Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[plengo]

Fausto:

You are not correct here.  So we know any real-world inductor is made of wire and has resistance.  So what we can easily do is model the real-world inductor as an ideal inductor with zero resistance in the wire in series with a small resistor.

So what happens when we energize this inductor?   Let's say it takes 5 seconds to energize the inductor.  So after 5 seconds some of the supplied battery energy was used to create the magnetic field to energize the ideal inductor.  At the same time during the 5 seconds some of the battery energy was burned off in the resistor.

After five seconds the only thing that is happening is that battery power is being burned off in the resistor.  Also after five seconds there is energy stored in the inductor.  That energy came from the battery.  Important:  Note that this energy stored in the inductor has not gone anywhere else, i.e.; it has not passed through a resistor.

Then after some time the inductor discharges its stored energy.  This stored energy will discharge through the resistance of the inductor itself, and some sort of a load resistance.   Therefore this energy is only discharged ONCE, not twice.

Here is the energy path:  [energy in battery] -> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance and load resistance]

There is no 'magic' in the inductor that allows the same energy to get used twice.

MileHigh

Sorry you are wrong.


The correct path is:


[energy in battery] -> [energy dissipated in resistance of inductor] --> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance] -> [LOAD]


You missed the second resistance when discharging SINCE the current path is exactly the same.

Fausto.

[MileHigh]

Fausto:

I will leave the final challenge for you if you want to double-check the numbers.  255 watts is 1/3 horsepower.  So the question is can a 1/3 horsepower DC motor power a pump and move the same amount of water per second up the same height differential that Joe Newman is demonstrating.   The answer is yes.  I have seen the numbers crunched on PESN, Joe Newman's demo means nothing.  He is simply not demonstrating anything remarkable.  If you don't believe me, then check it for yourself.

I am under the impression that you were not aware that 170 AA batteries in series could generate 1/3 horsepower.  Am I correct in my assumption?  Joe Newman knows that many people will not be aware of this, and that is the smoke and mirrors game he is playing.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Fausto:

The correct path is:


[energy in battery] -> [energy dissipated in resistance of inductor] --> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance] -> [LOAD]


You missed the second resistance when discharging SINCE the current path is exactly the same.

If you believe that somehow an inductor is somehow generating energy from "somewhere" then why don't you do set up a simple experiment where you can clearly demonstrate and measure some "extra" energy from a charging and discharging inductor.

Here is a thought experiment:  If it's so easy then why isn't science and engineering exploiting this property of inductors right now?  They aren't doing it because it's not true.  There is a multi-billion dollar magnetics industry and an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars for buck power converters, boost power converters, and buck-boost power converters.  It employs thousands of engineers that design these pulsing inductor circuits every day.  If what you say is true how come they aren't exploiting this "magical" property of pulsing coils?

MileHigh

[ltseung888]

I am at the Office and can use the Digital DC Power Supply.  Unfortunately, the 2n2222 JT is too powerful.  A zero amp reading can still keep the LED on.  See attached picture.



So I still need to switch from Output connection to Input connection.  Cannot guarantee the exact instant for Input and Output Power comparison.



Need to rely on the top Universities with their more powerful oscilloscopes.

[TinselKoala]

Lawrence: thank you for posting the sample spreadsheet file. Am I correct that the file you posted only contained 10 sets of data points out of the 11250 sample total record length? Kind of stingy, isn't it, to not give me the whole 11250 points?

Even a casual inspection of those twenty data points (ten from each channel) shows that I am right, though: your signal is undersampled, and your scope is giving you discrete values that are probably interpolated. Do you really think that the only voltage levels of your signals during the 10-sample interval at 400 nanoseconds per sample are changing by the intervals your scope is indicating? Look at the values:
 

Source	CH1	CH2
Second	Volt	Volt
-0.0022500002	0.08	-0.01
-0.0022496002	0.16	-0.008
-0.0022492002	0.16	-0.012
-0.0022488002	0.16	-0.01
-0.0022484002	0.16	-0.008
-0.0022480002	0.16	-0.01
-0.0022476002	0.08	-0.01
-0.0022472002	0.16	-0.008
-0.0022468002	0.08	-0.01
-0.0022464002	0.08	-0.01

Gahh.... the table formatting is all screwed up. It looked fine in the text entry window.

Sorry.... it is just as I have said.  You are looking at your data thru a picket fence.
Secondly, I have told you that the circuit cannot be evaluated when it is connected to a line-connected piece of equipment, MOST DEFINITELY not while it is connected to your power supply by even a single wire. You have seen why.

Third: You absolutely CANNOT use the numbers on the meters of your power supply for ANYTHING, except a rough guide to setting up the supply! I am flabbergasted that you even attempt to use these numbers as real data to make your extravagant claims.

I've told you in a previous post where and how the input power must be measured. No readings from your power supply meters were even mentioned by me!

I am happy to give you advice and to help you to perform correct power and energy calculations. Please take my advice to heart, run it by your consultants and correspondents, ignore it if you must, but please have good reasons for ignoring it if you do so.

Let's review:

First, Your output data is undersampled and likely interpolated. This may or may not be a fatal flaw.... my intuition at this point is that the bigger problem is with your input data.
Second, you must be completely isolated from any line-connected equipment during evaluation and data collection. This may be an easy or a difficult problem to solve, depending on your scope's isolation. Please answer the questions I asked about your scope's isolation.
Third, you absolutely CANNOT and must not use the numbers on your power supply meters as data! These are rough guides to setting your knobs and must be verified during use by inline ammeters and voltmeters of higher precision and accuracy.... and the power supply must be completely disconnected _from this circuit_ anyway during evaluations.

And finally..... I would like to see a _full_ data set _and_ the calculations your spreadsheet is performing on them. Either the .xls file you sent got truncated somehow or it only contains 10 sets of samples and no calculations.

Yes, four complete cycles of the waveform is sufficient to do the calculations, but you should include 6 cycles in the data so that the starting and ending points of the measurement interval are precisely known. In other words, don't "crop" your data window by trying to include just the 4 periods exactly, include a little extra so that the "edges" can be precisely cropped for the calculations.

(I see no indication in the spreadsheet parameters file of the channel coupling settings. Am I missing it? It is good that your scope records the channel offset, but I can't tell if the scope includes the offset in its reported values or not. )