Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data:Exp16:D-Size Rechargeable NiCd

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:14 am.

  • 8 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:

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 > Exp. 16.2


Eveready NiCd Rechargeables

Conventional v. Bedini SG-charged Performance

'Experiment 16.2 from Sterling D. Allan's Replication of John Bedini's Directory:Bedini SG'

Summary : The performance was comparable for four D-sized rechargeable NiCd batteries when running a load (Graco infant swing) when charged by a conventional charger compared to being charged by the Bedini SG circuit. A poor connection was discovered in the switch for the swing (load) at the beginning of the last test, throwing more doubt into the accuracy of the results for all the tests, which were done on this same load.


Bedini SG Charge 1

~Dec. 6, 2004

I took four D-size Eveready NiCd rechargeables and placed them in series on the back end of the charger, with a 6V 4.2 Ah battery on the front end with trickle charger to keep it charged. The began, before charging, with a reading of 0.77 volts. They have been used in a baby swing that we have, and have been charged, recharged multiple times, and had recently been completely discharged (swing was left on, and was on at the time I extracted the batteries)

Within the first minute on the charger, the voltage came up to 3.55 v, by 2.75 minutes it was at 4.68 volts , from where it then began to charge slowly, increasing to 4.78 volts by the end of 10.5 hours. When I measured the individual battery voltages at that point, they were: 1.4, 1.4, 0.41, 0.54.

There is a good reason why two of the batteries did not charge well. I was using my battery charger to hold the batteries, and had two of the batteries reversed, with wires to connect the set in series. It turns out that when current is applied, the resistance between the two sides of the charger goes from infinite to measurable -- jumps around from 72 ohms to 1400 ohms. I stopped using that as a holder after discovering this.

I took the two not-yet-charged batteries and charged them for about seven hours, at which point their voltage came up to 1.40 and 1.38.

I loaded these in the swing, placed a car battery charger as cargo, and then let it rock. It went for 15 hours before stopping completely.

The voltages read 1.23, 0.01, 1.24 0.01

Bedini SG Charge 2

Dec. 7

I then charged them two at a time on the Bedini SG (same input as above) for 9 hours for batt 1,3 and 9 hours on batt. 2,4.

The voltages now were: 1.39, 1.37, 1.39, 1.37

This time, the swing lasted 21.5 hours.

That is 143% longer than the previous time.

Bedini SG Charge 3

On Dec. 10, I began charging the four batteries again (same set-up as above: 70 ohms 6V on trickle ~130 rpm 16 magnets on 22" wheel). However for the first four minutes, I had them in reverse polarity (oops), and they went from a voltage of around 1.23v each, down to 0.01 volts for two of them 0.18 for #3, and #4 actually registered a negative voltage of -0.03v.

I'm guessing that this may have damaged the batteries. You will see below that the load test that followed this charge session lasted a short time than the last one, however it was still higher than the first test.

I charged the battery for 12 hours 48 minutes, then disconnected it in order to run another test on the Bedini SG. At that time, the series voltage of all four batteries registered at 5.80 volts.

I then picked the charging back up (under same conditions), on dec. 20, and let them charge for 12 hours ~45 minutes, at which point their series voltage was 5.96.

I let them sit for an hour, after which their individual voltages were around 1.37v.

Twelve hours later, I commenced the load test on the Graco swing as above.

This time it ran for 19.1 hours, down from the 21.5 hours of the last test, but up from the 15 hours of the first test.

The individual voltages were 0.14, 1.20, 1.20, 1.18.

Conventional Charge 1

On Dec. 20 23:12 pm, I commenced to charge the four batteries on the conventional charger I have for NiCads, and charged them for 15.75 hours. I then put them in the swing to commence the load test. (Oops, forgot to take their voltage readings.)

They ran the swing for 22.0 hours, with one 4.75-hour break in the test. (The 22 hours is total run time.)


