Gary's "Complete Advanced" SSG Build

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, RS,

I just finished watching the video “beyond the Bedini SG”. There is a ton I’d like to discuss, but for now I have a couple of practical questions regarding hardware: TeslaGenX will be shipping the order I’ve placed shortly, if there is some additional hardware I want to order, I better add it to my current order quickly.

-In one of your videos you posted/showed me earlier, I think I remember seeing a battery swapping system. Is this the same as discussed here in this video? Did you make it yourself, or was it a bought kit? (I didn’t see it on the TeslaGenX website).
-The master coil that is used in this multi coil machine Peter is demonstrating, has (a) separate winding(s) to charge the battery in position C. Do you know if that is one of the standard coils from the TeslaGenX website, with some of the windings used for the battery in position C? Or is this a completely different/custom coil, not of the shelf?

I’ll still come back to your post #105.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

Is this the same as discussed here in this video? Did you make it yourself, or was it a bought kit?

I made it myself. And yes, it works the same as the custom made one in the video. Only difference is, I wired mine to split the negative instead of split the positive. That allowed me use my standard coil without having to make a new coil with an isolated output winding. Tom told me at the conference, where that video was recorded, that Teslagenx might eventially offer the swapper in kit form. But I don't think that has ever materialized. I've also modified mine to switch either with set timing like the one in the video, or switch when a pot tuneable voltage reference is reached.

One other big difference is that I have only run mine with 12 volt input. The one in the video was running with 24 volt input. This greatly affects the overall performance. ............. I made my swapper so it can work with 24 volt input to the SSG, but don't have enough of the proper batteries to do this, so haven't tried it on 24 volts yet.

Do you know if that is one of the standard coils from the TeslaGenX website, with some of the windings used for the battery in position C? Or is this a completely different/custom coil, not of the shelf?

That was a special custom coil wound on a taller, wider spool. I think it was wound with 4 power windings and one isolated winding all from AWG 18 wire. I've never seen this coil listed on the Teslagenx web page. You would have to ask them if they would custom make another one.

I do have several spools, like used in the video, that Erik made for me on special order that are 3-D printed. I've not had a chance to wind them or make cores for them yet. My plan was to make a larger machine with multiple generator coils. I got bogged down with other projects and haven't gotten back to this one yet.

Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, RS,

John was not always clear in his explanations and sometimes used generalizations to make a point.

This is what I’ve experienced/noticed as well. Sometimes hard to navigate between “literally” and “as a manner of speaking”. But with you and RS as beacons along the free energy sea, I’ve managed so far .

What I was trying to do was compare the SSG in common ground mode to a conventional brush type motor driving a conventional, rectified alternator. In order to charge the battery conventionally with enough current to equal the performance of the SSG in CG mode would require a lot of input power from the drive motor

Ok I understand what you tried to point out now.

We're talking about CG mode here, not radiant. And with either mode, I think the drag comes only from bearing friction, wind resistance, and a small amount from generating the trigger coil current. In attraction mode the run current assists and causes the running of the machine, which is in opposition to any drag forces. The magnetic attraction of the permanent magnets due to the steel in the core is the same on approach as it is on escape for a net zero effect. Not sure how the coil collapse affects all this, but probably does in some way.

Wind and bearing friction I would call I’d call (mechanical) friction. While “drag” is what I use for magnetic attraction when the wheel wants to spin away -> “dragging the wheel”.
The (mechanical) friction should not/barely changing over the time of the charging process (once the machine is up to speed) and thus is not responsible for the change in speed of the rotor towards the end of the charge.
In theory the drag caused by the trigger circuit should in theory not differ much when the magnet moved towards the coil and when it moves away from it.
So then the main difference for the increase in speed should come from the decrease in drag from the coil collapse/discharge I reckon, due to reduction in energy stored in the coil, due to the decrease in input amperage and voltage, so this in turn decreases the attraction towards the magnet too. However, the net effect is that the rotor increases in speed, so there is a asymmetry, which is then probably party where the spike is responsible for. Maybe I’m going to far into this for now, and besides I just realized I made a false comparison between the statement of JB (“this is not gonna drag”) and my reference to the other thread in my post #104, since there the discussion about the generator coil, while JB was just talking about the SG, without a gen. coil.

