An adjustment for the Alkaline Charger.

Experimental Alkaline Cell Charger

Experimental Alkaline Cell Charger

While it is a terribly simple circuit, it also happens to be somewhat adjustable, and upon further testing, the 25 Watt bulb is fine for fast charging of Alkalines if you do not mind failures cropping up.  Changing this single bulb charger to a 7 1/2 Watt incandescent light bulb reduces the charging rate and therefore allows for the gasses that sometimes build up to escape.  There will still likely be some failures encountered at this charging rate, but they should be much lower in incidence than occurs with a 25 Watt bulb or 40 Watt bulb.  Any charger will have failed cells, it is part of the chemistry of primary cells.  These are incandescents.  Other modern types have not bee tried, but I doubt they will work.

If you are using the reverse current charger, this one is simple enough to construct, and it is advisable to keep this one apart from the Reverse Current Charger to avoid confusion.  They are similar yet very different.  Between these two types, you can charge most of the batteries available.   One can be modified easily to this type but you have to make sure the rectifier is in series, otherwise you have the potential for a fire.

Regardless of which low wattage incandescent bulb you use, the rectifier is in series with this light bulb.  You will be using only one half of the sine wave from mains power.

One of the factors involved in the rates of failure appear to be the level of initial/remaining charge of the batteries.  Those that have sat for a long time in a discharged condition seem to have a failure rate comparable to the heavily discharged fresh batteries.  If the batteries have sat for months, as some of my test batteries have, the differences encountered between failure of moderately discharged and the rate of failure for the heavily discharged cells is less.

Capacity differences as of yet have not been determined.  Performance of the fresher batteries that have been recharged has been very good; in numerous cases equalling that of “fresh off the shelf” so far.  Charge cycles as of yet are undetermined as for how many cycles can be achieved from the cells before they no longer accept charge, or retain capacity.

Once a battery starts to evaporate it’s electrolyte- it does not matter whose charger you ultimately use, they lose capacity.  It is a simple matter of chemistry.

The fact that this experimental charger has produced some failed cells was to be expected.  No matter how much other chargers may get hyped, the cold hard truth is there are some batteries that will not be rechargable.  There will be some failures.

The Buddy L charger for example would only begin to charge some batteries, but they could not charge every battery.  Older batteries were prone to be rejected at a very high rate. Their chargers also did not charge to as high of a capacity potential as this experimental charger will.

There are other types of pulse chargers, some sophisticated MOSFET types, and some Rube Goldberg types that waste energy spinning a rotor of permanent magnets past a pickup coil.  This latter style is little more than what your lawn tractor does to charge it’s battery with only minor differences. Another one combines two coils wound on the same cylinder with a pulsing circuit that drives that armature into rotation, and tries to take advantage of the collapsing magnetic field to energize a secondary coil in much the same way an automotive ignition coil does, but they also attempt to claim the passing magnets energize that secondary coil as well in addition.

The problem with that is the 90 degree phase lag of magnetic energy from the collapsing primary energizing the secondary, which also has phase lag from the primary winding discharging.  Then there is also a phase lag between a magnetic field passing a wire coil and the induced current from that magnetic field.  The saturated magnetic core works against any potential for additive energies even if you could get the phasing to match up.

With a saturated magnetic core, the magnets of the spinning armature add minimally at best.  Switchmode transformers for example, use lightweight transformers with a nonsaturable core of a ferrite composition optimized for the circuit, these types of power supplies have good but not great energy conversion factors, but they are the best you are going to achieve in that particular circuit.

The energy the passing magnets might induce into the secondary is dissipated in heat and noise.  The energy extracted from the magnetic core is only useful on the discharge side of the waveform where the electric current flows.  In short- the magnets influence is negative and reduces efficiencies of the circuit.

Even if things were worked out with those spinning armature chargers to address the phase issues, there is no way free energy enters in because a tremendous amount of energy went into making the magnets, which was not an efficient process either.  So for anyone to claim they have a free energy device based upon magnets is either ignorant or lying.

“Perendev motors” for example:  There are only magnets in it.  The magnets consumed a tremendous amount of energy to be manufactured.  If run in a Perendev Motor for any length of time, they<i> WILL</i> lose their magnetism.  It is just physics.  The Perendevs are intruiging to work with, but they are not “free energy” and they will not run forever.   People forget their basic physics.  There is no over unity to the device.  There is no free energy to the device.

If people want to experiment with them, fine, they may find some intriguing use for them.  But they are not Free energy.

And they call it patented.  There are plenty of ideas in the patent files that do not work, or fail to perform as the abstracts claim.  There are numerous water carbeurators for example.  So a patent means nothing.  It is only worth the paper it is written on.  Yet there are still some who rely on them as an advertising gimick.

So if you plan to construct one of those you might find on Youtube, you would be much more efficient to use one or more pickup coil and zero driving coils, and spin the armature with an actual motor.  This does not get you far removed from the old telephone generator sets used since the early days of telephones, but it is at least a bit more efficient.  If you manage to wire a 4 pole motor to a 2 pole motor to try the same thing for charging batteries, you are wasting energy that you could apply to charging other batteries.  There is no Tesla, no free energy, conservation of energy is maintained, you are still well under unity.  Reminds of a Bloom County cartoon strip where Oliver Wendell Jones thinks he has the world’s energy problems solved only to find out he overlooked an allergy.

There are numerous patents for water carbeurators, yet no one is marketing one.  Patents mean nothing, and hype means even less.

This is just reference for the Reverse Current Charger Charger that is similar, but this will charge Lead Acid, Nickel Cadmium, Nickel Metal Hydride and Zinc Carbon cells/batteries.

Reverse Current Charger in Action

Reverse Current Charger in Action

This is the schematic.  In the US, the “return” is the wider blade of your outlet if it wired correctly.  A voltmeter should show no potential between the wide side and ground.  Europe will be different.

Reverse Current Charger

Reverse Current Charger

This entry was posted in Alkaline Charging, Bedini, Charge Controllers, charger, Free Energy, Homebrew, Incandescent light bulbs, Magnetic impulse charging, Monopole Motor, Over Unity, Passive heat, Project, Renassaince, Reverse Current charger, Solar Panel, Solar power, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.