PesWiki.com

Menu

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp8 Load Test

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:15 pm.

  • 9 errors has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Shortcut URL for this page: http://tinyurl.com/64q6w

You are here: PES Network > Main Page > There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1] > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan > Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data > Experiment 8 -- Battery Load Test

----

P R E S E N T L Y - U N D E R - W A Y

EXPERIMENT 8 -- BATTERY LOAD TEST

Image:SDA repl Bedini SG b 90.jpg

'DATA from Sterling D. Allan's eighth series of experiments on his first Replication of John Bedini's "Directory:Bedini SG"'

Identification : Performed by Sterling D. Allan, Executive Director, PES Network Inc, Oct. 25, 2005, Ephraim, UT USA.

Purpose : To determine the load-carrying capacity of all eight batteries (6V Panasonic Sealed 4.2 Ah/20 h) used thus far in the previous seven experiment series.

: See: Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data for index of experiments performed on these batteries using the same device on eight identical (new from manufacturer) batteries.

General Note : All but two of the batteries are nearly at the same voltage at this time, so this is an ideal time to perform this load test.

Highlights

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp8 Load Test - Battery 7 is factory new, while Battery has been all over the Bedini circuit (input, output many times, series, parallel, supercharged, solid state). Very unusual graph emerges of battery 2's performance next to battery 7. 'Bedini-SG-conditioned Battery 2 holds its charge better than factory-new battery 7.'

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp8 Load Test - Battery 5 started later, and was only "solid state" (no moving parts) charged, including the "no current" charge. Battery 2 held its charge better than Battery 5, possibly because it has spent more time being conditioned in the Bedini circuit though I expect that the "no current" charge will prove to be more robust all other things held the same.

Materials

Image:Computerized battery analyzer powerwerx.gif

West Mountain Radio Directory:Bedini SG:Instrumentation from Powerwerx.com

Eight 6V Panasonic-BSG 4.2Ah/20h sealed lead acid batteries part number LC-R064R2P from Digikey.com.

Data Sheet | photo | catalogue

Stopwatch

MS Image Composer for screen shot compiling

PDF printer from Adobe

Windows XP operating system "PrtScn" button on keyboard for screen shots.

Procedure

Settings

Software settings : Legend off Target voltage at lease 0.2 points lower than standing voltage reading battery type: lead acid Capacity: 4.2 Ah Voltage: 6 Cells: 4(?)

Approximate Room Temperature : 74 - 77° F (~100% battery capacity per its published rating)

Test Load Amps (performed in this sequence)

: A. 0.5 amps load (run for 5:00 minutes) Capacity Ah set at 4.1 Ah

: B. 1.5 amps load (run for 4:00 minutes) Capacity Ah set at 3.8 Ah

: C. 4.2 amps load (run for 3:00 minutes) Capacity Ah set at 3.5 Ah

: D. 12.5 amps load (run for 2:00 minutes) Capacity Ah set at 2.8 Ah

Note: These amp levels (load and capacity) are chosen per the "discharge characteristics" chart on Panasonic's battery spec sheet. The battery analyzer software does not allow a load of less than 0.5 amps. The ideal first to levels would have been 0.21 amps, followed by 1.05 amps.

Routine Used

Each battery tested for the four amperage levels in the sequence given above. 10 minutes between tests on given battery (occupied partly in recording, saving, and printing data)

The following procedure followed for each test:

Note: "screen shot" refers to pressing the "PrtScn" button on the keyboard, which copies the image on the screen to the clipboard. The next step, not stated in each instance, is to paste that content into an image composer program where it can be arranged and saved as a set.

I. Preparation (relaxed)

#Attach two multimeters:

#one to battery terminals to measure voltage

#one to connection wire to measure amperage

#(always use same multimeter for voltage and the other for amperage)

#Name documents with battery number and amps, using "p" in place of decimal point. e.g. B1_0p5a = Battery 1, 0.5 amps load.

#Create Heading for Image Composer composition: (example) "Sterling D. Allan's "Bedini SG" replica 1 Battery 1 at 0.5 amps Oct. 26, 2004, 10:00 pm. Save down.

#Screen shot of "before"

#Record voltage reading on multimeter and on data acquisition page.

II. Run (be alert)

(Screen shots are necessary because the program does not log data points)

#Start stopwatch 15 seconds before start of run.

#Press the start button on program.

