Hi Sterling,

Have you heard about the Peukert Effect? I recently learned about it
while researching battery efficiency. This may invalidate your load
tests that showed a substantial amount of additional energy available
in your Bedini-charged bank over your control.

The Peukert Effect basically states that there is an exponential
relationship between current draw and battery capacity: the more
current drawn from the battery, the less capacity it has to power that
load. To make matters worse, the effect is a little more amplified in
lead acid batteries over NiCd and NMH batteries.

In your load test, you are essentially testing a 4.2 Ah battery
against a 12.6 Ah battery (3 battery bank). The rate of discharge per
battery is much higher for the single battery that is powering the
same load as the battery bank.

For a 4.2 Ah battery, drawing 200 mA, you are discharging at C/21,
just under the recommended C/20 rate.

However, for the battery bank, you are essentially discharging at
C/63.

The Peukert Effect states that the battery discharging at C/63 will be
able to sustain that rate for a longer time than the C/20 can, which
results in an increase of total Ah provided by the battery.

Some battery manufacturers advertise their batteries Ah ratings at a
C/100 rate rather than the C/20 becuase they can publish 25% or even
higher Ah ratings.

For a couple sites that might help explain this effect, check out:

http://www.amplepower.com/pwrnews/beer/

http://www.vonwentzel.net/Battery/00.Glossary/

As for how much this actually affected your load test results, its
hard to say since the curve approaches vertical as current draw
approaches 0. It is definitely worth taking a look at because it does
not look like it is negligible.

