Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[ltseung888]

 Let me summarize what I am claiming in this post:

(1)    If we can lead-out or bring-in energy from the surrounding, there is NO violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

(2)    We can lead-out kinetic energy of air molecules.  A water rocket gets colder after firing.  Some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules is used to propel the rocket and cools the surrounding.  The Hydro is such an application.

(3)    A string instrument with a resonance box sounds much louder.  The traditional explanation was that the louder sound was only a more efficient use of the energy.  No additional energy was involved.  The NEW explanation is that kinetic energy of air molecules is brought-in to produce the louder sound.

(4)    If we can bring-in kinetic energy of air molecules at sound resonance, we should be able to bring-in electron motion energy at electromagnetic resonance.  See the attached diagram.

(5)    If we add an appropriate capacitor to a standard Joule Thief, we may be able to turn it into an overunity device.

(6)    In the particular case of the Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong, a 2.3V 10F capacitor was added to a 2n2222 Joule Thief with a 28 turns, one-inch toroid.  The 38 LEDs remained ON for an average of >10 minutes after the battery was removed.

(7)    From the waveform comparison and analysis on an Atten 2-channel oscilloscope, the Output Power was found to exceed the Input Power when the battery was removed and when the Output Voltage Frequency increased from 1.4KHz to 2KHz or above.

(8 )    Thus, in applications such as battery charger and Forever Lighted Lamps, we can stay on this range and use the lead-out electron motion energy.  Virtually unlimited, pollution-free and cheap energy is no longer a dream.  It is a reality.

[TinselKoala]

Most people hope to achieve both precision and accuracy.

Yes, that is right. But if the choice is for one or the other, choose accuracy.

My eyesight is poor and my hands are shaky.  I only hope not to pour too much wine on the floor.

You and me both. I also want to keep face, for you and for me. Therefore we must pour very carefully indeed, with great accuracy as well as with as much precision as we can muster. Let's try to pour the wine into the right glasses, and don't worry too much about a few drops mismeasured out of a full liter bottle.

I would like to bring in the topic of "negative power".  This will show up lots of times in the Input and Output Power measurements.  What is your interpretation? ?

This can be a result of many causes and it is nothing to get excited about... yet. For example, the use of AC coupling will introduce a false, negative voltage in your readings, which when multiplied by a positive current value, will yield a negative power... and it's wrong. Another way, illustrated in my Steorn video showing the negative-going integral, results from just the type of problem I talked about above: timing. Specifically "probe skew". Since I was using an electronic current probe with its own time constant that might have been different from the voltage probe's, the current and voltage readings from the spiky signals were not exactly synchronzised. This can also cause that multiplication, and the integration based on it, to go "skewey" and produce a false indication of negative power, which when integrated gives the negative-going integral if the negative power is of long enough duration and great enough magnitude. Does your oscilloscope have a "probe deskew" function? Many digital scopes do. With your relatively low frequency and long risetime spikes, and your plain voltage probes on both channels, this probe skew issue is unlikely to be the cause of your negative power readings. A third cause, which can be seen in the Ainslie case, is improper filtering of the supply voltage signal. With inductances to be considered, even that of interconnecting wiring, the probes may not give you a true reflection of either the waveform shape, or the actual voltages in the circuit. To overcome this problem one must use special, non-inductive current monitoring resistors, very good circuit component layout, and proper probe hookups to properly filtered signals. Your system might be suffering from this problem.
But I think, right now, that the most significant cause is your prior incorrect use of AC coupling for your voltage readings. Do you still get significant negative power readings now that you know to use DC coupling on your data gathering?

It looks liky that the Christmas Present to the World in 2012 is the confirmation of lead-out energy via two oscilloscopes.  Pumping out experimental data will not be a problem now.

I am worried about you, Lawrence. You should worry more about "testing" than "confirmation", because you must always allow for the fact.... however remote and unlikely.... that you could be wrong, and that your experiments could be pumping out not usable and accurate data, but rather very precise garbage. Your overconfident statements make it sound like you are less of a scientist and more of a public-relations or salesman type of fellow. Nothing is wrong with that.... except that you should be quite sure that you really possess what you are trying to sell, and obtaining that assurance is the responsibility of the scientist in you, not the advertising executive.

[TinselKoala]

Let me summarize what I am claiming in this post:

(1)    If we can lead-out or bring-in energy from the surrounding, there is NO violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.

IF is known as the biggest word in the English language, because it contains so very much speculation. If pigs had wings and takeoff clearance from the tower.... could they fly?

(2)    We can lead-out kinetic energy of air molecules.  A water rocket gets colder after firing.  Some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules is used to propel the rocket and cools the surrounding.  The Hydro is such an application.

Wrong. Fluids and gases cool when they expand; this is an adiabatic process and has nothing to do with the thrust of the water rocket. It is the reverse of the fact that compressing a gas makes it hotter. Adiabatic: thermodynamically reversible with no change in actual _energy content_ due to the temperature/pressure changes.

(3)    A string instrument with a resonance box sounds much louder.  The traditional explanation was that the louder sound was only a more efficient use of the energy.  No additional energy was involved.  The NEW explanation is that kinetic energy of air molecules is brought-in to produce the louder sound.

Where is the empirical support for your New explanation? What experiments have been done to _rule out_ that explanation and have failed to do so? Link please?
If you do not have empirical support for your contentions like that above, please make sure that you label them clearly as unproven conjectures that are still awaiting experimental exploration.