John did say you can rotate batteries from charge to run position with no ill effects on the battery. It does charge mostly with current, but there is still a small radiant spike there that can be seen on an o-scope. If you stop charging at 15.3 volts and keep the electrolyte at the proper level, I think battery degradation would be very slow compared to using a "hot" charger.

Ok, I understand.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

When ponder some more about the differences between your machine and mine, I remembered that the spec of my AWG10 wires, that I use to connect the batteries is standard BRASS and not 100% copper... Any idea if this could be a culprit as well for the 25% performance difference or would the difference only be marginal, copper vs brass? (in my contact with TeslaGenX I asked them the same question awaiting answer).

I'll come back to your post #102 at a later point.

Best regards,
rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

I've never even heard of brass wire other than as for filler rod in brazing and similar use. It is used as electrical connectors, but I've never seen it used as an electrical "wire". There are various alloys of brass with varying values of resistance. I think all brass alloys have less electrical conductivity than pure copper.

Gary Hammond

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, RS,

Could I double check with you that for your SG you use the following diodes: 1N4007 and for the C.G. mode mod you use two 1N5408G in parallel? In case you bought them online, do you have a weblink for me for both parts?
My links are:
HVCA - 1N4007
https://nl.rs-online.com/web/p/misce...us/2550069851/
ON Semiconductor - 1N5408G
https://nl.rs-online.com/web/p/switc...iodes/7743344/

In my test report from post#26*, I noticed that using a diode in the hall/mosfet circuit had a huge impact. Also in the video “beyond the advanced handbook” Peter shows that using a diode in the battery swapper makes a difference. Lastly, on this thread** about it, I also read that different diodes yield different results.
Still pondering where the difference in performance in our machines comes from, I thought it might be good to verify once more that we have 100% the same diodes.

TeslaGenX shipped out my order, so if diodes are the same, I soon can finally make a start with crossing/checking all the components that were still on my check list:
-TeslaGenX battery starter
-Coil with R60 rods and spray-paint isolated
-New circuit board with TeslaGenX matched transistors and 470-Ohm resistors.
-Batteries

Another thing that I’m still wondering about regarding the performance of our machines, is that my variable resistor / potmeter is 2W*** and still working, while I remember that you said your initial potmeter burned out, and you replaced it with a higher wattage version. I tried to find your post about it back, but can’t find it.
On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t say so much about the performance of the machine; the reason could also have been that your initial potmeter was not able to handle the voltage spikes very well due to its physical construction… Curious to hear what your thoughts are.

*https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...rvations/page2
**https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...ndemann/page24
***https://nl.rs-online.com/web/p/potentiometers/6928513/

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, RS,

Another thing that came to my mind is the ON-time of the transistor we talked about. I had another look at my ON-time comparison between all my rotors, post #78. And what I was thinking is that if the free energy comes mainly from the spike… and the current draw from the ON-time, that it is not ON-time alone that is important, but the combined information of ON-time and RPMs… it is a pity that I haven’t monitored the RPMs accurately. However, the rotor didn’t seem to make a difference in performance at that point, so there is no point in redoing the tests now. Only when I improve my overall performance (hopefully with the new TeslaGenX parts), the influence of the rotor will show too hopefully and I can re-try to optimize the rotor.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

P.S. Would a solid-state SG not be more efficient? I mean, the transistor can then just conduct current for as long as is needed to saturate the coil and then let the magnetic field collapse… Now the transistor conducts way longer past the point that the coil is saturated. This energy is not (completely) wasted since it is used to attract the rotor, but still I wander if a solidstate version would yield higher results.

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

Could I double check with you that for your SG you use the following diodes: 1N4007 and for the C.G. mode mod you use two 1N5408G in parallel? In case you bought them online, do you have a weblink for me for both parts?

The 1N4007 diodes I use came in the kit from Teslagenx, and the ON Semiconductor 1N5408G ones came from Newark. https://www.newark.com/w/search?brand=on-semiconductor&st=1n5408

I thought it might be good to verify once more that we have 100% the same diodes.

The 1N4007 diodes being the same would be the most critical. The 1N5408 diodes being different shouldn't really matter that much. I got the best results, (COP 1.25), without them at all.

Another thing that I’m still wondering about regarding the performance of our machines, is that my variable resistor / potmeter is 2W*** and still working, while I remember that you said your initial potmeter burned out, and you replaced it with a higher wattage version. I tried to find your post about it back, but can’t find it.
On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t say so much about the performance of the machine; the reason could also have been that your initial potmeter was not able to handle the voltage spikes very well due to its physical construction… Curious to hear what your thoughts are.

