# Constant Battery charger

Discussion in 'Power Electronics' started by Electro132, Sep 11, 2013.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013
HI,

I have this idea which involves a battery being placed with transistors and resistors. My goal is simple, the amount taken out is to be amplified and used on a 2nd circuit while also having the resistors in place to put the amount of battery lost back into the battery.

2. ### davennModerator

13,865
1,956
Sep 5, 2009
that doesn't really make much sense

ya wanna try again

Dave

3. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013

Ok, sure. lol

I'm building a battery storage circuit where it would store energy from the battery. I've attached a pic of my design so far. My concern for the moment is with the battery heating up and if anybody is asking why the circuit has a line connecting back to the battery it is because i want the battery to be filled up again with energy without exploding.

File size:
34 KB
Views:
187
File size:
31.4 KB
Views:
118
4. ### (*steve*)¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥdModerator

25,497
2,839
Jan 21, 2010
For a whole host of reasons, that circuit isn't going to do anything.

Your explanation still doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm sure you're too smart for this, but if I was uncharitable I would suggest your explanation sounds like a "free energy" device.

5. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013

yes you guessed correct. it is a free energy device.

Ok well the battery is the source where the positive electrons flow through and get amplified by a darlington pair and then gets some resistance to keep the current flowing within the limits of the electrolytic capacitors to which the electrolytic capacitors store the energy and pass on excess energy to the next electrolytic capacitor. They do this in a circuit type motion. Then it continues again for a 2nd loop and comes out through the output.

The battery circuit goes like this: the electrons flow positively towards the darlington pair and then to the resistor which keeps the current inline with the intake of the electrolytic capacitor and then from the electrolytic capacitor the loop begins.

Can you please provide feedback? I am eager to make this work.

Thanks

6. ### Harald KappModeratorModerator

11,644
2,690
Nov 17, 2011
It won't.

There is no such thing as a "free energy device". You always need a source for the energy.
As for the amplification of current by a transistor: Sure a transistor can amplify a small base current to a larger collector current. But the transistor is not the source of the larger current. The transistor is the controller, the current comes from a source like e.g. another battery.

7. ### duke37

5,364
772
Jan 9, 2011
To get a free energy device, you have to produce more energy that you provide.

Do some sums on the energy dissipated as heat by each component and tell us the source of more energy than this.

It's entropy man !

8. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013

Ok that is true. But there is a source of energy for this - the battery that is on the diagram labelled ' BAT '. The transistors amplify the current applied and then stores it as well as place it back into the battery.

9. ### BobK

7,682
1,688
Jan 5, 2010
Transistors do not amplify current in the way you are using the term. They control a current with a smaller current. The source of all current is the battery. You cannot take current out of a battery, store the energy, and then put it all back into the battery, there are always losses.

I mean, think about it. If this were possible, why have we all been buying (or recharging) batteries for all these years?

Bob

10. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013
You are Bob. I mistook the transformer for the darlington pair. So if transformers were in place would that mean it is possible to increase the voltage/power output?

11. ### Harald KappModeratorModerator

11,644
2,690
Nov 17, 2011
It still doesn't jibe. Which transformer?

Even with a transformer, you can translate voltages and currents using a transformer, but not power. The power output of any transformer is always less than the power input. Every transformer incurs some internal losses (e.g. due to the resistance of the windings). Therefore you still cannot "generate" energy by using a transformer and your battery will be drained anyway, not charged.

12. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013

Yes at some point you are right. But you have forgotten that with AC the power, current and voltage are alot more than with DC. Therefore if DC is to be the input power source then it will be increased whilst being pushed through an AC transformer as the electrons are collected in the air and moved through the coils, doing so continually until the energy output/input is restricted.

Have you heard of converters? At some point in your life you must have wondered how the US power on your laptop gets controlled while holidaying in Europe? and vice versa

13. ### Harald KappModeratorModerator

11,644
2,690
Nov 17, 2011
What's that nonsense? You can achieve the same power using either AC or DC. Neither of both has inherently more or less power.

One of us is insane. I doubt it's me. A transformer doesn't move electrons through the air. A transformer operates by (at least) two coils, where one coil ´generates a magnetic field and the other coil picks up that field and converts it back to electrical energy.
I have. And I fairly well know how they operate. I know of no case where output power is higher than input power. Basically, it's against the first law of thermodynamics. Or is it the second? (I tend to confound those).

14. ### KrisBlueNZSadly passed away in 2015

8,393
1,271
Nov 28, 2011
Electro132, your comments bring to mind the old adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You have obviously seized on, and misunderstood, ideas that have made you think that you, a beginner, have found a solution to that age-old problem of conservation of energy, and that your brilliant and original ideas will finally make it possible to do something that all of the experts have concluded is by its own nature impossible.

Most of the people here on Electronics Point are experienced engineers and we understand why "over-unity", aka free energy or perpetual motion, is a pie-in-the-sky notion; this is why your uninformed comments generate only barely disguised mirth, and why this, and other serious forums, have policies against discussing it; it's a waste of time, as evidenced by this thread.

Sorry if I'm being harsh. But I, and others, find your attitude that you know better, when your posts demonstrate so clearly that you don't, frustrating.

15. ### Electro132

261
3
Feb 12, 2013
Ok, i admit that i was wrong as i went and tested it out.

16. ### davennModerator

13,865
1,956
Sep 5, 2009

Electro132 ... go have a little break
when you have, come back and can start writing sensible stuff
and start listening to what people are telling you
They are trying to teach you the correct way

Dave