Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[powercat]

I want to make a prediction here.  I believe that .99's tests will show somewhere between .60 and .69% efficiency.  Not bad for a simple JT circuit but no where near 100%, much less 200%+ as has been discussed.

From what I see in the photos, these boards are not even using ferrite toroids, they appear to be using the powdered iron type.  Obviously, these will work but we have found that you need a very high permeability ferrite to get the numbers into the 80% plus range.  Since the testers are not using these toroids, my prediction is derived from numbers we have seen in the earlier days of the JT topic.

For example, off the top of my head, in the Jeanna's JT circuit, we used ferrite with a permeability rating of 10,000.  That turned out to be a great circuit that could do many things but, it was not O.U. by any means.

The above is just a prediction and/or educated (somewhat) guess.  I just wanted to get this on the record.  This is not intended in any way to detract from Lawrence's efforts here at all.  He has gone through a lot of trouble and has spent a lot of time on this and, I admire him for doing so.

When the numbers come in from those that really know how to measure such devices, I may be proven wrong, but I do not think so.

I look forward to .99's results.  If Lawrence is correct, I would be very happy for him and be one of the first to congratulate him.

Is TK testing one of these boards?

Bill

I think Bills prediction is right and I would like to make a prediction of my own, that if anyone uses Lawrence's flawed measuring technique they will also find OU,
it's like watching a politician in action quoting statistics all day long but when it comes to the reality, the truth is seriously lacking, Lawrence has known for many years that if he has genuinely got  OU he would be able to produce a self-runner, but he never does because even he knows he can't fake a self-runner with statistics.

[poynt99]

Lawrence and all,

I am getting the tests set up, but a couple questions first:

1) What do I do/test (if anything) with the board with the 10F capacitor? Time how long the LED stays lit after charging the cap with a 1.5V battery? (looks like about 15 minutes or so in one test.)

2) For testing board 33, should I use a regular 1.5V battery, a rechargeable 1.5V battery, or a power supply set to 1.5V (or something lower?) for its source?

.99

[Poit]

                        Itseung888 doesn't matter what you say... doesn't matter what your scopes show... doesn't matter how many testers you get involved... it all comes down to this.

NO SELF LOOP = NO INTEREST!


end of story.

[ltseung888]

 

Lawrence and all,

I am getting the tests set up, but a couple questions first:

1) What do I do/test (if anything) with the board with the 10F capacitor? Time how long the LED stays lit after charging the cap with a 1.5V battery? (looks like about 15 minutes or so in one test.)

2) For testing board 33, should I use a regular 1.5V battery, a rechargeable 1.5V battery, or a power supply set to 1.5V (or something lower?) for its source?

.99

@poynt99

Answers to your questions.
(1)    On the Board with the 10F capacitor, do the following tests:
a.       Do what you have done.  Connect the 1.5V battery for 1 minute.  Disconnect and see how long the LEDs remain ON.  15 minutes is about right for your Board.
b.      Connect the 1.5V battery for 1 minute.  Disconnect for 2 minutes.  Connect for 15 seconds.  Disconnect for 2 minutes and reconnect for 15 seconds.  Repeat this manually a couple of times and see if the LED remains brightly ON throughout the entire process.
c.       Step b shows the possibility of saving electricity.  If you have a twin timer, repeat step b automatically.

(2)    On the oscilloscope test-ready board, do the following tests:
a.       Use a DC Power Supply.  Connect your 4 channels according to the circuit diagram supplied with the Boards.  Show the waveforms at 0.5V, 1.0V and 1.5V.
b.      Do a full Oscilloscope analysis.  Show the Average Input Power, the Average Output Power, the comparison of the Output and Input Power curves and the resulting COP.  Do this with the DC Power Supply setting at 1.5V.
c.       Get two rechargeable AA batteries.  Note their starting voltage.  Run them down slightly on some electrical appliance (e.g. a toy fan).  An example is from 1.4 to 1.25V.  Use a voltmeter to monitor the change in voltage continuously.  Use one rechargeable AA battery as the Power Supply.  You may find that the voltage as shown on the Voltmeter does one of the three things. (Go up, Go down, Remain steady).
d.      If the voltage goes up, that implies the circuit is lighting the LED and recharging the Battery at the same time.  Leave it alone and see how high the voltage will go.
e.      If the voltage goes down, take out the battery and let it "rest".  Insert the other battery and see what happens.  With luck or God's Blessing, you will see step d behavior.
f.        If the voltage is steady, wait longer and see if it changes to step d or step e.
g.       Optionally, you can connect the oscilloscope and monitoring the waveform all the time.  You will probably find that the Input Current curve fluctuates quite a bit.  There may be sudden high positive or negative peaks.

(3)    Optionally, you are encouraged to use the oscilloscope test-ready board to drive the other Board with capacitor.  B1 is the positive and B3 is the negative.  The connection is equivalent to using the LED in parallel with the Input to the Capacitor board.  Display the waveforms.  You will see some interesting feedback waveforms.  More research is needed.

Your waveform displays and the full oscilloscope analysis giving COP and showing negative average input power will be of special interest.

[TinselKoala]

Ah, so now we have negative output power as well as negative input power.  I shake my head slowly in awe.

Lawrence, I have asked you to provide traces from your scope's calibrator, so that we can see the probe response to a known square wave signal generated by the scope itself. I'll ask again now.

Please provide a calibrator trace from each probe, as they are at present, without making any adjustments to the probe's compensating trimmer cap.

I would also like to know if your readings are at all sensitive to the way the probe wires are routed. That is, with everything hooked up and running, if you move the probe wires around (not the probe contact points, just the wires) do the scope traces change at all?

Thanks in advance, and happy Chinese Easter.