I've never burned out a pot on this machine, only on some older, smaller machines. I didn't use a pot at all on this machine until more recently.

When I got the test results you are trying to match it didn't have any pot at all. It only used the the 12 ohm, 10 watt power resistor that came with the kit. And the only tuning was from adjusting the air gap between the coil and magnets and installing two fans to the wheel. This was back in 2014. Here's a link to where I first posted it. Look at post #30 and post #44 here. https://www.energyscienceforum.com/forum/alternative-energy/john-bedini/bedini-sg-official-monopole-forum/bedini-monopole-3-beginners/1354-why-not-shown-how-to-charge-one-battery-with-the-other-at-the-offical-bedini-forum/page3

Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary, RS,

How are things, it’s been a while!

Earlier this year I received the all the parts + charger from TeslaGenX and started testing again. In the attachment 1 can see the results. I’ll first summarize the result here, refering to the cycle nrs before diving into it more elaborate:

Cycles C210601 / C210601:
Here I just tried to set a new baseline COP/performance, anticipating that the batteries might have deteriorated a bit since my lasts tests months ago. After two cycles I stopped since the COP was really bad due to the low input voltage of my input battery (Fooded lead acid (FLA) 24Ah).

I charged (and discharged) the input battery a couple of times with the TeslaGenX charger TX-2412-EX2. The charger improved the input battery voltage quite a bit and I started the cycles C210603 / C210604 / C210605 / C210606:
With the improved input voltage, the COP improved too, but not beyond the COP I was getting a couple of months ago.
This set of cycles proved that the TelsaGenX charger does not seem to be the ‘bottle neck’ I’m still looking for.

Cycles C210607 / C210608:
Same setup as above, but instead of charging output battery to 15.3V, I charged to 15.0V. COP still not higher than before, but both cycles did give a stable result (=both times exact same COP value).

Cycles C210701 / C210702 / C210703
In these cycles I changed the output AGM 12Ah battery for a FLA 24Ah, exactly the same as the input battery. Tried to charge to 15.3V and 15.V, but COP ended up lower than with the AGM at the output.

Cycles C210704 / C210705 / C210706
In these cycles I swapped input and output battery, since the output battery was a new battery, I wanted to make sure that this wasn’t the cause for the low COP. (I did do a couple of charge/discharge cycles with my CBA and the TeslaGenX charger before using it for these tests). But the results where the same: Lower COP as with the AGM as output battery.

Cycle C210707
Soldered a new PCB with parts from TeslaGenX and replaced the PCB, main difference with my old PCB: 470-Ohm resistors instead of 100-Ohm resistors, transistors matched by TeslaGenX. Still used both FLA for input & output. Results: same low COP.

--------------------------------

AGM versus FLA
Earlier I talked with you and Erik from TGX about my results so far and both of you suggested that I should try swapping the AGMs for FLA batteries. In previous cycles I swapped the input AGM-12Ah already for a FLA-24Ah, and now from C210701 onward used a FLA-24Ah also at the output. Also in the beginners manual it was recommended to use FLA instead of AGM. I was really surprised to see a COP drop of 10%-15% with 2 FLA instead of increasing (at least a bit). Not in the last place I was expecting an improvement since the starting amps I’m testing with (2amp) is relatively high for a 12Ah (AGM) input battery, compared to a 24AH (FLA) input battery. What conclusion do you draw from this? Would this phenomenon has a relation with my bottle neck…?
Or could it be that e.g. that the FLA batteries are more ‘sensible’ to a different rotor setup than the AGMs? I mean, earlier I tested with AGMs and different rotors, but with little to no change in my COP… And it would surprise me if the FLAs would respond to a different rotor, while the AGMs did not.

Charge monitor on FLA-24Ah output battery
During cycle C210706, I used the CBA as a charge monitor on the output FLA battery, see attachment 2. What I find particular are the following two things:
-I always start my cycles with the amp meter switched on and after 2 minutes I bypass it with a switch. At the end of he cycle I switch the amp meter back on. Now in your graphs I saw a big spike at the moment when you switch on/off your amp meter, but I do not see that back in my graph / attachment 2.
-On page 78 of the beginners manual you see a graph with a point P and after that the flat line R. Although in this cycle I didn’t charge the battery above 15.12V, my graph gives me the impression that point P was reached at a little before 50min @+/-15V. But after a minor dimple, the curve starts to raise again, seemingly at an increasing rate.

