Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

[poynt99]

Lawrence,

Either something is different between how those two ATTEN scopes are set up, or they aren't worth the plastic they're made of. The readings are completely different.

Why has Mr. Zhou not tried one of his Instek scopes?

[TinselKoala]

Any one can produce the Board.  TK actually produced one.  It will take him little effort to build another one.  He can do the above experiment himself easily.

No, I cannot, not "easily".

1. I "produced" a board with this identical circuit long ago. When Lawrence showed the pictures of his pad-per-hole boards, I was moved to make my PCB board with sensing resistors and testpoints all installed and connected with minimum fuss and no chance of error, unlike his chosen construction techniques. (He could have had massproduced PCBs made for a tiny bit more cost than what he spent on the pad-per-hole prototype boards.)

2. I have never detected nor claimed to detect any overunity performance from my JT boards, regardless of construction, from boardless "deadbug" types all the way through to the PCBJT and beyond. Therefore, testing _my_ boards in the sensitive and comprehensive manner described would be an exercise in futility. It does take some time to do this test, and the test should be repeated exactly enough times for statistics like error ranges to be derived from the results. Why bother testing known underunity devices, except for reference? Let's see a proper test series of this kind for a claimed _overunity_ board like one of Lawrence's.

3. It would NOT be "easy" for me to do the complete test as described, although I could do it if necessary. My oscilloscopes are analog and thus would require "old-school" techniques to perform the necessary output multiplications and integrations (with the modern additions of digital photography and spreadsheeting making the process somewhat easier, but still far from "easy"). It would perhaps take me four hours of concentrated effort to produce the output integration accurately using my analog kit... and the result will be within a few percent of that produced in milliseconds by a good high-end DSO or DPSO. Nevertheless I have already illustrated the first part of the testing-- the application of a known input energy during a known time interval-- in a YT video. In spite of all this, I just might take the time and trouble to do the "full Monty" in analog, for reference and educational purposes. Maybe. I'm getting pretty tired of all this, though.

4. Apparently these Atten oscilloscopes are indeed not worth the plastic they are molded from. They are flashy toys but cannot be relied upon for quantitative measurements, and even qualitative evaluation of the actual traces is problematic. Even the 'about' value of their calibrator output is flaky: surely it is possible for a scope maker to provide an _accurately  known_ voltage level at the calibrator output! Failing that, any experimenter using this kind of scope absolutely needs an independent voltage reference source.

5. What do you mean, Lawrence, that you have "set" your channel 1 to 500.0 mV RMS? I don't understand this. Please explain further. I see that both channels are indicating exactly 500.0 mV RMS in the numbers-in-boxes window. How?

I sow seeds.  My eyesight and hearing are poor.  My hands are shaky.  I have given up soldering and reading long manuals with small print.  I post my findings as they come along.  There is no telling whether I have tomorrow.  More than one-fifth of my old schoolmates already passed away.  The seeds are FREE and now I only send them to those who have high end DSOs and who specifically ask for them.

Lawrence, I am sorry for the problems of old age and illness. You can believe me when I tell you that I too have similar problems, although I can see well enough using glasses and magnifiers, and I've been soldering for so long that I could do it in my sleep probably, although I am increasingly shaky myself. I also have little patience for long instruction manuals with fine print... but if I need the information, there is little else that I can do to obtain it. Many of my old friends have died, too. There is no telling whether I have tomorrow....

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Do you really want to spend your tomorrows sowing rotten seeds on stony soil? Or do you want to spend it with your grandkids, playing in the sun?

Seeds are fine to sow, if they are fertile and will yield worthwhile, sweet fruit. If they are known to be rotten and corrupt, seeds for weeds instead of nourishing vegetables.... it is not useful to sow them, even if they are "free".

Have you gotten any reports back from anyone you've sent your boards off to?

[Void]

Is there a link to a schematic of an optimal version of this JT circuit? I'd like to build the most optimized version and run some power input and output tests to see how the circuit performs.
Thanks

[SeaMonkey]

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Do you really want to spend your tomorrows sowing rotten seeds on stony soil? Or do you want to spend it with your grandkids, playing in the sun?

Seeds are fine to sow, if they are fertile and will yield worthwhile, sweet fruit. If they are known to be rotten and corrupt, seeds for weeds instead of nourishing vegetables.... it is not useful to sow them, even if they are "free".

Are the "seeds" which are sown in the
thoughts above fertile with the ability
to produce sweet fruit?

Expressions which are intended to elevate
oneself while denigrating another reveal
more about the source than the target.

Has this discussion borne fruit which is
beneficial?  I would argue that it has.

Have "issues" arisen which relate to "ego"
and feelings of frustration, resentment
and the perceived need to condemn?
Unfortunately, yes.

But without fail, in the end "Truth" will
rise to the surface.  It may have already.

Truth about more than the questions
ostensibly under discussion...

[TinselKoala]

Are the "seeds" which are sown in the
thoughts above fertile with the ability
to produce sweet fruit?

If you allow weeds to set seed in your garden and they pollute my carefully tended lawn..... then I have every right to complain. If your "seeds" take up valuable time, energy and resources and wind up giving those who actually are trying to do proper research into fringe issues a bad name... then I have every right to try to quell the sowing of those dangerous seeds.

Expressions which are intended to elevate
oneself while denigrating another reveal
more about the source than the target.

I think it's clear that I and PW and .99 have more knowledge of the issues of oscilloscope operation and measurement in general than does LTseung. We have tried to share our knowledge with him, not to elevate ourselves (something that's not needed) but rather to elevate HIM to a level of knowledge and competency so that he can be confident... and accurate... in his assertions. To criticize this effort says more about the critic than the target.

Has this discussion borne fruit which is
beneficial?  I would argue that it has.

So would I. I'm sure Lawrence is much more competent in making oscilloscope measurements now, and I hope that other readers of this thread have also learned valuable skills along the way. Just as the lathe is the King of Tools, so also is the oscilloscope the King of Test Equipment, and anyone who does electrical overunity research should understand them and perhaps even own one or two reliable, accurate and precise units of their own. Making the mistake of thinking that "digital is better" no matter the cost level is just that: a mistake, and as we have seen here, numbers in boxes may be convenient but they are not always correct.

Have "issues" arisen which relate to "ego"
and feelings of frustration, resentment
and the perceived need to condemn?
Unfortunately, yes.

But without fail, in the end "Truth" will
rise to the surface.  It may have already.

I contend that it would NOT have risen to the surface without the strongly critical evaluations that have occurred in this thread. The claimant has made claims based on incorrect instrument usage, incorrect instrument calibration, imprecise and unreliable instrumentation, and overenthusiastic expressions of religious faith. He is receiving support _because_ of his faulty claims, and these claims would still be standing had we here not uncovered the various errors involved in making them. He has resisted performing real tests of his claims, preferring instead to provide "proof" in the form of demonstrations that in fact prove nothing. Lawrence is a good guy, no doubt about that, but certainly some of his _actions_ seem to require "condemnation", like using uncompensated probes, sending out test boards before measurements are confirmed as to accuracy, and so on.

Truth about more than the questions
ostensibly under discussion...

Feel free to list those other questions whose truth has risen to the surface in this discussion.