Joule Ringer!

[NickZ]

  Although I don't follow every ones replications on the Joule Ringer 2.0 design, it seams to me that no one has actually replicated the 2.0 circuit exactly as he is showing, for one reason or another.  This is the first step in trying to figure out how he has been able to obtain the results that he is showing, which no one else has been able obtain to the same degree.

  ConradE: It may be that the core saturates and can't provide for or can't self tune itself for any higher output when adding all the other bulbs, as you mentioned. But wouldn't the light intensity then be lowered instead, by all the additional bulbs all sharing the limited output. This does not seem to happen, to the same degree as it would normally be expected  Why?  It seams to me that as more bulbs are added, a higher or improved degree of resonance is obtained throughout the circuit, that counter balances the normal diminishing light effect. What else could it be??? If 5 more bulbs were added, the circuit would not then be as well "tuned", and not be able to keep up with them, and the normal effect of diminishing light intensity would then be seen. Re-tuning may then be needed, as is done with the Kacher devices by using the large variable capacitors, etz...
  Dr. Stiffler was able to light many leds (50 or more) from a low or restricted input source, while observing a very low mA draw. The same low draw that would light the one single tuning led, would like all 50 or more. Just like a radio signal is not dependent on how many radios are tuned to receiving that frequency.
Is this not the same effect that we are seeing here? 
  It also seams to me that the Kacher, the Joule Ringer, as well as the Stiffler devices are all somewhat related, and working from the same basic principal. Even though the HV frequencies may be different with the different designs, as tuning for one set frequency may not the goal, but tuning for resonance probably has got a lot to do with it.

  In any case, I'm so excited about all this that I hardly can sleep at night. while my mind continues working even non-stop on my own circuit replication of the Exciter type devices. As they only use maybe 1/10 the amount of power or draw compared to the  Ringer design, and will hopefully also be a very cost effective lighting solution, once mastered.
  My thanks to all for what you've shared so far.           
                                                                      NickZ

[conradelektro]

    ConradE: It may be that the core saturates and can't provide for or can't self tune itself for any higher output when adding all the other bulbs, as you mentioned. But wouldn't the light intensity then be lowered instead, by all the additional bulbs all sharing the limited output. This does not seem to happen, to the same degree as it would normally be expected  Why?  It seams to me that as more bulbs are added, a higher or improved degree of resonance is obtained throughout the circuit, that counter balances the normal diminishing light effect.
                                                                      NickZ

Well, more bulbs do not provide more light once saturation of the core is reached. And Peanutbutter291 shows it in his video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lmuI2hMA3A&feature=plcp and apologizes for making a false assumption before properly measuring light output. I measured the effects of saturation, but I do not try to force anybody to believe me. It is always better to check oneself. The video shows that others get similar results to mine.

It is an interesting circuit, but there is no magic. The circuit is more efficient than commercially available 12V/110V(220V) converters (in a certain power range, about 3 Watt to 10 Watt, depending very much on the core size and material), but it is not OU.

It still might be advantageous to use more bulbs (with about the same light output as one bulb), because one can distribute the light better.

Further, one still has to test how long the bulb will survive the rather high frequency and the spikes created by the circuit. It might not be dramatic, the bulbs might still last many hours.

I am not criticising the circuit nor the inventor, but one has to stay realistic.

Greetings, Conrad

[Lynxsteam]

Yes, this is not magic, except that if you are on a watt budget and want to use solar or wind power, I haven't found a better way to light a room.  With a wind turbine if you hook up a 10 watt bulb the turbine stops and wont start.  With solar, if you power bulbs directly using an inverter or via a battery bank through inverter the amp consumption is pretty bad.  Try it sometime.  If you are just trying to light bulbs fully bright, plug em in and pay the power company.