#Immediately (less than a second) take screenshot to get first load voltage

#Watch for very first instance of graph line appearing on page (doesn't begin to appear until about 2-3 seconds into the run) take screen shot as soon as it appears.

#At "t = 1:00 minute" record volts and amps as shown both on the program and on separate multimeter.

#At "t = 15 seconds to completion" record volts and amps as shown both on the program and on separate multimeter.

#When one second remains, take screen shot.

#At 't = completion' (varying times depending on amp load for the particular test, see above), press "stop" on software data acquisition.

#At "t = completion + 30 seconds" record voltage readings.

#At "t = completion + 2:00 minutes" record voltage readings.

#At "t = completion + 5:00 minutes" record voltage readings.

#(Continue taking occasional voltage readings with multimeter over time to characterize recovery)

III. Save, Print (relaxed)

(Can do some of this while waiting between post-stop voltage readigns above)

In program, set x & y grid parameters to frame data for optimal viewing.

Save program down.

Take screen shot.

Print PDF copy of data acquisition page.

Organize Image Composer documents (from screen grab pasting) so the six screen shots appear top (first) to bottom, left (first) to right, in two columns, three rows save composition.

Print Image Composer composition page in PDF.

Print hard copy of both pages (MS Image Composer compilation, and battery analyzer data page).

IV. Repeat

20:00 minutes between tests on a given battery.

V. Between Batteries

Record with multimeter the voltage readings on all batteries.

Relax. Take a break.

Battery History

I have kept a tight record of each battery from the time it arrived, recording voltages and tests run for each, along with incidental events such as accidental short circuiting.

The batteries came in two sets of four, the first arriving on Oct. 9, and the second on Oct. __

Battery History

Battery #1

Brief sketch. All the details, often in five to fifteen minute increments are recorded in my log book.

Factory new : 6.37 V

Exp. 1 : started as input battery, was rotated to charging and then back, four times, ending on the receiving end, charged to 5.71 V.

: (Exp. 1.1: 6.30v to 6.05v Exp. 1.2: 6.09v to 6.28 Exp. 1.3: 6.22v to 5.90 Exp. 1.4: 5.89v to 6.11v Exp. 1.5: 6.05v to 5.58 Exp. 1.6: 5.64v to 5.86 Exp. 1.7: 5.82v to 4.96v, disconnected, settled to 5.44v after four hours Exp. 1.8: 5.46v to 5.71v)

Exp. 2 : receiving end on charge in parallel with #2 and #3.

: 5.71V to 5.97 V after 14 hours.

Exp. 3 : na (12-V tractor batteries fried my transistor)

Exp. 4 : input end in series with #2, with trickle charger (NAPA 12-V 2A, adjusts per state of charge) supercharging #3,4 in series.

: Exp. 4.1 etc.

Exp. 5 : in series with #2, starting on receiving end, including Exp. 5.2 when various ohms resistance were tried in circuit, and solid state resonance (no moving parts) effect discovered. Switched to input on Exp. 5.3 (solid state), then output on Exp. 5.4 (solid state) then rested in Exp. 5.5. Stayed on output for 5.6 for supercharge with wheel rotating.

Exp. 6 : n.a. (resting)

Exp. 7 : receiving end of "no current" charge

Battery #2

Battery 2 has been back and forth on the Bedini circuit, input, output, 12-V series, solid state super charged. It did not see the "zero current" test done in Exp. 7.

See Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5 SuperCharging Oct. 19 - 22, 2004

Battery #5

Battery 5 arrived with the second set of four batteries and was first introduced to the circuit on Oct. 22.

Started with Exp. 6, in parallel with Batt. 4 and Batt. 5 receiving charge from the circuit in solid state mode. Exp. 6 documented the relationship between ohms resistance in the resistor and input/output current. The "no output current" phenomenon was discovered.

The second of two experiments ran on Batt. 5 prior to this load test was on the receiving end of the "no current" charge state.

Battery #7

Battery 7 is factory new, arrived in the most recent batch of four batteries. Never touched the Bedini circuit in any way. It had one little glitch on afternoon of Oct. 27, in that the leads from the terminals bounced into each other momentarily, creating a spark. This short dropped the voltage momentarily by 0.01 volts, followed by a recovery to its original 6.33 V. Five hours transpired after that brief short before the load test was run. The battery recovered to 6.33 V in 2.5 hours.

