Gary's "Complete Advanced" SSG Build

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

I see...

Would you be open to consider the following:
I buy a set (8 off), ship them to you. Maybe you would consider doing some SG runs with 4 of them (2 in parallel @ input, 2 in parallel @ output) to make sure these batteries too perform in the ballpark of what you had with your old ones, leaving 4 off untouched. And then ship the whole whole lot of 8 to me? (me paying for all everything off course).

If for any reason you don't feel for it, no worries; I can ask if I can send them to the guys from TeslaGenX, and ask if they want to ship them to me.

Looking forward to your reply,
Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

I can do that, but you would only need 4 of the 5.5AH batteries and not all eight. They are available in pairs as well at $35.99 per pair here https://www.batterysharks.com/Set-of...s12-5.5_x2.htm.

Here are a couple more options to consider. Four 7.5AH batteries at $78.99 https://www.batterysharks.com/Set-of...ups12-7_x4.htm or two 12AH batteries for $68.99 https://www.batterysharks.com/Kit-of..._b12-12_x2.htm .

I can order and test whichever ones you chose and then ship them to you. I don't know how much the overseas shipping would be.

regards,
Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Thanks so much for being willing to help me with this! Really!
The shipping costs I’ll look into once we decide to put this idea into action, update you about it, and transfer you the money. (but if we get to that point we continue about the details via e-mail/private chat).

The reason why I considered the 8 off 5.5Ah version were the following:
-Then I have the highest certainty that the batteries are the same as you had (not a slightly different production process that might influence the results)
-When you would use 4 off to test with, and then send all 8 of them over to me later on, if the performance of the 4 you used would deteriorate because of the shipping, I at least would still have 4 off brand new ones… to start fresh with…

However it will be more easy (and cheaper! Also weight wise for shipping)) to go for the set of 2, 12Ah… That is what I’m considering at the moment going for that option: https://www.batterysharks.com/Kit-of..._b12-12_x2.htm

What I keep asking myself though is: With all the swapping of parts that I’ve been doing, with all the batteries I have here, both AGM’s and FLA’s, I cannot get reproducible result of over +/-75% of COP… Will these batteries from the USA make a difference of 30%!!! percent?
I’m skeptical, but probably will be around with the question forever if I don’t try…
What are your thoughts on this?

I’m also still in correspondence with E. from TeslaGenX and asked for his input as well. Not sure how busy/interested you are, but I could include you in the CC in the correspondence if you want.

P.S. are you in contact with RS at all, or only here on the forum when he responds?

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

What are your thoughts on this?

I will be surprised if batteries from the USA make much difference, but I'm willing to help you find out.

P.S. are you in contact with RS at all, or only here on the forum when he responds?

I don't think RS has been on the forum for quite a while now. I haven't had any other contact with him either.

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Once again, thanks you so much for your willingness to go through this battery-shipping-hassle with me . Let's hold the pause button just for a little longer. Since you're also not immediately convinced that the batteries will yield my missing 30%, I'd like to try to get in contact with some people who might also have an opinion/have some suggestions.

I'll be in touch.

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

I’ve been considering my previous idea regarding the batteries from the USA a bit more, and since you, myself and another guy here from the Netherlands* who I had some contact with*, are all not so convinced that the batteries are going to make the difference, I’m now contemplating the following:
As you know I ordered a while ago from TGX a new coil/core, new PCB, transistors matched bij TGX, etc. But when I build that in, it didn’t make much of a difference. How About I send you my old PCB (soldered w. components) with my old core/coil? Maybe you could try those parts on your machine with some of your batteries?
I’m also not so sure that that is going to show a difference, but at least it will be a cheaper option and will at least 100% eliminate the coil/core and the PCB, of which the PCB would be the most interesting one…

What are your thoughts on this?

Furthermore I’ve been in contact with some people here organizing FE events/gatherings to ask if they knew experimenters with Bedini SG, they replied that people were involved with it years ago, 2009. But they asked if I want to do a presentation on the Bedini SG on the next event, trying to rejuvenate the interest… I’m considering it, contacting also the other dutch guy* see if we can do a presentation together.