Jim


--- In Bedini_SG@yahoogroups.com, "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@p...
> wrote:
> See page for links and graph, if your email is not set to read HTML
format.
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bedini_SG:Replications:PES:
Sterling_Allan:Data:Exp18_Load_Test
> or try http://tinyurl.com/6gw92
>
> Exp. 18 Battery Load Comparison
>
> Experiment 18 from Sterling D. Allan's Replication of John Bedini's
Simplified 'School Girl' Motor and Battery Energizer
>
> Dec. 20 - 23, 2004.
>
> Summary
> Three batteries charged on the Bedini circuit were put on a load
test (bulb) and compared to a control battery load test (same bulb).
The control battery began at the same capacity as the input battery
that ran the motor-energizer to charge the three batteries. The
difference in performance does not leave enough energy left over to
maintain rotation of the wheel, indicating that external energy of
some kind (e.g. radiant/aetheric energy) is coming into the circuit as
Bedini claims.
> Control Battery Performance
> 19.25 Watt-hours
> Charged Batteries Performance
> 16.41 Watt-hours
> Left Over, to Run Motor-Energizer Wheel
> 0.08 Watts
> Approximate Energy Required to Maintain Wheel Rotation
> Between 6 and 15 Watts (taking into consideration bearing friction
is substantial due to pitting in bearing housing, wind resistance).
> Amount of Energy Measured from Input Battery While Running
Motor-Energizer
> 0.62 Watts
> Very Rough Estimate of "Free Energy" Tapped
> Between 150 and 500 Watt-hours during the 35.5 hours in which the
circuit was run for this test.
>
>
>
> Table of contents
> 1 Report
>
> 1.1 Context
> 1.2 New Procedure
> 1.3 Results
> 1.4 Load Tests
>
>
> 1.4.1 Control
> 1.4.2 Bank
> 1.4.3 Comparison / Calculations
>
>
> 1.5 Factoring in the Wheel Friction
>
>
> 1.5.1 Comparison to Comparable Loads -- a compelling argument
for over unity
> 1.5.2 Over Unity
>
>
> 1.6 Follow-up
> 1.7 Relevant Posts to Bedini_SG Group Regarding this
Experiment
>
>
> 2 Experimental Set-up
>
> 2.1 Materials
>
>
> 3 See also
>
>
> Report
> Context
> I've had my motor running nearly continuously since my last report,
and have been accumulating quite a bit of data. This is a belated
report of findings a few days ago.
>
> As a general context, my most recent report was in regard to a
continuous rotation of conditioned batteries in which I saw four
consecutive increases in battery capacity over a 48 hour period, but
that ended up being an artifact of a shorter-term effect, and the
longer term trend was a gradual decline in average voltage and battery
capacity. John then recommended a new procedure, which I followed,
with results reported below. He also recommended some modifications to
the design to get to a more efficient manifestation of his system, and
I have been implementing those modifications. To wit, I have wound a
new coil with 19 awg magnet wire (bifilar) with 1290 turns, completely
filling the spool and then some. I've also gone to a smaller wheel
diameter and have increased the number of magnets, diminishing the
spacing between magnets down to 1.5 magnet widths between magnets.
>
> I've had my coil wound for a few days, but have wanted to first
document the effect of adding more magnets, using my previous coil,
before introducing the new coil. Those tests are complete, and the new
coil has now been glued in place and testing will begin forthwith.
>
> My wheel is a new front bike tire rim of 16.5 inch diameter, minimal
wobble. The spokes are steel, but the rim is non-magnetic. I've fine
tuned the bearings so the wheel turns with minimal resistance. I've
arranged the magnets so that they alternate as follows. One directly
over a spoke, next one straddling between two spokes (direct middle),
repeated around the wheel. I've also wrapped the magnets with fibrous
packing tape to prevent magnet fly-off in case the glue gives out
(which it will when bumped metal on metal).
>
> With that introduction, let me back up and catch up on some
reporting of results in a chronological sequence.
>
> New Procedure
> After I ran two experiments of continuous rotation of back battery
to the front (Exp. 13 and 17), with the average voltage dropping over
time at rate so gradual that one could easily imagine that it is
flirting with over unity, considering the energy required just to
maintain wheel rotation; John then informed us that this is not how he
has run his batteries. Rather, he separately charges one for the front
end, and then dumps the load from the back-end batteries into some
other use -- not cycling them to the front. "That doesn't seem work
for some reason," he said.
>
> See: New Experiment Design (http://groups.yahoo.
com/group/Bedini_SG/message/548) - Report on lengthy phone
conversation with John Bedini, and plan for new experiment to prove
radiant energy infusion. (Dec. 18)
>
> I then charged two batteries, one for the front end, and one for a
control; and I discharged three batteries down to a certain level, and
then placed them on the circuit to be charged. Due to holiday events,
I was not able to watch this one as closely as I would have liked, but
I was able to get some results worth noting.
>
> Results
> I discharged Batt.s 10-11, 7-8, and 4-9 (each composed of two 6V in
series to make 12V) down to 12.41 volts (after equilibrating for 16
hours). Their battery capacity weighed in at ~60% (60, 60, 59 for the
three). Note that the battery rating of these 6Vs is 4.2 Ah, which
doesn't change when putting them in series. The BK Precision 600
battery capacity analyzer only goes as low as 7 Ah in its test, so a
60% rating is what the meter sees, as if the battery were supposed to
be 7 Ah. In other words, the actual capacity is quite a bit higher
than that.
>
> Batt.s 1-2 and 5-6 were charged with a trickle charger up to around
13.1 volts, and measured 91% capacity. (I later saw they will charge
as high as "95%" capacity and hold; at the time, I presumed I was
close enough to full capacity.)
>
> I started the run at 2:31 am 12/21/04, at 2.82k ohms base