Battery Snapshot just prior to the load test

Overview graph showing Batt# | Voltage | change in past 12 hours (pending)

Predictions

Bedini_SG-charged batteries will hold charge better than factory new

Solid-state-charged batteries will hold charge better than rotary charged.

"No current"/super high ohms charged batteries will hold charge better than regular solid state.

Data

Individual Batteries

Battery #2

Tested on Oct. 26. Report pending. See comparison section below.

The following comes from a different load test run on Oct. 29, applying a continous load of 0.5 amps for 143 minutes, taking the voltage from 6.41 down to 6.10, before disconnecting the load, where it then recovered for a few minutes before having the load applied again to bring the voltage down a little further to come back to a target recovery of 6.20 volts so it could be connected in parallel with two other batteries being charged in Exp. 9 wiwith the "zero current" charge.

Image:Battery 2 0p5 amps 143 minutes SDA Oct29 401.gif

Note that these numbers are provided by the WMR computerized reading, which we have shown to read low compared to a regular multimeter reading volts during the experiment. The multimeter shows a similar slope, but with higher volt values.

The multimeter slope calculated from t=0:4:15 to t=2:21:31 comes to -0.00131 volts per minute, or 0.079 volts per hour.

Battery #5

Tested on Oct. 27. Report pending. See comparison section below.

The following comes from a different load test run on Oct. 29, applying a continous load of 0.5 amps for 101 minutes, taking the voltage from 6.34 down to 6.10, before disconnecting the load, where it then recovered to a voltage of 6.21. It was then connected in parallel with Batt. 7 being charged in Exp. 9 with the "zero current" charge.

Image:Battery 5 0p5 amps 101 minutes SDA Oct29 400.gif

Note that these numbers are provided by the WMR computerized reading, which we have shown to read low compared to a regular multimeter reading volts during the experiment. The multimeter shows a similar slope, but with higher volt values.

The rate of discharge (defining the slope seen) calculated from multimeter data was -0.00138 volts per minute, or 0.083 volts per hour, slightly steeper than the 0.00131 volts/minute of Battery 2, or 0.079 volts per hour. The calculation was based on an average of two readings taken fairly close together at 5:26 minutes (6.23) and 6:10 minutes (6.22) for one point, and two readings taken toward the end at 1:32:54 minutes (6.11) and 1:40:43 minutes (6.10).

Side Note about Readout Oscillations

The undulating sine wave like motion of the line is a function of the last digit bouncing from one reading to the next. This shows that the time it is going 50% between one reading and the other is the x.5 point.

Battery #7

Tested on Oct. 26. Report pending. See comparison section below.

Comparisons

Batteries 2 and 7
Graph

black line = Battery 2, which spent a lot of time in the Bedini circuit

red line = Battery 7 (Experimental control)is factory new, never saw the Bedini circuit.

Image:SDA Bedini SG Batt2 Batt7 Oct26 04 500.gif

Four consecutive load tests : 5 minutes at 0.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 4.1 Ah

: 4 minutes at 1.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 3.8 Ah

: 3 minutes at 4.2 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 3.5 Ah

: 2 minutes at 12.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 2.8 Ah

PDF Close-ups

These all show batteries 2 (black line Bedini circuit-ran), and 7 (factory new) compared.

0.5 amps load for five minutes

1.5 amps load for four minutes

4.2 amps load for three minutes

0.5 amps load for two minutes

In these data comparison files, ignore the headings. The software program that comes with the battery capacity analyzer has some (many, actually) weaknesses, and this is one of them. Go by the naming of the files found at the bottom of the page, as well as the naming of the pdf documents.

Naming Scheme : "B2" = Battery 2

: "0p5a" = 0.5 amp discharge rate, held steady by the computerized batery analyzer. The graph shows voltage as a funtion of time at this discharge rate.

Batteries 2 and 7 History

Battery 2 has been back and forth on the Bedini circuit, input, output, 12-V series, solid state super charged. It did not see the "zero current" test done in Exp. 7. See Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5 SuperCharging Oct. 19 - 22, 2004

Battery 7 is factory new, arrived in the most recent batch of four batteries. Never touched the Bedini circuit in any way. It had one little glitch this afternoon in that the leads from the terminals bounced into each other momentarily, creating a spark. This short dropped the voltage momentarily by 0.01 volts, followed by a recovery to its original 6.33 V.

Starting and Ending Voltages

Battery 2 began at 6.49 volts and ended at 5.70 at the end of the 12.5 load test (change of 0.79 v), rebounding to 6.41 volts after four hours. Total change in voltage after recovery: 0.08v.