*https://emediapress.com/shop/the-rob...tor-generator/

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

How About I send you my old PCB (soldered w. components) with my old core/coil? Maybe you could try those parts on your machine with some of your batteries?
I’m also not so sure that that is going to show a difference, but at least it will be a cheaper option and will at least 100% eliminate the coil/core and the PCB, of which the PCB would be the most interesting one… What are your thoughts on this?

I think I could do that without damaging my machine. I currently have some 12AH batteries I could use to first test with my coil and circuit, and then test with your coil and circuit for a direct comparison. I will not be able to do this between December 25, 2022 and April 7, 2023 due to other commitments during that time span. So either before or after that would work for me.

Doing a joint presentation with Nick sounds like a good idea to me. Keep us posted if this happens. Joining with a group of like-minded experimenters is always interesting when you can share results and new ideas to try.

Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,
Ok, great. I think this would be a better and cheaper option for now than the shipping over the batteries.

I could send you the parts this weekend, or otherwise next weekend and then they should arrive well in time.

A thing to double check; you used all standard compo 1N4007 diodes on your PCB correct? And not faster ones like UF4007, correct?
http://www.teslagenx.com/kits/tx-sg8.html?category=kits

Nick just told me that for now he is too busy to do the presentation, but I might still do it.

Best Regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

A thing to double check; you used all standard compo 1N4007 diodes on your PCB correct? And not faster ones like UF4007, correct?

Correct. I used the 1N4007 diodes that came with the kit.

All the later devices I've built I used the faster UF4007 diodes; but the one shown on my home page, which you're trying to match, still has all the original components and still runs like it always did.

Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Diodes, Diodes, Diodes…

Nick made me aware of the ‘switch on time’ (SOT) of the diodes 1N4007 (and the 1N5408 in CG mode as well I guess). Most of the specsheet don’t specify it, but some do specify the ‘Reverse recovery time’ (RRT), which also plays a role in the efficiency I assume.
We talked briefly about the diodes in post #111 and #113. When you said:

The 1N4007 diodes being the same would be the most critical

I interpretated that as being the same type -> 1N4007… but had never looked into specs like SOT and RRT.
I asked TGX if they could tell me which exact diodes they used (and sent to you in the kit), so I can try to figure out what the SOT and RRT specs are.
I looked at the spec sheet of the ones I have, but it is a cheap Chinese brand, not mentioned. I sent an e-mail to the manufacturer but doubt if I’ll get a reply.

Apart from 1N4007 diodes that match or surpass the SOT & RRT specs of the ones you have, I also was looking into UF4007. At least their RRT time is WAY faster… the downside is that they have a forward voltage (FV) of 1.7V (instead of 1.1V for the 1N4007), which I would assume has have a negative effect on the COP. You mentioned that you had Bedini SG with UF4007. Did the faster switching speed of the UF4007 yield a net positive result on the COP (over the negative higher FV of the UF4007)?

I also talked briefly with nick about Schottky diodes, C4D02120A. They are supposed to be even faster, but have FV range 1.4-1.9V… In case your UF yielded a net positive result on the COP, I think these Schottky might be a next thing to try, but since the FV is a range, would they need to be matched, like the Transistors?

Then there is the 1N5408 for the CG mode (or two in parallel, since I matched what you had), but here should have the same ON semiconductor versions as you have. Also here I contacted the supplier to ask for the SOT and RRT times, in case they are slower than the 1N4007 values, I assume that you machine could yield more output still if this would be the case, that is in the version where you still use them, since you also told me you removed them in another version, depending on the voltage difference in the input/output batteries.
Gary I have a feeling that this might be the issue in my machine… too slow/cheap 1N4007 diodes… makes at least a lot of sense from a logical point of view, taking everything into account we’ve discussed and tried so far.

What do you think???

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

I also was looking into UF4007. At least their RRT time is WAY faster… the downside is that they have a forward voltage (FV) of 1.7V (instead of 1.1V for the 1N4007), which I would assume has have a negative effect on the COP.