New PCB
In attachment 3 you can see the my old PCB (left) and the new one (right) side by side.

Thick (connection) Wires
Could you please tell me again what the AWG of your thick wires is? And is there any chance you have a piece of it, 500mm or shorter, laying around? If so, could you please tell me the length and measure the resistance of it?
I ask since when I originally ordered my 10 AWG wire it said in the description that it was not pure copper but an allow, I think it was brass. When I later asked the seller about it, he could not give me any information about it. The description at that time was changed already on the website.

I’ll ask TGX if they have some input too.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

2021-07-15 - Attachment 1.pdf
2021-07-15 - Attachment 2.pdf
2021-07-15 - Attachment 3.pdf

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

It has been a while. I had almost forgotten where we were in our discussion.

What conclusion do you draw from this? Would this phenomenon has a relation with my bottle neck…? Or could it be that e.g. that the FLA batteries are more ‘sensible’ to a different rotor setup than the AGMs? I mean, earlier I tested with AGMs and different rotors, but with little to no change in my COP… And it would surprise me if the FLAs would respond to a different rotor, while the AGMs did not.

It appears that your AGMs have a higher standing voltage when fully charged and after discharge than your FLAs have. I've noticed this with some of the batteries I have as well. I've always assumed that equal capacity FLAs have a lower internal resistance than AGMs, but that is not necessarily true. I do know that standing voltage and internal resistance can vary a lot from battery to battery even of the same type and AH rating. Not all batteries are created equal. It could also be that your FLAs are not fully conditioned.

Now in your graphs I saw a big spike at the moment when you switch on/off your amp meter, but I do not see that back in my graph / attachment 2.

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.

On page 78 of the beginners manual you see a graph with a point P and after that the flat line R. Although in this cycle I didn’t charge the battery above 15.12V, my graph gives me the impression that point P was reached at a little before 50min @+/-15V. But after a minor dimple, the curve starts to raise again, seemingly at an increasing rate.

I think this is normal behavior. I've observed the same with mine. Once the minor dimple occurs any further charging produces wasted heat and off gassing, even though the voltage continues rising. This is non recoverable energy and is wasted as heat.

Could you please tell me again what the AWG of your thick wires is? And is there any chance you have a piece of it, 500mm or shorter, laying around? If so, could you please tell me the length and measure the resistance of it?

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.

You can see my original setup in the following link. http://www.garyhammondonline.com/Alt...nd%20Resources

Gary Hammond,

PS ---- I will be unavailable to correspond for the next three weeks if all goes as planned.

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Until I’ve found a way to improve my COP I’ll probably will come back to this thread like a boomerang; might be with short intervals, might be with long intervals, I will keep on ploughing .

It appears that your AGMs have a higher standing voltage when fully charged and after discharge than your FLAs have. I've noticed this with some of the batteries I have as well. I've always assumed that equal capacity FLAs have a lower internal resistance than AGMs, but that is not necessarily true. I do know that standing voltage and internal resistance can vary a lot from battery to battery even of the same type and AH rating. Not all batteries are created equal. It could also be that your FLAs are not fully conditioned.

I see, this helps me in understanding a bit more about one of the reasons why AGMs where supposed to be preferred over FLAs (I know serviceability/vulnerability are a reason too). So I seem to understand from you response is that the height of the voltage (at least of the input battery during running) and the internal resistance of the battery are important factor. I just looked at some older cycle results where I ran with one of the FLA at the output (and a AGM at the input), and also there the COP was really poor. In one of the links in your posts above I read that you left the charger on for a whole night. I asked TGX about this, if the battery would benefit more from this (leaving the charger on for longer periods), and understood that it could, depending on the state of the battery. I tried this by leaving on the charger for a couple of hours on a full AGM, and when I measured it more than an hour after I disconnected the charger, it still read 13.70V on my multi meter… Knowing this I want to do new tests with the AGMs. But what I want to test first (with FLAs), is some cycles with the following:
-fixed 36-Ohm resistor (3x12-Ohm), see attachment 1* (I don’t expect a noticeable change from this)
-Coil with core material from TGX and spray painted, see attachment 1
These two mods I will test in the same cycles, will not test them separately. Only after I wrote my previous post I realized that I still could test the influence of the spray painted TGX core material.