Battery 7 began at 6.33 volts and ended at 5.58 volts at the end of the 12.5 load test (change of 0.75 v), rebounding to 6.22 volts in four hours. Total change after recovery: 0.12v.

Measurement Glitch

At the start of the 12.5 Ah load test on Battery 2, I had the voltage cut-off set at 4 Volts, thinking that would be amply low. It wasn't. The software thought the voltage was lower than that, and the test ran for a second or so coming back with a "test complete" message, with no plot, and "0 amph" "0 time". However, the multimeter showed a drop of .02 volts in the battery. It pulled something from the battery, even though it reported that it didn't. This should be taken into consideration in the net voltage drop results.

Peculiar Curve Shape

What is most peculiar is the shape of the curves in the Bedini-ran battery, according to this software. While the factory new battery shows a gradual decline over time, followed by an expected initial drop the Bedini-charged/discharged battery sees times in each test in which it actually increases in voltage -- rather dramatically.

7's Lower Start Consideration

The fact that Battery 7 began a quite a bit lower charge, and that by the end of the experiment it was getting well out of its optimal range, is definitely a factor that needs to be considere in comparing the performance of these two batteries. Battery 7 had a "head start" so to speak.

Battery Analyzer in Question

However, while the test certainly shows that battery 2 is now very different from battery 7 in its nature, I am not confident that the data it is generating is accurate. I've seen many shortcomings in the software, and have 1.5 pages of notes to submit to a product review at Powerwerx. Based on the shoddiness of the programming, I am going to extrapolatae and guess that the overall design, including hardware, is also lacking. While the machine does hold amps steady, its reporting of volts is anything but accurate, so the curves seen are not worth much except for subjective speculations.

Mulitimeter Contradicted Analyzer

I had a multimeter hooked up in addition to the computer reading, and the multimeter was in large discrepancy with the computer reading during the running of the load.

At the same time, the amp reading was nearly identical (within .02 amps) between the analyzer and the multimeter.

Detailing the Discrepancy between Mulitimeter and Analyzer Readings

BATTERY 7

Base reading (no current draw) averags at .03 volts different, (multimeter lower).

In the 0.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .06 after one minute, and .07 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 1.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .26 after one minute and at the end(multimeter read higher).

In the 4.2 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .89 after one minute, and .90 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 12.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was 2.55 after one minute, and 2.65 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

BATTERY 2

In the 0.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .11 after one minute, as well as at the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 1.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .54 at the end(multimeter read higher).

In the 4.2 amps run, the difference in volt reading was 1.16 after one minute, and 1.05 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 12.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was 2.5 after one minute, and 2.51 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

Question: Is this Analyzer of any Value?

It seems to me that I may not be using my time optimally with this battery testing device that it is not adequate to the task. I'm nearly certain I will be returning the tester.

A more excellent tester is coming any day (the same one Peter and John use routinely). The problem with it is that it only does 12-Volt batteries, and almost all of my 6V batteries, while having close voltages at this time, do not have close history, so there aren't too many 12-volt series matches I could do without losing the benefit of their varried histories.

Positive Aspects

I can say that the analyzer does a good job of holding the current steady for a constant load. So as an adjustable load, with aluminum fins and a blow-off fan for the heat, it performs well.

By double checking the data with my multimeter which gives me a few spot checks before, during and after I at least have an approximation of the battery capacity.

However

I can't help but think that the battery analyzer doesn't know what to do with the charge characteristics of the Bedini-charged battery. The graph obviously shows a drastically different performance. I'm wondering if it might even be pulling extra current at the very beginning (when I am busy doing screen grabs to document the beginning profile).

Conclusions

This we can say:

AmpHrs include a measure of voltage. With the analyzer's voltage readings being so far off, the AmpHr calculation will likewise be profoundly flawed.

This data does show us that there is definitely a difference between a regular battery and one that has been involved in a Bedini circuit-motor-charger.

A better means of looking at the battery's load needs to be utilized.

According to the data collected (with multimeter)

Battery 2's total change after recovery (four hours) (0.08v) is 27% less than Battery 7's total change (0.11v) over the same time and under the same conditions.

Battery 2 changes 0.79 v in the course of the load while Battery 7 changes 0.75 volts during the same time under the same load.