resistance, using same transistor as previous recent experiments
(wasn't fried as thought -- I had inadvertently disconnected one of
the resistors on my bread board, making me think I had fried it
because the circuit would not work). The average battery voltage (one
input and three output / 4) began at 12.548v, and ended at 12.562v
after 35.5 hours of running, an increase of 0.014v. The average
voltage climbed steadily until hour 34. It peaked at hour 32.5 at 12.
567v.
>
> The measured input current from the input battery was around 0.050
amps. The measured output current to all the charging batteries (three
in parallel with diodes going to the positive terminal of each, to
isolate them) was 0.017 amps.
>
> Observation
> As John and Peter have pointed out repeatedly, standard
electronics does not explain how a system that is putting out, in this
case, 34% as much current to three output batteries as is being
expended by one input battery, could then charge the three batteries
at a rate in which their net voltage is increasing at a rate faster
than the decrease of the voltage of the input battery.
> The battery capacity, after this run, measured 70% for the charging
batteries, up from 60% at the start -- an increase of 10% each (times
three is ~30% equivalent for one battery). The input battery measured
64%, down from 91% at the start -- a drop of 27%. Note the ratio of
input change to output change bespeaks ultra efficiency.
>
> The average battery capacity of all four batteries went from 67.8%
at the start to 68.5% at the end, an increase of 0.7%.
>
> Comment
> Based on the results obtained in Experiment 17, I would predict
that if I had run the system until the input dropped to the same level
(60% capacity) that the output batteries had started at, that the
average capacity would have shown a slight drop. The peak of output
battery voltages increasing faster than input voltage was dropping had
been reached, and the trend was going the other way. Holiday
activities prevented me from running the circuit longer to discharge
the input battery down to 60%. However, even with the slight drop,
with the energy required to maintain the wheel in motion, an
over-efficiency is indicated as will be discussed below.
> Load Tests
> Control
> To approximate the amount of energy put into the run, I took control
battery 5-6, which began at 91% capacity, 13.03 volts, and put it on a
load (small, quasi calibrated light bulb from Radio Shack). I recorded
the current and voltage regularly during the load, took one capacity
reading in the interim, and then terminated the test when it reached
12.30 volts on load, which measured 58% capacity after a ten minute
rest time.
>
> Bank
> I then took the bank of three batteries that had been charged, and
ran them in parallel on the same bulb. Due to a holiday activity, I
was not able to watch this one closely, and it went down to 47%
capacity by the time I was able to get the next measurement 10.40
hours after I started it.
>
> Comparison / Calculations
> Though it would be nice if more data were available from the bank
load test, a load comparison is still possible based on safe
assumptions about curve shape and extrapolation.
>
> A close approximation assumes a linear decline in watts as the
batteries discharge, which is a fair assumption after an initial
logarithmic decline (which usually lasts 5-10 minutes). The data
carefully taken for the control supports this premise.
>
>
>
> Click here (http://www.pureenergysystems.
com/PESWiki/Directory/Bedini_SG/Replications/PES/Sterling_Allan/Data/E
xp18_Load_Test/Bedini_SG_SDA_Exp18_bulb_load.xls) for Excel
spreadsheet with raw data and graph.
>
>
> The watts (volts x amps) is near linear in its decline over time for
the 1-2 control load test.
>
> Another assumption, which the data support, is that the Watt load
will be the same for a given voltage, whether the voltage is supplied
by a single battery or by a bank of batteries in parallel.
>
> For the control, the starting voltage (after load and initial
logarithmic drop) was 12.76 volts, with the bulb pulling 0.211 amps
(2.692 W). After 7.383 hours, it registered at 12.30 volts; 0.205 amps
(2.522 W).
>
> That comes to 19.25 Watt-hours expended, calculated as follows:
> (7.383 h x 2.522 W) + (1/2 x 7.383 h x [2.692 W - 2.522 W])
> rectangle + triangle
>
>
> For the bank, the starting voltage (after load and initial
logarithmic drop) was 12.45 volts, with the bulb pulling 0.208 amps
(2.590 W). After 10.40 hours, it registered at 12.10 volts; 0.205 amps
(2.481 W).
>
> This defines a slope of -.00105 Watts/hour. The slope of the control
is 0.0230 W/h, for a ratio of 2.2 to 1. If the energy transfer were
100% efficient, and the slopes were purely linear, then the ratio
would be 1:3, for one battery in, three out. The difference in slopes
bespeaks a 73% efficiency of energy transfer (including the energy
required to keep the wheel rotating in process of running the
motor-energizer).
>
> I now take the 2.522 Watts cut-off point of the control test, and
subtract that from the 2.590 Watt starting point of the bank, to get
0.068 Watt difference. And difference between 2.522 W and 2.481 W
(cut-off point of the bank) is 0.042 W. That fraction (0.042 / 0.068)
is then multiplied by the 10.40 hours that the bank test ran; which
comes to an approximation of 6.42 hours approximated to the time that
the 2.522 Watt point would be reached. I then use the same math as
above to calculate the Watt-hours up to that point, and I get 16.41
W-h, to compare to the 19.25 W-h obtained from the control battery to
the extrapolated "same" cut-off point.
>
> According to this, the bank of charged batteries supported just 85%
of the amount of load that the control battery did. This number is in
fairly close agreement with the 73% derived by comparing control and
bank Watt slopes, considering we are extrapolating and assuming a
perfectly linear rate of decline.
>
> Factoring in the Wheel Friction
> To calculate whether the system is over or under unity, the amount