I think this is normal behavior. I've observed the same with mine. Once the minor dimple occurs any further charging produces wasted heat and off gassing, even though the voltage continues rising. This is non recoverable energy and is wasted as heat.

This is valuable information too: Then I’ll use the charge monitor more often to find the approx. point P for my individual batteries and will use that as the point to charge to rather than be fixed on 15.3V.

Assuming you’re absence is due to a holiday: enjoy!

I have a lot of question regarding understanding the importance of the height of the input voltage, it’s relation to the graph/spike signal, coil charging, etc. But will first do some more testing as described above, and maybe when you’re back we can dive a bit deeper into some theory. In case I’m done with the testing quickly, I might see if I can harass RS with my salvo of theoretical questions

*Update 2021-07-20
On the picture the fixed resistors are connected in parallel, this should be in series, so the how the picture shows it is wrong.

Best regards,
Rodolphe
116 - 2021-07-19 - Attachment 1.pdf

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

I think I have to come back on my (and your) statements regarding Point P (and flat line R):

On page 78 of the beginners manual you see a graph with a point P and after that the flat line R. Although in this cycle I didn’t charge the battery above 15.12V, my graph gives me the impression that point P was reached at a little before 50min @+/-15V. But after a minor dimple, the curve starts to raise again, seemingly at an increasing rate.

See attachment 1 where I will refer to:

In my initial comments regarding graph 1 I thought the dimple indicated that I passed point P. Point P being then around 15V for this particular FLA 24Ah (output) battery.
However, after leaving the output battery sit for a couple of days, I wanted to start a new cycle and before starting the cycle I wanted to bring the output battery back to this supposed point P, so I could from there start discharging 1Ah out of it. But as you can see in Graph 2, this dimple did not show at all. I just cut off the charging process at around 15.7V since this was even above the 15.3V to where I normally charge.
Also in charge graphs 3 and 4 the dimple didn’t show.

So my conclusion for now is that graph 1 showed an abnormality compared to the normal charge graph and the dimple was not point P.
I do remain with the question than where point P would be in graphs 2,3,4. I can only assume that it would lay further ahead, beyond 15.7V.

Regards,
Rodolphe
117 - 2021-07-21 - Attachment 1.pdf

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,
Was re-reading some post in this thread again.

Regarding you post #113:

When I got the test results you are trying to match it didn't have any pot at all. It only used the the 12 ohm, 10 watt power resistor that came with the kit. And the only tuning was from adjusting the air gap between the coil and magnets and installing two fans to the wheel. This was back in 2014. Here's a link to where I first posted it. Look at post #30 and post #44 here. https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...ni-forum/page3

I think this is incorrect. I’m trying to match your performance of your post #29 in this thread. And there you did use the pot and no fans (or I misunderstood what you said in that post).

Regards,
Rodolphe

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

I did a lot of testing in the last weeks trying to narrow the influence of certain components down. Continued swapping components, also with the new shipment that came in from TeslaGenX a couple of months ago: PCB, Coil, Core material, potmeter vs fixed resistors, increased/decreased trigger circuit resistance, connections to batteriy terminals, wire lengths, switches. But also the configuration of the input and output batteries, FLA@input with FLA@output, paralleled FLA@input with AGM@output, paralleled AGM@input with AGM@output.

Although the cycles with FLA@input & FLA@output did not gave the highest COP, this setup did yield the steadiest results when doing consecutive cycles. However I find that normally the COP over 3 consecutive cycles a day would drop a bit, so it was sometimes hard to judge which COP change was due to a component/parameter change, and which due to the influence the multiple cycles on one day. This phenomenon, that the COP would drop a bit normally comparing the 1^st cycle to the 3^rd cycle on the same day, gives me the impression that even though I initially kept an hour rest between a CBA discharge and after a SG charge, this was still not enough for these batteries.

The use of the TGX charger for the input batteries (instead of a regular charger) showed a clear improvement, mainly I assume because the input voltage went up (compare cycle set C210601/ C210602 to C210603/C210604/C210605/C210606).