When harvesting a 50 to 100 volt spike an extra 6/10 volt drop would have very little, if any, effect on the COP. The faster switching speed, however, should cause the voltage to spike up to a higher level. In my understanding the faster switching speed will far outweigh any small voltage loss in the switching device.

You mentioned that you had Bedini SG with UF4007. Did the faster switching speed of the UF4007 yield a net positive result on the COP (over the negative higher FV of the UF4007)?

I have no way of knowing for sure because all my devices are configured differently from each other. It is my assumption, however, that the UF4007 diodes will give a better overall result than the slower switching 1N4007 diodes in any particular device. Both will work, but I only use the UF4007 on any new builds. I've also built some devices using FETs instead of transistors for switching the power circuits which lowers the voltage drop before the coil and results in higher primary current and higher voltage when the coil discharges. I've also used mostly hall effect devices and mechanical timing to trigger the FETs instead of using a trigger winding on the coil. I've blown a few FETs, but this approach has given me better results when I get the Hall triggering circuit right.

I also talked briefly with nick about Schottky diodes, C4D02120A. They are supposed to be even faster, but have FV range 1.4-1.9V… In case your UF yielded a net positive result on the COP, I think these Schottky might be a next thing to try, but since the FV is a range, would they need to be matched, like the Transistors?

I don't think they would have to be matched because the FV is such a small percentage of the discharge voltage you are trying to capture. This is a high voltage low current capture so FV would have little affect here. However, any unnecessary FV in the power switching device (transistor or FET) would cause unwanted heat and also lower the current into the coil primary windings as this is a low voltage high current situation.

Then there is the 1N5408 for the CG mode (or two in parallel, since I matched what you had), but here should have the same ON semiconductor versions as you have. Also here I contacted the supplier to ask for the SOT and RRT times, in case they are slower than the 1N4007 values, I assume that you machine could yield more output still if this would be the case, that is in the version where you still use them, since you also told me you removed them in another version, depending on the voltage difference in the input/output batteries.

The reason I used 1N5408s here was to get higher current carrying capacity and to block any reverse flow when the voltage difference between the run and charge batteries is to large. Schottky diodes might work better here as they are much faster switching than the 1N5408s.

Gary I have a feeling that this might be the issue in my machine… too slow/cheap 1N4007 diodes… makes at least a lot of sense from a logical point of view, taking everything into account we’ve discussed and tried so far.

What do you think???

That is a possibility.

regards,
Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Another thing to double check:

I was just browsing a bit through the Advanced Handbook… to see if they used the 7 transistor board or an 8 transistor board… than started reading a bit again from page 26 till 32, under the chapter SG Generator mod Output Measurements, I then read there:

“…The Fluke is showing that the capacitor is discharging 4.418 times per second and the peak current….”

And I think to myself: Have a been such an idiot that I’ve overread/missed this… doing all these C.G. mode / Generator mode experiments without the cap dump circuit while it actually should be in there???
(I have experimented briefly with the cap dump circuit but that was in the “Intermediate Handbook”)

When we’ve been referring to your #7 and #29, your website, did you include the cap dump circuit as stated in the manual in combination with the C.G./generator mode? I double checked the image in post #44 on the other thread* and didn’t see it there…

*Posts #44 https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...ni-forum/page3

Best regards,
Rodolphe

[Gary Hammond]

Hi Rodolphe,

And I think to myself: Have a been such an idiot that I’ve overread/missed this… doing all these C.G. mode / Generator mode experiments without the cap dump circuit while it actually should be in there???
(I have experimented briefly with the cap dump circuit but that was in the “Intermediate Handbook”)

I originally started this thread to show my duplication of the complete advanced SSG demonstrated by Peter and shown in the handbook by the same name. That had the generator coil powering some LEDs and the cap discharge unit. By the time I got to post #7 I realized that the higher RPM and reduced air gap was giving me poorer charging in all three modes - that being Radiant Mode or Generator Mode or Cap Dump Mode. And of the three different modes, the straight Generator Mode was giving me the best charging results. It was in the straight generator mode that I was able to add a one amp load to the charge battery without raising the input current from the run battery. All this, while the charge battery was still slowly gaining voltage.