This result is very close to the 21.5 hour duration of the second Bedini SG charge.

I'm guessing that the batteries could still be recovering from my having placed them in reverse polarity for a few minutes at the beginning of the last Bedini SG charge session. I'm in process of running a second conventional charge test to see if the duration trend increases upward.

Prior to the first Bedini SG test, the swing had not been used for about a month. Some batteries do better when under continual work and this may be the case here, hence the first, lower duration result was from having been inactive for that long.

More tests will need to be run before definitive conclusions are drawn.

Two More Conventional Charge Tests

On Dec. 24, after a 16-hour charge on a conventional charger, the four batteries read 1.40 - 1.41 volts each. I then put them on the swing (load), and they lasted 20.32 hours before the swing came to a stop and ceased clicking (same stop point used above).

On Dec. 30, I again put the batteries on a conventional charger, this time for 24 hours. Again, upon being taken from the charger they were at 1.40 volts. I then put the batteries on the swing (load) and they ran it for 13.15 hours. I had to stop the swing a couple of times for a few hours in-between.

Bad Switch Discovered

At the commencement of the run mentioned above, I noticed that the switch has an intermittent position in which the connection is poor, and the swing barely runs. With this discovery, I will say that the 13.15-hour poor performance seen in the above test was a result of a poor switch connection. The swing had been performing strongly, then suddenly went into a weak mode.

My 1-year-old girl had been fiddling with the switch during that run, probably contributing to the poor results.

Another Bedini SG Charge

On Jan. 1, I charged with with the Bedini SG circuit, as indicated above, except I had the circuit in solid state mode, with the base resistor sitting at 1.79 k ohms. The input battery was pulling 0.139 amps, and 0.57 amps was measured (ammeter in series) at 0.082 amps. There was a ~2-day break in between the charging, as the circuit was being used for another experiment. The total charge time was 70.6 hours, immediately after which they measured around 1.4 volts each. I waited about an hour before putting them in the swing (load).

They ran the swing (load) for 22.61 hours.


The test results are as follows:

Bedini SG-Charged Load Duration : (15 hours + 21.5 hours + 19.1 hours + 22.61 hours) / 4 = 19.6 hours average

Conventional-Charged Load Duration : (22.0 hours + 20.32 hours + 13.5 hours) / 3 = 18.6 hours average

With the discovery on the last run that the switch on the swing has a poor connection position, all of the results above are put into question as to their accuracy.

Nevertheless we could probably safely say the the performance is comparable between a Bedini-SG-charged battery versus a conventionally-charged battery. Any difference is slight, one way or the other. A more sophisticated load and more data samples would need to be collected before deriving a more accurate conclusion.

My initial report of a 149% improvement in load performance via the Bedini SG from the first to the second was accurate but unintentionally misleading in its assumption that the trend was upward from what a regular charge would produce, as subsequent testing showed.

Pertinent Posts to Bedini SG Discussion List

NiCd batteries improve 143% after second charge on Bedini SG (Dec 18, 2004)

errata: NiCd performance comparable, not superior on Bedini SG (Jan. 5, 2004)

Experimental Particulars

I'm using the Directory:Bedini SG:Schematic and Directory:Bedini SG:Assembly Instructions as defined in this project, and as reported in Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan:Data.


Four D-size Eveready NiCd rechargeables

Graco 2-speed open top swing (for load test).

One 6V Panasonic-BSG 4.2Ah/20h sealed lead acid batteries part number LC-R064R2P from Data Sheet | photo | catalogue?

InteliTender 150-6 battery charger (to keep 6V input fully charged)

Rayovac "Model CH4" NiCd battery charger (for regular charging of the batteries, for comparison)

Multimeter by GB Instruments, GDT-11. Used to measure volts.

See also

Directory:Bedini SG:Battery Compilation

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications:PES:Sterling Allan

Directory:Bedini SG

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

Directory:Bedini SG:Replications

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]