of the leads I use. I just know that the lower the total resistance, the better the results.
              -Do I understand you correctly with the automotive switch as in the attachment 1? So the AMP meter would always be included in parallel, but if the switch is turned in the off position, all power must go through the AMP meter? (tried to look at the picture on your website but too much wires, attachment 1 ).


              -Looking the picture (attachment 1), it seems like the wires to your output battery are a bit thicker (the 6 or 8 AWG) than the wires going to your input batteries, or is this just optical illusion?

              -Furthermore it seems like the cables from the terminals to you PCB are a bit thinner too, is that correct?
              -Regarding matching the length; do I understand correctly that you matched the lengths of the wires from the terminal block to the batteries? Or did you go as far as counting the lengths on the PCB board and then compensating/offsetting this with the smaller wires lengths connecting the PCB board to the terminals?

              -The reason you choose a car switch is because it can handle bigger amount of power and has big terminals to connect the soldered ring connections to?
              I just have a relatively small ON-OFF-ON switch with which I by pass my AMP meter after taking the initial measurement. After our earlier conversation I temporarily removed it to see if it would make any difference, but it did not… also changing the terminals did not make any difference. So I’ve been hesitant to change the wires… however the fact is that I have an copper/alu alloy cable as I understood it from the supplier (they also look silver white, could also be because their tin plated)… if that alloy is not suitable for this type of battery charging than I might see a difference when I switch too pure copper… Currently looking at something like this:
              https://www.ebay.nl/itm/272768578846...3ABFBM6oyAzZ9g


              -Any chance you have a link to the terminals you use to connect your wires to that go to the batteries?

              -Any chance you happen to remember in which video’s Bedini talked about the cable lengths (and/or what the theory behind it was?

              [UPDATE] Just had a quick look again at the "Bedini SG complete Advanced Handbook', page 15: Peter used there 12 AWG, and the the AMP meter he not even by-passed... let's hope that the alloy is my issue .

              Many thanks in advance,
              Best regards,
              Rodolphe

              156 - 2022-05-26 - Attachment 1.pdf
              Attached Files
              Last edited by pearldragon; 05-26-2022, 12:24 PM.

              Comment


              • Hi Rodolphe,

                I'll get back to you in a couple of weeks. Just had eyelid surgery on top of cataract surgery. I can hardly see the keyboard to type.

                Regards,
                Gary Hammond,

                Comment


                • Hi Gary,

                  No worries, I wish you a good and swift recovery.

                  Best regards,
                  Rodolphe

                  Comment


                  • Work in progress...

                    Comment


                    • Hi Rodolphe,

                      Thanks for your patience. My eyesight is getting better now!

                      -Do I understand you correctly with the automotive switch as in the attachment 1? So the AMP meter would always be included in parallel, but if the switch is turned in the off position, all power must go through the AMP meter? (tried to look at the picture on your website but too much wires, attachment 1 ).
                      Yes. That's correct.

                      -Looking the picture (attachment 1), it seems like the wires to your output battery are a bit thicker (the 6 or 8 AWG) than the wires going to your input batteries, or is this just optical illusion?
                      That's just an optical illusion because of the relative distance of each from the camera.

                      -Furthermore it seems like the cables from the terminals to you PCB are a bit thinner too, is that correct?
                      The four cables from both batteries to the PCB are all the same gauge and length. All the smaller wires are going to the meters, the o-scope, and the CBA battery analyzer . The receiving battery negative lead is disconnected from the battery and hanging loose over the edge of the table in the photo. I realize all the test leads look like a mess of spaghetti in the photo.

                      -Regarding matching the length; do I understand correctly that you matched the lengths of the wires from the terminal block to the batteries? Or did you go as far as counting the lengths on the PCB board and then compensating/offsetting this with the smaller wires lengths connecting the PCB board to the terminals?
                      I only matched the cables between the batteries and the terminal blocks on the PCB board. All the wires in the coil are already matched with each other in length, so only the short wires from the PCB board to terminal strips and the traces on the board are unmatched.

                      -The reason you choose a car switch is because it can handle bigger amount of power and has big terminals to connect the soldered ring connections to?
                      That's correct.

                      -Any chance you have a link to the terminals you use to connect your wires to that go to the batteries?
                      No. These are pre-made lawn and garden battery cables that I had on hand left over from being a lawn and garden equipment dealer for several years. I think they were originally crimped ends which I then soldered as well. The lengths were already matched pretty close.

                      -Any chance you happen to remember in which video’s Bedini talked about the cable lengths (and/or what the theory behind it was?
                      Sorry. I have watched so many videos and read so many posts and web site of his I can't recall the specific place. He may have even mentioned it at one of the conferences I attended. He frequently mentioned impedance matching and keeping impedance low in all his circuits. This included keeping cables short wherever possible.

                      Gary Hammond,

                      Comment


                      • Hi Gary,

                        Glad to hear you eye sight is getting better again.

                        In response to your post #155:
                        I think the concept of "more efficient" may be causing some confusion in understanding between us. The cap pulsing is better for the battery and usually results in the battery holding a higher charge for a longer time. It will also rejuvenate sulfated batteries. To me, this makes it "more efficient" than any other charging method, even if it's not always the fastest. And I usually refer to fastest charging as "best" charging which probably isn't the proper way to express the "fastest charging". It's the old Quality vs Quantity argument.

                        The "fastest" charging time for me has always been with the SG/CC method. But the stored voltage doesn't stay as high or last as long as when I charge the same batteries with the TGX charger. However, contrasted with straight radiant charging, the SG/CC charged batteries can be used to power inductive loads including the SSG. John Bedini frequently referred to the common ground mode as the "generator mode" because the results are more like charging with a conventional alternator or hot charger.
                        With more efficient I meant input Ah/Output Ah, but maybe I read too quick over your test results and was the efficiency (Ah wise) the same for Cap pulser versus CG mode, just a difference in charging time.

                        As can see on my post #159 I’m modifying my SG similar to what you’ve described; with the car disconnect switch, thicker wires, pure copper this time. Still waiting for some new laser cut parts to come in so I can mount the terminals a bit more easily (the terminals from which the wires from my PCB board go to the batteries. So hopefully in a week or 2 I should be doing new tests, very curious to see if this is finally the thing bottle neck I’ve been chasing for quite a while now . I’ll keep you updated.
                        Best regards,
                        Rodolphe

                        Comment


                        • Hi Gary,

                          Updates are basically done:

                          -All new connection wires, this time pure copper
                          -Big disconnect switch
                          -cleaned up the wires near and underneath the PCB board.

                          So ready for new runs

                          Comment


                          • Hi Rodolphe,

                            Looks good!

                            Gary Hammond,

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X