I recently plugged in just two 7.5 watt LED bulbs through my watt meter and into the house grid.  0.3 amps at 124 vac, 36 watts.  Through my LJL air core the watts were 6 running off a 12 volt battery.  As much light?  I don't trust my Lightbox so I am waiting for some confirmation.  I have a hunch that a lot of power is wasted using house grid.  Maybe in internal resistors.  The other factor is light perception.  Our eye may interpret brightness different from how a meter does.  At higher frequency there may be an adjustment in the way we perceive the light.

While the bulbs may not be as empirically bright,
I can as you say, 'add a few more' and spread the light!

[NickZ]

   Sounds to me like pretty good results, and fairly efficient,  all in all.
  What Lasersaber is showing is not a trick, so if 10 led bulbs can be lit off of a small battery like he is showing, at 200 mA, or 3 watts, then that is what it is. Most replicators have not really used the same exact bulbs, transformer, wiring turns, wire size, and even the 2n3055 transistor can and do vary in output. Magic may have nothing to do with it, but technology or even resonance effects might. 

  Dr. Stiffers PSEC circuit has also not been properly replicated, but that does not mean that it does not work as he has shown. Many times when things get to the nitty gritty, the inventor, or forum participation, or people just plain stop posting, no more videos, or even sometimes just stop in their tracks. Like John Bedini, Dr. Stiffler, Steven Marks, etz...
I'm glad to see that this has not been the case, here. As this is a very important project.
  It is up to us now to take the ball and run with it, and both of you have done a great job so far.
I am playing in a different ball game right now, but am watching this with full anticipation, ready to jump into the water, once the pool warms up a bit.
  Your thoughts and tests are much appreciated.
                                                                         NickZ

[Peanutbutter29]

I did not / do not plan to post here.   I Like your work Conrad and am sorry your upset.  However, I'm not sure how you connect what I say to saturation.  I've learned some about that coil and it's rated for 380va.....its NOT saturating.  I don't believe the "Shacks" are either, as we are well below rated current on secondary (de-rated for higher fo). 
   Now as we approach higher power levels in a given bulb, is the core IN the bulb saturating and losing efficiency....very possible.  I think, at this point we can get an improvement if we can reverse engineer these some. 

About OU, I've stated to everyone and everywhere I didn't feel it was OU.  There is no disappointment here for me.  My disappointment was providing in-accurate information;  in regards to lumen output.  Tuning shown, improved 20%+ in Lu/W (25Lu/w to 31Lu/w), so that applies to that coil for sure.  Is there still a point to these, why sure.  I'll have a new video up soon hopefully explaining some more, showing some general thoughts on efficiency and tuning;  also some new numbers.  I have a box and can get good info, so it's as if I'm starting over in some aspects.

About "recreating" LS Overdrive.....that's a bit expensive to me.  Not sure if you saw on EF, but that core is 650.00, so outta my range.  If you want the core properties, here's the link for what was used in his experiment. http://www.metglas.com/products/page5_1_2_6.htm
Btw, it was annealed....

Another point, is that was hooked up still in a "normal" JR fashion with an isolated secondary (not tied to transistor).  I stated thanks many times and am still quite impressed that he figured out 2.0!  Again he was trying to provide something everyone could do and had to change circuit designs. 

The only point here is, I'm not sure THAT overdrive CAN be re-created (well 660.00).  We don't know lumens, but can you light that many for that low? Sure, I showed with 11 bulbs.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ncciyB6SKc&feature=plcp
go to around 4:45 and watch.  My shown minimum with 11 bulbs lit was 3.7v @ .75a or 2.775w   Compare to 13v @200ma 2.6w.  Check.
EDIT: Again, I tossed this one aside for the same reason...can't find it.  I didn't want to put more time in, I'd rather come up with something re-creatable.


I guess the 2.0 is a whole different beast from Lasersaber than the Overdrive was.  Either way we have potential......just one can be made simply.  Thanks again to Laser for showing that design!

Suppose that's it, Sorry to have butted in.
Take care all,
PB


EDIT:  give me a few days for the 220's.  I've not had as much time for those and don't have a bulb.  However, I DO think I have a solution w/o efficiency loss vs. our ratio .   I'm working on the higher volts too.