Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[picowatt]

@TK,

Your explanation is correct if the circuit is pure conventional DC.  The current can only be in one direction even if there were fluctuations.  The CH2_measured  can only be in one direction. 

In the actual experiment, no matter how you measure or view it, the current (CH2_measured ) always has a positive and a negative component.  There is something not quite right in using the ABSOLUTE value.

Since both Poynt99 and PhysicsProf have used oscilloscopes to measure Input and Output Power, I would like to hear their comments before redoing all experiments.

My point of view is to use the attached spreadsheet sample but with A4-A3 connected as in the latest Board 80 arrangement in reply 485.

In any case, as far as Board 80 is concerned, the resulting COP is greater than 1 using any of the above analysis!

Lawrence, TK, .99,

Would someone please explain to me why the data for CH2 Lawrence presents in his recently posted Excel only has a range of -.008 to +.016?

Visually, the CH2 capture appears to have a range of approximtely -.150 to +.020 (or there about, might be +.016).

The spreadshees seems to have a very small number of sample points, are the negative peaks just being missed/omitted?


Thanks,
PW

ADDED:

Actually, now that I see that the seconds column is always at -.0006, I don't quite understand what this data is supposed to represent!

[ltseung888]

Lawrence, TK, .99,

Would someone please explain to me why the data for CH2 Lawrence presents in his recently posted Excel only has a range of -.008 to +.016?  Just an extract

Visually, the CH2 capture appears to have a range of approximtely -.150 to +.020 (or there about, might be +.016).

The spreadshees seems to have a very small number of sample points, are the negative peaks just being missed/omitted? The full analysis will be shown later


Thanks,
PW

ADDED:

Actually, now that I see that the seconds column is always at -.0006, I don't quite understand what this data is supposed to represent! That column was the sample time from -0.0006 to 0.0006 seconds.  The actual values are a few more places after the decimal point.  You need to see the full raw data of 10,000 samples to fully understand.

@picowatt and All,

Now that I have every last doubt cleared, I shall do a complete description and possibly a video starting from
(1) Building the oscilloscope test-ready board using the standard Joule Thief.
(2) How to select the standard Joule Thief that show possible OU behavior - FLEET.
(3) Calibration of the Atten Oscilloscope and the Probes.
(4) Full explanation of the oscilloscope test-ready board circuit diagram.  (especially the need to have common ground for the 4 probes and the poynt99 explanation of negative power as measured on the oscilloscope.)
(5) The test procedure in every minute detail. (especially the capturing of average input and output power and why simultaneous capture of Input and output may or may not be significant in various situations.)
(6) Capturing the raw data into CSV files.  (analysis of the full data - not just extracts.  The raw data will be developed to full pictures and how such pictures corresond to the screen BMP files)
(7) The full EXCEL analysis. (Every column and formula will be explained)
(8) How this ties with a theoretical model assuming a "hidden lead-out energy source".  (This is actually the high-light of the whole exercise.  It will clearly prove OU beyond any shadow of doubt.)
(9) Suggest the full set-up for a "battery recharger" system and why a simple loopback cannot achieve a self-runner.
(10) I shall let the "farmers" do much more research to achieve the commercial OU products.

Thank you to the Almighty for sending the many helpers to clarify the process.

[picowatt]

Thanks Lawrence.

I realized it was just a short "snippet" of data after the fact...

PW

[ltseung888]

The full paper will take weeks if not months.  Meanwhile, I shall post some raw data for those who would like to do the analysis themselves.

The data is from Board 80 meant for the Hong Kong Government.

[TinselKoala]

@TK,

Your explanation is correct if the circuit is pure conventional DC.  The current can only be in one direction even if there were fluctuations.  The CH2_measured  can only be in one direction. 

In the actual experiment, no matter how you measure or view it, the current (CH2_measured ) always has a positive and a negative component.  There is something not quite right in using the ABSOLUTE value.

Yes, strictly speaking you are correct. I was trying to use the strict DC case as the example so that you could understand that your probe is measuring across the battery AND resistor and therefore must always read a lower value than simply measuring the voltage alone. Sorry I wasn't too clear about that. The only way the current could reverse across this resistor is for the voltage at the battery negative terminal to be HIGHER than the voltage at the circuit end of the resistor. But you seem to think that your measurements are indicating that this is the case, at least part of the time. I still don't think that it is, but nevertheless... let's amend my attempt at a simple explanation, and remind you of this: the probe position you are required to use produces a NEGATIVE current reading when the current is flowing CONVENTIONALLY around the circuit, from the battery to the circuit, dissipating power in the circuit.
So following .99's advice, since the CH2 probe is reversed and giving a negative value most of the time, you must subtract its reading from the combined reading that the CH1 probe gives instead of adding it. You are subtracting a negative number _most of the time_ from a positive number, which is equivalent to adding it.  1.5 minus (-0.5) == 2.0 .

Think about the voltages at the ends of the resistor when current is flowing. "Conventional" current is taken to flow from positive to negative, and a meter hooked up this way will read positive current. What does this mean for the resistor? When current is flowing normally, the voltage at the negative terminal of the battery is the very lowest voltage in the system, so you can call it "zero". The voltage on the other side of the resistor is higher than this. So your probe, instead of measuring the value of the voltage difference between the battery positive, and ZERO, is measuring between the battery positive and something HIGHER than zero. This means it reads LESS than the true battery voltage, and to get to the true battery voltage you need to ADD the _positive_ value of the voltage drop across the resistor. Since your CH2 probe is reversed and gives a negative value, you need to Subtract this Negative value (minus a minus is the same as adding a plus) to get to the right answer: a number greater than what your CH1 probe indicates.
In the case of _reversed_ current, the negative pole of the battery must be at a HIGHER voltage than the other end of the resistor towards the circuit. Current can only flow from higher to lower voltages. This means that your CH1 probe is measuring the battery voltage, PLUS the voltage "drop" across the CVR-- it is reading high this time instead of low. So to get to the correct voltage, you need to SUBTRACT the value of the voltage drop in CH2 from the total voltage. However, in this case the numbers reported by your CH2 probe will be POSITIVE, due to the reversed orientation of the probe. So now you will be subtracting a positive value, which leads to the required lower true battery voltage.
So... your spreadsheet reports what the probe reads, regardless of any trace invert display selection. When the current is normal, conventional, ordinary, discharging the battery current, the probe and the spreadsheet will call this "negative" and this negative value must be subtracted... which means adding its absolute value. When the current is "reversed", according to you charging the battery, supplying energy from the circuit back to the battery, the probe and the spreadsheet will call this "positive" and this positive value must be subtracted, in the ordinary way, from the CH1 reading.
So the spreadsheet formula becomes simply
VBatt_TRUE = V_CH1 - V_CH2;     the spreadsheet knows that subtracting a negative is the same as adding the positive value, and this handles both directions of current whenever they occur.

Since both Poynt99 and PhysicsProf have used oscilloscopes to measure Input and Output Power, I would like to hear their comments before redoing all experiments.

Yes, I concur. By all means let us hear from .99, who has the proper equipment for making these determinations, and the skill to use it.
By the way, I note that the Atten scopes can measure the Humerous content of a Power cable. That is indeed a valuable feature... around here.

My point of view is to use the attached spreadsheet sample but with A4-A3 connected as in the latest Board 80 arrangement in reply 485.

In any case, as far as Board 80 is concerned, the resulting COP is greater than 1 using any of the above analysis!

Ah.... no it's not. It is COP >1 using conceptual and operational errors and one particular measurement system that is not concurrently valid with others.