When we’ve been referring to your #7 and #29, your website, did you include the cap dump circuit as stated in the manual in combination with the C.G./generator mode? I double checked the image in post #44 on the other thread* and didn’t see it there…

I answered about post # 7 above. That was a comparison with and without the cap dump. Post # 29, my website, and post # 44 in the other thread are all without the cap dump installed. The cap dump I made works, but I get faster charging without it.

Gary Hammond,

[pearldragon]

Hi Gary,

Regarding post #178
Okay, that was also how I interpretated it so far. I just had a short moment of doubt reading those pages in the Handbook again, but also would have found it strange that if you would have used this combined C.G. mode + cap dump that in our all talks on this thread we would not have discussed the caps.
So in total that would bring it than to 4 modes of running:
1. Radiant mode (Beginners Handbook)
2. Radiant mode + cap dump circuit (Intermediate Handbook)
3. C.G. / generator mode + cap dump circuit (Advanced Handbook)
4. C.G. / generator mode (What we’ve been discussion so far)

Just a theoretical (since I’m not going to use it now) question on mode 3 (C.G. mode + cap pulser):
For the Cap pulser that we both build*, can that circuit handle mode 3? In other words; would no components be overloaded when the coil discharges right at the moment when the cap discharges as well? I assume it can handle mode 3 since it can also handle mode 2, but just wanted to double check.

*Post #28
https://www.energyscienceforum.com/f...uestions/page2

Regarding post #176

The faster switching speed, however, should cause the voltage to spike up to a higher level.

Would it be more correct to say: The height of the spike is determined by the speed the Transistor can shut off (and the speed with which the magnetic field can collapse based on the inductance of the medium, iron in our case), the speed with which the diode can switch on determines how much of that spike is being caught.

This is a high voltage low current capture so FV would have little affect here.

If I read on the top of page 30 of the advanced manual, Peter calculates pulses of 72.28 amps to the output battery (based on his scope screenshot from page 29). That is a high number (however average amperage on the output 0.7amp.)

Outcome of my new measurements with UF4007 (instead of the 1N4007).
COP-wise it did not make a difference. Note that I replaced the clamping diodes in the trigger circuit and the diodes that catch the spikes, but not the ‘C.G. mode’ diodes, those are still two 1N5408 in parallel. What I did notice however is that the amperage draw went down by +/-0.25 amp during the start of the run (from +/-1.95A to 1.7A) and at the end +/-0.2 (from +/-1.6A to 1.4A), but the charge time increased as well, so the net COP stayed more or less the same, +/-0.65.
Do you have an explanation why this is so; that the amp draw went down (and the charge time increased, so same COP? It’s like these UF4007 have the same effect as if I’d increased the base resistance… If the just the amp draw would have gone down, without the increase in charge time, the COP would have improved, which was what I hoped for.

I've also built some devices using FETs instead of transistors for switching the power circuits which lowers the voltage drop before the coil and results in higher primary current and higher voltage when the coil discharges. I've also used mostly hall effect devices and mechanical timing to trigger the FETs instead of using a trigger winding on the coil. I've blown a few FETs, but this approach has given me better results when I get the Hall triggering circuit right.

So with FETs (faster switching) and the hall sensor (adjustable timing on trigger circuit), you say you got better result? More than COP 1.25 which you got on the SG with MJLs?
This is also what Paul said in his video, I’ll post the links we’ve been talking about here too so others have access to it:

Paul Babcock presentation ESTC 2022:
https://emediapress.com/shop/they-ar...r-core/ref/12/
Pulse Motor Generator Design Considerations (by Nick):
https://waveguide.blog/pulse-motor-g...onsiderations/

[pearldragon]

p.s. For the CBA software you use, do you have the "extended sofware licence"m with the extra features by any chance?