**Day 1 (26.2.24):** **Starting with Control measurements on the Pb-Acid 80Ah AGM battery (designation B83)** Outside ambient temperatures still near freezing and so a heater mat will continue to be used in the lab to raise the battery temperature to between 18 and 22°C. Temperature measurement is made using an infra-red meter directed at the battery's centre of mass. --- <img src="https://i.ibb.co/ZhqMQy1/IMG-5953.jpg" alt="IMG-5953" border="0"> --- ***Setup for control measurements on Pb-Acid battery using a 'smart' mains charger supplied via a power meter*** --- First results are in the expected CoP range of 0.6 - 0.7. After 20 tests the results will be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet into the 'Measurements' folder. **Day 2 (27.2.24):** CoP results (equivalent to efficiency in this context) are very consistent in the 0.65 - 0.70 range. In Test 6 the discharge was increased by 1 minute to see if the interpolated discharge reading gave a similar CoP result. Examples of graphical and power meter data from Test 4 have been placed in the *Measurements - Control (Pb-Acid)* folder. **Day 6 (02.03.24):** Unusually cold weather for the location. The first test of the day was conducted below the operating temperature range (18°C - 22°C) and before the heaters had sufficiently warmed the battery. The charging power and current were well below normal and the CoP affected. The result was recorded but was noted as being ignored for the analysis. **Day 8 (04.03.24):** Completed the control tests using for the 80Ah Pb-acid battery. The 20 measurements are all within each others uncertainty range indicating that they are the same value with a mean of 0.68 ± 0.13. Setting up to start the IPC tests with an identical 80Ah battery. It's surprising how one can forget all the small details in running a test after a few weeks. A practice run is in order to avoid unnecessary mistakes and to check that the proforma has all the relevant data columns. **Day 11 (07.03.24):** Started IPC test runs. Battery warming still required and taking up to 3 hours for it to reach the operating range. Glad to see that the slightly reduced duty cycle of 18% has improved the CoP results to around 2.0. Current limiting, within reason, works well to demonstrate the 'energy influx' while keeping the upfront energy expenditure and the electrical losses low. --- <img src="https://i.ibb.co/ZfJJtDM/IMG-6074.jpg" alt="IMG-6074" border="0"> --- **Day 13 (09.03.24):** It was noticed that the first two runs of the day gave CoP results noticeably lower than others and this could not be accounted for with the ambient temperature. The following test started at a lower voltage but still ended up at the same final voltage as the earlier two tests and so did not require a downward correction of the discharge value, hence a higher CoP result. There is no clear mechanism for this at the moment but then there is also no clear identifiable mechanism for how the energy gains are occurring in the first place and so this variability may be a feature of the inherent processes yet to be understood. **Day 22 (18.03.24):** After completing both the Control and IPC measurements for the 80Ah AGM Pb battery, I am spending a week exploring the use of the larger (18Ah) Lithium battery. It is expected that this larger capacity, 18Ah compared to the 7Ah one originally planned to be used in the study, might perform better and therefore help demonstrate 'closed-loop' testing more clearly in the last stages of this study. Initial tests with current limiting and careful tuning of the PRF and duty cycle, have shown the battery to be very responsive to IPC and I expect to switch to using this battery instead. From the results of these tests, the optimum settings will be derived for the next stage of the study. **Day 30 (26.03.24):** After a week experimenting with the larger LiFePO4 battery (18Ah), I have decided to use the 18Ah battery instead of the 7Ah version when I start the IPC-Li tests. The results are substantially better. Today I have started the control tests on the 18Ah LiFePo4 battery (designation B53) and they are coming in as significantly more efficient with mains charging than the Pc-Acid battery at nearly 80% efficient compared to nearly 70%. --- <img src="https://i.ibb.co/W6YjYg5/Control-Li-Setup.jpg" alt="Control-Li-Setup" border="0"> --- **Day 42 (7.4)** Recently released updates of the CBA software by West Mountain Radio have proved problematic with the sampling interval only available at 10s instead of the usual 1s sampling rate. Being now in direct contact with the software engineer means that these issues will soon be resolved allowing me to also set to 15s when it comes to the close-loop testing, the same as used with the RDM unit. This will allow the plotting of both voltage graphs on the same graph. One of today’s test runs was voided after realising the sampling rate issue, requiring a reinstallation of an earlier update. **Day 44 (9.4)** Starting the IPC tests with the 18Ah LiFePO4 battery today. These will be the results that will clearly demonstrate the effect of IPC. **Day 51 (16.4)** Today I'm completing the LiFePO4 IPC tests that have, as expected, shown large CoP values. Over the duration of the 20 tests in the statistical population, the starting voltage for each tests has slowl;y reduced, due to the slight over-shoot with each discharge stage, and that has lowered the CoP results. However, this is an important feature of the optimum run conditions and so is valuable for the study. The only glitch has been the accidental overwriting of one of the current files when saving that from a particular test run. My finger acted before my brain fully engaged to change the file number. Various other observations will be included in the report to give a more rounded view of the dynamics of the so called 'energy influx'. Today I will also be starting another, and final, weeks worth of additional tests, including measuring the internal efficiency of the pulsing system and then onto cumulative charging, modified %duty values and finally 'closed-loop' tests. These will solidly confirm that the energy gains are 'real' and have some application, even if at a small power level. **Day 61 (26.4)** This is the last day of experimental measurements with the completion of some 'closed-loop' tests to give further corroboration to the CoP values. The test with a 5W external load did not show level swapping voltages as had been observed during a preliminary test but the stabilised voltages were at or close to the starting values which is still an achievement. The no load test shows marked voltage increases which was ideal. The technical report was been started a few weeks back to avoid a large amount of work at the end. It has been easier to write this along side the practical work, adding in charts etc as they are completed. Compressing and reducing 24 pages into a paper for publication will be another challenge.