PESWiki.com -- Pure Energy Systems Wiki:  Finding and facilitating breakthrough clean energy technologies.





    

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp21 Load Test Solid State

From PESWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut url for this page: http://tinyurl.com/4nzr9
You are here: PES Network > PESWiki > Directory > Bedini SG > Replications > PES > Sterling D. Allan > Data > Exp. 21 Load Test, Solid State


Spinning v Solid State Charging

Experiment 21 from Sterling D. Allan's Replication of John Bedini's Simplified 'School Girl' Motor and Battery Energizer


Summary 
Solid state charge works better than rotational charge at the same charging current. For the spinning rotor scenario, I implemented most of John Bedini's recent suggestions. Neither test reveals over unity, though the solid state test looked at first like it was going to.
Exp. 21 Duration 
Dec. 29, 2004 - Jan. 3, 2005
Data 
This report includes for the first time a PDF photocopy of all my lab notes and calculations for this particular experiment (Exp. 20,21). A link to the 1 Mb, 20-page document is below. This is your chance to see my method of note-taking and recording during experimentation. My public reports are usually far more general than the specific data I have collected, which could, if necessary or prudent, be utilized to generate far more accurate conclusions. Even when I have reported tables of data, it is usually just a small sampling of a more detailed record that I keep on file in my lab notes. It is not usually requisite to report such details, as it consumes server memory and bandwidth. I wouldn't say that this time is extraordinary. I just wanted to let you have a peek at how busy I am behind the scenes to create the reports that I do as I have proceeded in this Bedini SG project over the past several months. Hopefully some day this rigor will pay off in being able to prove decisively a "free energy" situation. Such a conclusion yet evades me.

Contents

Report

The Story

(Reported by Sterling D. Allan, Jan. 3, 2004)

Once again, the enticing dream has slipped from my grasp, just when I thought I had it for sure.

First, let me report why I thought I had over unity (aka tapping into "radiant" or "aetheric" energy), then I'll report what additional data arose to reverse the tentative conclusion.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

This experiment (Exp. 21) consisted essentially of two comparative experiments. In both experiments, I charged three batteries with one input battery. But in the second experiment, I went with solid state mode compared to the rotating wheel mode of the circuit in the first experiment.

In the first experiment, I used my new wheel/coil arrangement at the optimal setting in terms of C20 battery rate and optimal input to output current ratio for the highest speed of wheel rotation, per John Bedini's recent coaching. The second experiment, completed this morning, was to have the same output current (as measured on an ammeter in series), but via a solid state (no moving parts) resonant input scenario.

For each of the two experiments, I ran a control, which consisted of a battery that had been charged concurrent with the input battery, and then had a load put on it, which consisted of a 14V, 200 mA bulb. I plotted the volts and amps over time, and discharged it down to the same level that the batteries to be charged were starting out at. I confirmed the charge level with a BK Precision 600 Battery Capacity Analyzer, which registered them at 40% capacity (on a 7Ah setting [lowest setting on meter] for the battery that is a 4.2 Ah battery, so the actually capacity is quite a bit higher). They read around 12.05 volts once equilibrated (waiting at least 20 minutes after a load).

WHY I THOUGHT I ACHIEVED OVER UNITY

The first experiment had not given very good results (determined yesterday when I finally ran the math), but the second experiment seemed to be performing significantly better.

The first experiment saw the average voltage of the batteries increase for the first part of the experiment, then plateau, then decrease to below the starting average voltage by the end of the experiment, before I turned the circuit off.

The second experiment, though, saw the average voltage of the batteries increase much more rapidly, followed by a plateau that persisted all the way to the end of the experiment. The beginning average (adding the four batteries, divided by four), before the experiment commenced, was12.308 volts. As usual, it dropped immediately upon starting the circuit, but then rapidly rose to go above 12.308 volts within about half an hour. In about five hours, it climbed to a peak of 12.360 volts. That was the fastest and most I had ever seen the average climb, compared to its start.

Based on other experiments, I expected it to begin dropping after a period of plateau as the input battery got into its lower range, where it is not as robust, and the charging batteries beginning to get into their robust range, where it is harder to elevate their voltage per given input current. However, what happened instead was that it stayed pretty close (within 0.005 volts) to the same level all the way to the last reading nearly 15 hours later. The last average was 12.359 volts.

I thought for sure I had finally arrived at the goal. A quick extrapolative comparison predicted that the charged batteries (additive) would last on the load 1.3 times longer than the control had.

Had I stopped there, it would have been easy to conclude (erroneously) that I had achieved over unit.

NOT THIS TIME

My enthusiasm was quickly doused when within nine minutes of disconnecting the circuit the average was down to 12.310, barely above the pre-start average. After another twenty minutes, it was down to 12.285, below the starting point, and still dropping.

LOAD TEST CONFIRMS NO OU

Still, I was curious to see how these batteries would perform on a load test.

I ran each of the three output batteries on a separate load test, with the same rating bulb as its load, taking volts and amps readings along the way. I calculated that the three charged batteries, discharging down to where they had started, had given off 16.45 Watt-hours of power.

That is 53% of the control, which gave off 31.1 Watt-hours discharging down to the same level, starting from the same level that the input battery had started.

The batteries charged in the first experiment gave off 12.8 Watt-hours, which was 42% of the 30.4 Watt-hours of the control for that experiment.

No over unity making itself plain in either of these experiments.

The input current was measured at 0.254 amps near the beginning (10 minutes in) of the first experiment involving the rotating wheel as part of the circuit. The output current measured by an ammeter in series was 0.081 amps going to the batteries being charged. (Base resistance was 1406 ohms; wheel rotated at around 153 rpm, with 24 magnets on 16.5" diam. wheel.)