Remember, due to an instrument peculiarity, Battery 2 was hit with a momentary load in the 12.5 amp test that dropped its voltage by .02, before a second run gave the results reported above. (We can't just add this factor to the two points above, because a stabilization was not determined the second attempt followed within minutes of the failed first attempt.)

We may find that using conventional electrical analysis systems may be inadequate for measuring radiant energy. Likewise, new energy receiving devices may need to accompany a radiant energy-charged battery to see the full benefit.

Comment by John Bedini

Oct. 27, 2004

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG/message/127

Sterling,

The test is right, this is exactly what happens to the batteries,

unless you have a damaged battery.

Do you think that Peter's golf cart can go 12 miles on one charge in a

normal condition, with a normal charger. (This is no surface charge

like all experts are claiming.)

I don't think so, before I was asked to take down my pages at

Icehouse.net because of 23 complaints for some unknown reason, all

these test were posted up there. I did show the demonstration with

light bulbs the same way your chart is showing now. Peter's golf cart

could barley make 4 miles before, so where is the energy coming from?

I think it is just like Peter and I told you. I told everybody you

can not measure what is happing to the battery. Look for the

explanation on the energizer in my next post to your group, the

normal math does not fit. I will only discuses the little school girl

motor and nothing bigger or how it has been done here, but I will

tell you how this energizer works and why it works. So get ready to

shake your heads. And also I do not expect to have anybody change my

words around and take credit for the discovery that I worked on for

years that I will disclose to the group. When I post it everybody

will know who did it.

John Bedini

----

Batteries 2 and 5 Compared
Graph

black line = Battery 2, which spent a lot of time in the Bedini circuit

red line = Battery 5 was only solid state charged, including the "zero current" charge.

Image:Compare Batt2 Batt5 at 0p5 1p5 4p2 12p5amps load 500.gif

Four consecutive load tests : 5 minutes at 0.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 4.1 Ah

: 4 minutes at 1.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 3.8 Ah

: 3 minutes at 4.2 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 3.5 Ah

: 2 minutes at 12.5 amps, with "Ah capacity" set at 2.8 Ah

These charts were generated by the West Mountain Radio Computerized Battery Analyzer software, and represent a departure from the data that was taken by a multimeter as discussed above. While the voltages are not accurate, the trends are interesting to consider inasmuch as this is the same instrument looking at two batteries from the same manufacturer, illustrating that the Bedini circuit is effecting the batteries in a curious way. Battery 5 seems to hold its charge very steadily. The multimeter data confirms that aspect.

Battery 2 voltage did not actually increase as shown by the WMR data. Rather, it gradually decreased, as measured by a multimeter. There seems to be something about the Bedini-charged battery that the WMR software/hardware doesn't know how to handle.

PDF Close-ups

These all show batteries 2 (black line Bedini extensive circuit-ran), and 5 (Bedini solid state & "no current") compared.

0.5 amps load for five minutes

1.5 amps load for five minutes

4.2 amps load for five minutes

0.5 amps load for five minutes

Naming Scheme : "B2" = Battery 2

: "0p5a" = 0.5 amp discharge rate, held steady by the computerized battery analyzer. The graph shows voltage as a function of time at this discharge rate.

Batteries 2 and 5 History

Battery 2 has been back and forth on the Bedini circuit, input, output, 12-V series, solid state super charged. It did not see the "zero current" test done in Exp. 7. See Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp5 SuperCharging Oct. 19 - 22, 2004

Battery 5 arrived with the second set of four batteries and was first introduced to the circuit on Oct. 22.

Started with Exp. 6, in parallel with Batt. 4 and Batt. 5 receiving charge from the circuit in solid state mode. Exp. 6 documented the relationship between ohms resistance in the resistor and input/output current. The "no output current" phenomenon was discovered.

The second of two experiments ran on Batt. 5 prior to this load test was on the receiving end of the "no current" charge state.

Starting and Ending Voltages

During this load testing, as measured by the multimeter.

Battery 2

Battery 2 began at 6.49 volts and ended at 5.70 volts at the end of the 12.5 load test (change of 0.79 v), rebounding to 6.41 volts after six hours. Total change in voltage after recovery: 0.08v.