of energy required to maintain the rotation of the wheel during the
charging cycle would need to be calculated.
>
> a.. It was rotating at around 68.5 rpm.
> b.. 22" diameter.
> c.. 16 magnets around the perimeter.
> d.. Each magnet weighs 0.70 ounces and is 11 mm thick (to measure
center of mass about the perimeter).
> e.. Wind resistance is not negligible either. 18 inches from the
wheel (in the plane of rotation) on the back of my hand I can feel the
breeze coming from the rotating wheel.
> f.. This particular wheel has a fair amount of resistance in its
bearings, as later conformed when extracted. The rim of the bearing
housing was pitted substantially (e.g. several indentations of about
+/- 1 mm deep x 4 mm wide).
> Without an accurate means of measuring the actual resistance, I am
left with the necessity of calculating the resistance from
deceleration data, and as of yet have not been able to get together
with someone to walk me through these calculations.
>
> I have been saying that "until the numbers are crunched on the wheel
frictions, or derived experimentally with some kind of dynamometer,
whether this set-up is achieving over unity will remain in question.
It is close -- probably over."
>
> However, the following would argue against the need for deriving
those numbers before arriving at a rough conclusion.
>
> The question is this. Is the difference in Watt-hours -- what is
"left over" -- which comes to 2.84 W-h, comparing control to bank
load, enough to run this wheel for 35.5 hours at 68.5 rpm?
>
> Over 35.5 hours, that 2.84 W-h left over comes to around 0.08 Watts.
>
> That is a tiny amount of energy.
>
>
>
>
> Comparison to Comparable Loads -- a compelling argument for over
unity
> Here are some analogous loads to the rotating wheel, for sake of
layman's comparison.
>
> a.. The little 14-Watt, 0.2 amp bulb I used for this load test
pulls 2.8 Watts - 35 times more energy than the amount we are saying
is available to keep the wheel rotating. The bulb shines about as
bright as one of those old flash-lights. Would that much energy keep
that wheel rotating? I doubt it.
> a.. A little hat fan (http://www.realgoods.com/shop/shop6.
cfm/dp/606) burns 13 Watts -- 162 times more energy than we are saying
is available to keep my wheel spinning -- a wheel that blows several
times more air than one of those hat fans, and that is just as a
function of the magnets displacing the air as the wheel rotates -- not
even optimized for air circulation.
> a.. One of those little model airplane motors (http://www.
hhhobbies.citymaker.com/page/page/1178292.htm) pulls between 30 and 60
Watts.
>
> Here's a closer comparison.
>
> a.. A top quality model train motor (http://www.micromo.
com/customerfocus/article.asp?Menu=CustomerFocus&PageID=15),
manufactured by a world-record-holding company for model train motors,
has a range of 12 to 700 Watts. This is going to reflect an optimal
efficiency of power conversion from technology now available in the
marketplace.
> Surely the lowest-end power need of a model train is in the same
range as the energy required to keep that big, inefficient wheel
spinning. The train motor at its lowest setting draws nearly six times
more electricity than the approximate 2.5 Watts (measured) that was
being drawn from the input batteries to run the circuit, including
maintaining the rotation of the wheel.
>
> Over Unity
> These comparisons make the conclusion seem pretty clear -- we are
over unity. Energy is coming from somewhere unseen. Radiant energy is
being extracted from the surrounding aether, as Bedini claims. Free
energy is being tapped.
>
> Follow-up
> Presently, I am in process of pursuing a more optimal design, per
John's recent tips, with more wraps of the coil, thicker wire in the
coil, higher concentration of magnets on the wheel, and using a
low-friction wheel. Also, the tape around the perimeter of the magnets
serves to cut down the wind resistance. With this set-up, the free
energy should become even more apparent.
>
>
>
>
> Relevant Posts to Bedini_SG Group Regarding this Experiment
>
>
>
> Experimental Set-up
>
> This image is from Experiment 17. In Experiment 18, only one battery
set (two 6V in series) was on the input, with three battery sets on
the output.
> Click here for enlarged view: (2098px X 1536px)
>
> I'm using the Bedini SG circuit and plans as defined in this
project, and as reported in previous experiments.
>
>
>
>
> Materials
>
> a.. BK Precision 600 Battery Capacity Analyzer (12V Storage Type
Only) click here for description
> b.. Ten 6V Panasonic-BSG 4.2Ah/20h sealed lead acid batteries part
number LC-R064R2P (http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?
PName?Name=P164-ND&Site=US) from Digikey.com. Data Sheet (http:
//rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Panasonic/Web%20data/LC-R064R2P.PDF) |
photo (http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Panasonic/Web%
20Photos/LC-R064R2P.jpg) | catalogue (http://dkc3.digikey.
com/PDF/T043/1292.pdf)
> c.. 14 V, 200 mA, Screw-Base Lamp #1487; Radio Shack 272-1134.
> d.. Multimeter by GB Instruments, GDT-11. Used to measure volts.
> e.. Multimeter by UNI-T, Model UT60A, with accuracy of three
digits to the right of the decimal point for current readings.
> f.. Optical/digital tachometer by MPJa.com (DT2234A)
>
>
>
> See also
>
> a.. Experiment 17: Continous Rotation of Conditioned Batteries -
Continual rotation of conditioned batteries from the back to the front
to the back, etc, sees four consecutive increases in battery capacity
in 48 hours. Subsequent data explains. Commenced Dec. 10; terminated
Dec. 18, 2004.
> b.. Experiment 13 - first continuous rotation of conditioned
batteries test by Sterling.
> c.. Experiments and Data from Bedini SG by Sterling Allan
> d.. Sterling D. Allan's Replication
> e.. Bedini "School Girl" (Simplified) Project
> a.. List of Materials | Schematics | Instructions | Data
> f.. Replications by Others
> g.. Bedini SG egroup (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bedini_SG)