(4)    If we can bring-in kinetic energy of air molecules at sound resonance, we should be able to bring-in electron motion energy at electromagnetic resonance.  See the attached diagram.

IF. And the attached diagram makes no sense to me, because the air pressure at the back of the cabin of an airplane moving even supersonically is the same as it is at the front of the cabin.... ask anyone who travelled on Concorde before it was retired.

(5)    If we add an appropriate capacitor to a standard Joule Thief, we may be able to turn it into an overunity device.

And you may not be able to. Personally, I would bet on the latter, not the former.

(6)    In the particular case of the Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong, a 2.3V 10F capacitor was added to a 2n2222 Joule Thief with a 28 turns, one-inch toroid.  The 38 LEDs remained ON for an average of >10 minutes after the battery was removed.

Big deal. Like I said, I and the other builders on the JT threads here have JTs that _far_ outperform that set of claims. Do we then have much better OU devices than you do?

(7)    From the waveform comparison and analysis on an Atten 2-channel oscilloscope, the Output Power was found to exceed the Input Power when the battery was removed and when the Output Voltage Frequency increased from 1.4KHz to 2KHz or above.

I believe we have decided that your present data sets are unusable because you gathered your input data on separate trial runs from your output data. Furthermore, in this JT circuit it is a natural consequence that frequency increases as supply voltage dwindles.
I don't believe that your present data support your claim here of output power exceeding input power.

(8 )    Thus, in applications such as battery charger and Forever Lighted Lamps, we can stay on this range and use the lead-out electron motion energy.  Virtually unlimited, pollution-free and cheap energy is no longer a dream.  It is a reality.

Conclusions based on false premises are false. You are correct, though, that virtually unlimited pollution free energy is not a dream. I think it's more like an adult fantasy.

Come, let us calculate together.

You have some givens: You are starting with a 10 F capacitor charged initially to 2.3 Volts. We know that a 2n2222 JT will run on as little as 0.45 volts or less.... let's use 0.5 volts as the level at which you decide to recharge the cap. And we know that the energy on a capacitor is given by E=CV²/2. We also know that one Watt is one Joule per second, and that there are 600 seconds in ten minutes.

Initial energy, then, is E=(10F)(2.3V)²/2 = about 26.5 Joules.
Final energy is E= (10F)(0.5V)²/2 = about 1.25 Joules, remaining on the capacitor at the end of the run.

This means the cap has supplied just about 25 Joules to the circuit over the time interval.

There are 600 seconds in ten minutes, and a WATT is one Joule PER second.... and 25 Joules PER 600 seconds is 25/600 = 0.04167 W or almost 42 milliWatts _average power_ for that full ten minutes.

You have 38 LEDs, so that allows each LED 42 mW/38LEDs = a bit over one milliWatt continuous average power for the full ten minutes PER EACH LED.

Now.... I think there are folks in this thread who know that you can take 1 milliWatt of average continuous power, chop it up into a 10 percent ON duty cycle with 90 percent OFF.... and now you have EACH LED receiving 10 mW for one tenth of the time... or 20 mW for five percent of the time ..... and lighting brightly, just like any JT does it, by concentrating the power into short, intense spikes that the eye then merges into the appearance of continuous bright light.

Your numbers do not indicate OU at all, nor even particularly good JT performance.

Now what is needed is the precise and accurate measurement of the battery energy used to stuff that initial 26.5 Joules into the capacitor in the first place.

Please....  everybody check my work, I am prone to dropping decimal points or forgetting to divide by 2. Let me know if there are any errors so that I can correct them right away. I would not want to mislead anyone by allowing bad mathematics and bogus calculations to remain uncorrected, for years, or to appear in any daft manuscripts that I might attempt to publish.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

that 'First Divine Revelation Concept' disturbs me.

it doesn't belong in a scientific area of this forum.

if you want keep your work scientifically professional I might suggest leaving out such content.

unless of course you really do wanna be known as a nut and a screwball.

[ltseung888]

@TK


I wish you have the experimental set up in front of you.


I have two pictures for you.  The first is the two scope setup.  The Capacitor is connected across the battery.
The second is the INPUT VOLTAGE waveform immediately when the battery was disconnected.  The INPUT VOLTAGE waveform should then be interpreted as the voltage of the capacitor.  It was NOT 2.3V.


*** Just checked.  The Average Input Voltage across the Capacitor immediately after disconnecting the battery was 0.369V.  After 20 minutes, that value was 0.345V.  If we repeat the TK calculation, we have an overunity JT???!!! 


Your educated guess is good.  It will prepare me for the inevitable "examination" in front of the academics.  So far, I have solid data and answers.  Some data can be obtained as soon as I see your comments.  Thank you.


From the actual experimental data, time lag between measurement of Input and Output of a few seconds would not invalidate the result.  The actual time lag in pressing the two buttons at the two separate DSO should not be more than 1 second.  The theoretical discussion of accuracy and precision is good but in practice, it does not matter.


*** We are not comparing apples in different seasons.  We are comparing apples picked within hours or at most days.  The INDICATION experiments are valid.  We shall have 30 top Universities with their top of the line DSOs to confirm and verify.  We shall also have thousands of Lead-out Energy Research Kits available for any one interested in doing the testing.