On the 0.5 amp load test, it went from 6.49 to 6.27 volts during load, and recovered to 6.49 volts

On the 1.5 amp load test, it went from 6.49 to 6.17 volts during load, and recovered to 6.49 volts

On the 4.2 amp load test, it went from 6.49 to 6.07 volts during load, and recovered to 6.38 volts

On the 12.5 amp load test, it went from 6.46 to 5.62 volts during load, and recovered to 6.34 volts

Battery 5

Battery 5 began at 6.49 volts and ended at 5.62 volts at the end of the 12.5 load test (change of 0.87 v), rebounding to 6.34 volts after six hours. Total change in voltage after recovery: 0.15v.

On the 0.5 amp load test, it went from 6.49 to 6.27 volts during load, and recovered to 6.45 volts

On the 1.5 amp load test, it went from 6.45 to 6.17 volts during load, and recovered to 6.42 volts

On the 4.2 amp load test, it went from 6.42 to 6.02 volts during load, and recovered to 6.38 volts

On the 12.5 amp load test, it went from 6.38 to 5.62 volts during load, and recovered to 6.34 volts

Comparing Batteries 2 and 5

Battery 2 recovers to its starting voltage on the first two of the four load tests, and on the third test, its recover was only .01 volts lower than its starting voltage.

Batteries 2 and 5 began at the same voltage of 6.49. Battery 5's total drop at the end of the 12.5 amp load test was 0.08 volts lower than Battery 2's. Battery 2 recovered 0.07 volts higher than Battery 5.

On the 0.5 amp load test, Battery 2 dropped to .01 volts below Battery 5 at the analogous time of its test, and recovered 0.04 volts higher.

On the 1.5 amp load test, Battery 2 dropped to .05 volts higher than Battery 5 at the analogous time of its test, and recovered 0.07 volts higher.

On the 4.2 amp load test, Battery 2 dropped .06 volts less than Battery 5 at the analogous time of its test, and recovered 0.08 volts higher.

On the 12.5 amp load test, Battery 2 dropped .08 volts less than Battery 5 at the analogous time of its test, and recovered 0.07 volts higher.

Detailing the Discrepancy between Mulitimeter and Analyzer Readings

BATTERY 2

See data above in Batt 2 - Batt. 7 comparison.

BATTERY 5

Base reading (no current draw) averages at .025 volts different, (multimeter lower).

In the 0.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .06 after one minute and at the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 1.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .29 after one minute and at the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 4.2 amps run, the difference in volt reading was .89 after one minute and at the end (multimeter read higher).

In the 12.5 amps run, the difference in volt reading was 2.62 after one minute, and 2.69 volts by the end (multimeter read higher).

Question: Is this Analyzer of any Value?

In continuation of the question posed in the discussion of comparing batteries 2 and 7, as of Oct. 30, we have determined through close analysis that the amp reading on the computerized battery analyzer is adequately stable, and that the amp load draw is consistent over time, reaching its target load within a few seconds of starting. The actual load tends to be a little lower than the load requested, but at least it is stable.

The voltage read-out, however, is not reliable in magnitude. Its general shape is often misleading.

As long as there is a multimeter derived set of data for comparison, we can know whether or not a particular data set from the WMR is a reasonable depiction (at least showing general curve shapes).

Again, at least it does give us some indication of there being differences between the batteries. Furthermore, its "flaws" may actually serve helpful in determining just what is going on with the batteries charged by various means (e.g. varying resistances in the circuit) by the Bedini SG. It might be worth while to obtain the WMR CBA circuit diagram and software used to drive the program in order to diagnose what the Bedini SG is doing to the batteries. That will take someone with much more experience in these areas than myself.

Conclusions

This we can say:

Battery 2 holds a charge better than Battery 5.

The WMR data shows a significant difference in the curve shapes of Batteries 2 and 5.

According to the data collected (with multimeter) . . .

Battery 2 recovers to its starting voltage on the first two of the four load tests, and on the third test, its recover was only .01 volts lower than its starting voltage.

Batteries 2 and 5 began at the same voltage of 6.49. Battery 5's total drop at the end of the 12.5 amp load test was 0.08 volts lower than Battery 2's. Battery 2 recovered 0.07 volts higher than Battery 5.

See also

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan - main index includes chronology of build, other replications by SDA when built.

Directory:Bedini SG

Directory:Bedini SG:Materials | Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic | Directory:Bedini SG:Assembly Instructions | Directory:Bedini SG:Data

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications

Talk:Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp8 Load Test

Bedini SG egroup

- Directory

- Main Page

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[2]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[3]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[4]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[5]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[6]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[7]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[8]

There was an error working with the wiki: Code[9]

Comments