Although initially I tried to pinpoint the influence of the individual components, during the course of the cycles I realized that these changes are either very minor and/or not noticeable since the COP changed already from day to day and from cycle to cycle, when doing 3 cycles a day with the same setup/configuration.
What I did realized is that as mentioned before the TGX charger made a difference, the input amperage made a difference, but most of all the batteries themselves, and this brought me to the conclusion that my bottle neck is probably my batteries:

Flooded Lead Acid (FLA) @ output
-max COP measured +/-64%, cycle C210709
-COP increased with higher current (=less Trigger circuit resistance)

AGM @ output
-max COP measured +/-85%, cycle C210731
-COP/results were not steady/easily replicable: big spread in COP over different cycles. Either the small battery size (12AH) or the AGM battery structure/composition might be responsible for this.

I had a look on your website to see which batteries you used*, with a little zooming I read: EverStart Lawn & Garden UR1 83 230CCA 275CA. I tried to find something similar here and considered these two:

Yuasa U1 12V 30Ah 330CCA: https://www.yuasa.co.uk/u1.html
Varta U1 12V 22Ah 340CCA: https://www.energyparts-shop.com/en/...arta-522450034

I just ordered 3x the Yuasa U1 since I could find them locally for almost half the price of the Varta. I’d like to think it is the battery’s structure/technology* is what causes the difference in COP between your and my tests, and although I think that is mainly true, I also concluded that between batteries of the same type there can be huge differences (from supplier to supplier): In your post#29 you got with your AGMs a COP of 99%, while I got with bigger AGMs a max of 85% (once!). If I’m very unlucky, even the Yuasa’s might still yield me a poor COP if their structure happens to be unfavorable for the SG… (assuming that the bottle neck indeed is in the batteries, since I’ve swapped virtually all components). But we’ll see, I have good hopes for now: the Yuasa (and the Varta) are the same type as your batteries: maintenance free FLA, specific for garden/lawn tractors/vehicles (not sure why that garden/lawn thing would make a difference though).
I noticed the charge graph of my FLA is very different from my AGM(s), see Attachment 2

*You using maintenance free FLAs and I FLAs with openable caps.

In Attachment 1 you can see the results of my tests, some explanation in how to read them:
-In the yellow heading above I tried to indicate in a few words the main component/parameter that I changed for that set of cycles. More details about it can be found in the blue comments/remarks underneath the test. From cycle C210708 onwards I wrote down a “Procedure” at the beginning of the cycle set and “Conclusions” at the end.

Will update when I have results with my new batteries, in the meanwhile also looking forward to your thoughts about all this (when you’re back home).

Best regards,
Rodolpe
119 - 2021-08-03 - Attachment 1.pdf
119 - 2021-08-03 - Attachment 2.pdf

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

*You using maintenance free FLAs and I FLAs with openable caps.

The batteries I show on my home page are NOT maintenance free. They had a pair of 3 individual caps connected together at the top and did occasionally require having some distilled water added. Here's a link to them. Look at the picture at the top of the linked page. https://www.walmart.com/ip/EverStart-Lead-Acid-Lawn-Garden-Battery-Group-Size-U1-12-Volt-230-CCA/21984263

Although initially I tried to pinpoint the influence of the individual components, during the course of the cycles I realized that these changes are either very minor and/or not noticeable since the COP changed already from day to day and from cycle to cycle, when doing 3 cycles a day with the same setup/configuration.
What I did realized is that as mentioned before the TGX charger made a difference, the input amperage made a difference, but most of all the batteries themselves, and this brought me to the conclusion that my bottle neck is probably my batteries:

The top graph in your Attachment 2 looks very much like the graphs I was getting. Battery internal construction and material used can absolutely affect the COP results. And the Teslagenx charger will also give better results than a "hot" charger (current charging).

I think it is also best to let the batteries rest overnight between tests. They will recover some on their own, especially when using the Teslagenx charger. Start off by completely charging both batteries with the TGX charger. Then after an hour's rest, discharge the secondary battery (the one to be recharged with the SSG) using the CBA to remove 1 AH at a 1 amp rate.

Next let both batteries rest for another 10 to 12 hours, and then recharge the receiving battery with the SSG while monitoring the charge with the CBA. This is basically how I ran the tests I posted on my home page. After following this procedure for several cycles, the batteries will become conditioned and probably give better results over time. If you try to hurry the process, you'll not be able to take advantage of the natural recovery process of the batteries. This recovery process is enhanced by using the TGX charger.