The input current was measured at 0.213 amps near the beginning (10 minutes in) of the second experiment involving the solid state resonant state of the circuit. The output current, as the objective of the experiment, was the same as in the first experiment: 0.081 amps. (Base resistance was 2.63 k ohms)

The solid state input current was 84% the input current in rotation mode.

The charge performance of the rotation mode charge was 80% that of the solid state charge in relation to their respective controls.

The two controls were within 98% of each other. The difference is most likely due to the fact that on the first experiment, the input and control batteries started at around 94% capacity (7 Ah meter setting for 4.2 Ah battery), and 13.11 volts. On the second experiment, the input and control batteries started at around 92% capacity, and measured at around 13.05 volts, so the first experiment had a small advantage, hence the higher Watt-hour result.

Experiment Particulars

I determined the optimal base resistance by spot checking input and output currents at various base resistance settings from near zero ohms up to 590 ohms up to 173.5 k ohms. (No rotation is sustained in this set-up above 4.02k [above that there is solid state resonance at least up to the point where the input current reads 0.001 amps]). A peak was found at 1429 ohms. I then spot checked (in 25-ohm increments) in that vicinity to find that the input to output current ration was best at around 1407 ohms. The input current there of 0.233 amps is just a little above the C20 recommendation of 0.21 amps for the batteries I'm using.

I'm using the Bedini SG circuit and plans as defined in this project, and as reported in previous experiments.

My wheel is 16.5" diam and has 24 magnets equally spaced around it.

Image:SDA_Bedini_SG_16.6-inch_24_magnet.jpg

Close-up of coil, with 1,290 turns of 19 gauge magnet wire..

Image:SDA_Bedini_SG_16.6-inch_24_magnets_coil_close-up_a.jpg

Batteries

The "12-V batteries" mentioned above are each composed of two 6-V (Panasonic 4.2 Ah) batteries in series. The five 12-V batteries are thus comprised of:

Other Materials and Instruments

  • BK Precision 600 Battery Capacity Analyzer (12V Storage Type Only) click here for description
  • 14 V, 200 mA, Screw-Base Lamp #1487; Radio Shack 272-1134.
  • Multimeter by GB Instruments, GDT-11. Used to measure volts.
  • Multimeter by UNI-T, Model UT60A, with accuracy of three digits to the right of the decimal point for current readings.
  • Optical/digital tachometer by MPJa.com (DT2234A)

Adhering to Bedini Instructions

Reference 
Tuning Tips - John gives several tips on how to optimize the Bedini SG, from how to tune in the base resistor, to wire gauge modifications. He would like to see us get to the point that we can run a 500 W inverter. (Dec. 22, 2004)

This test was performed according to the recent instructions that John Bedini gave in hopes of helping us/me achieve the over unity landmark. The circuit was as he gave us originally, which to my knowledge he has not recommended changing; more magnets (not closer than 1.5 widths apart), more windings on the coil (filling the spool), smaller gauge magnet wire; a diode going to each output battery positive terminal (in addition to the one coming from the circuit; he said taking that one out would help a little; I kept things the way they were from his earlier suggestion, as he had suggested it then); one battery fully charged on input; multiple batteries discharged (but not too far) on output; a load test on the output batteries compared to a load test on a control comparison for the input battery; tuning the input current to the battery's C20 range; finding optimal speed; bringing wheel as close as possible to coil; using heavy gauge wires; connections on circuit nearly to the quick (very short); other wires also short.


Data

Calculations

I used the same procedure for these calculations that I did for Exp. 18, with the exception that here I did not forget to factor back in the first ten minutes of running. I assumed an essentially linear drop in Watts through the duration of the load test except for the first ten minutes. I did not need to do backward extrapolations here because I was able to be present to shut the experiment off when the input batteries reached the pre-determined low point.

Follow-up

I have some NAPA lawn & garden 12-V tractor batteries I would like to give a whirl, to see how they perform. Perhaps the way I have my set-up now is more conducive to a battery of lower impedance. Before, the tractor batteries fried my transistor(s).

I'm thinking my magnet spacing may be too close. As one is directly over the core, another is just barely coming over the leading edge of the coil, while another has just left the trailing edge of the coil.

Ramblings

I'm losing confidence that the Bedini SG circuit as given will achieve over unity. Any reports I've been privy to of over unity have included modifications of the circuitry, to include four-way bridges, capacitors, etc.; or they have not been accompanied with adequate data to support the claim.

I thought I could handle this one, and jumped in with both feet. I can handle the simplicity of the Bedini SG, but some of the more extravagant modifications are a bit intimidating to me. I had hoped we could have a very simple demonstration of free energy that could be easy enough and affordable enough for a wide range of people. Apparently, that is not the case.

I don't wish to judge the motives of John and Peter in their interplay with us on this project, or of the integrity of their research. An inventor's world is complex, with many self preservation schemes built in that sometimes make a clean interface nearly impossible. I will say that we have received many mixed signals and modifications of instructions, even though we were told to follow the first instructions with no modification and we would find what we were looking for.

Someday, I hope to have a clear, inexpensive project for full public disclosure that can help break the ice and convert the world to the possibilities free energy. At this point, it doesn't look like the Bedini SG fits that criterion. Maybe someone will crack the code and we will be able to then present it simply.

I've learned a lot about batteries and charging and discharging, and some about the theory of radiant energy; so this Bedini SG project is one for which I am grateful. But I am disappointed that the outcome has been so elusive.


See also


- Return to School Girl Radiant Energy Circuit and Motor
- Other Directory Listings
- Return to PESWiki main page

Personal tools

Departments
Related

Support
Toolbox