Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[Void]

@Void: One problem with the way that you are doing it, with one scope, is that you are comparing a set of input power measurements taken at one time, and for a certain duration, with another set of output power measurements taken at a different time. Hopefully you have at least equated the number of full cycles, which is probably more appropriate than equating number of samples, but I don't really know which would be best.
I've suggested this alternative for those with a single scope: take input and output _current_ at one session, then take input and output _voltage_ at the other session. At least that way you will be taking the input and output readings simultaneously (or nearly so, separated by the scope's sample interval).

@tinselkoala: I understand what you are referring to in regards to the number of cycles. The time base is the same for both input and output measurements, so the number of cycles should be the same, but the triggering point may not be exactly the same since the current waveforms are different between the input and output waveforms, and I am triggering on the current waveforms for both measurement steps. Average power calculation for both input and output waveforms is done for the exact same amount of data samples (20,480 samples), so I would think that this should still average out about the same, but it is possible that there could be some degree of discrepancy due to different trigger points between input and output measurements. Not sure that your proposed alternate method would resolve that potential discrepancy of different trigger points, since in one measurement step I would be triggering on current, and in the other measurement step I would be triggering on voltage.

Using a two channel scope to do these measurements is no doubt a bit of a compromise. I guess it is just a question of how much potential there is for error using this method, due to different trigger points.

Edit: Was just thinking about this some more, and I don't know if my scope synchronizes the data logging with the trigger set point, so the trigger point setting may not make much difference as far as synchronization of input and output measurement start points. Maybe the data logging does sync off the trigger set point though. I suppose I could run some tests to see if the data logging always starts at about the same point in a waveform for the same trigger setting...

[ltseung888]

Re 113: more likely to be a "damaged" transistor than wrong toroid connections. There are 4 possible ways to wire the toroid into the circuit, I think two will work and two won't work at all, and of the two that work sometimes one works slightly better but the frequency should be pretty much the same for both working hookups.
I have a special 2n2222 here that is partially failed; it acts somewhat like the 113 board, if I recall correctly. Or the transistor might even be a different type. Did you check the markings?

One thing is certain: two of your resistors are in backwards
.

Markings are the same 2n2222.  I shall send it to Void.

[Void]

Try to analyze the strange Board 113.
Board 113 was the strange board withwaveform totally different from other Boards.  Previously, I just treat such Boards as reject.  Now on TK's advice, I keep them and try to analyze them.
Just show the strange waveforms first.  The first comparison of Board and connections appeared correct.

Hi Lawrence. What were you using to power board 113 when you did those tests that you posted the waveforms for? DC power supply, super cap, or AA battery?

[ltseung888]

Hi Lawrence. What were you using to power board 113 when you did those tests that you posted the waveforms for? DC power supply, super cap, or AA battery?

For Board 113, I used DC Power Supply.

[Void]

For Board 113, I used DC Power Supply.

Ok, thanks.