Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

[sm0ky2]

@ MarkE

The "salad" is from tossing your brain around with things you seem to have a hard time comprehending.
As you stated yourself, the energy is "being released back to the source". <- this is the key point.
Because when we measure current, we assume this energy being "used", when it is in fact NOT!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Joule Thief example:

The Armstrong oscillator was invented in 1912 by Edwin Armstrong, and has undergone over 100 years of technological advancement.
The "original" JT device, was derived from a specific test unit invented by Steven Mark, in 1997, as a demonstration of his "TPU", or Toroidal Power Unit.  It was debuted publicly in 1999 in a magazine called Everyday Practical Electronics, and was NOT in fact the original schematic, but a user-friendly, dummed-down version, designed for the idiot to make at home.

I say this, to state the importance of resonance in that particular circuit being the operational condition. Therefore, analysis of a non-resonant JT, it is by definition, inefficient.
The voltage requirements of the device are a function of the transistor and the transformer, there is no "1v minimum" as you are trying to imply, but rather a very wide range of power requirements, depending on the circuit design.
Here is one I made, operating from an Earth Battery, at 0.86V - this was blinking 8 LED's and has a lot of inefficiencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrFsiMXrvA

also: Use of an LED in a JT circuit is not part of its construction, but rather a usable 'load' to demonstrate that power is actually being drawn through the circuit. We can see the light !!
And- you must include the energy of these photons in your efficiency calculations.
Furthermore, to speak in terms of "switching" of the LED, is a farce, because in most applications that use an LED, the transistor is switching at a rate well beyond the response time of the diode, and the LED never actually "turns off".
i.e. it does not stop emitting photons before the next pulse arrives, giving it a truncated negative side of the square-wave.
(generally the biased 0-line of waveform analysis gives us a positive value at the "off cycle")

The "power recycling" effect, utilizes the collapse of the magnetic field through the inductor, to send some of the energy back through the transistor, instead of draining more power from the source. This lowers the total energy over time consumed by the circuit.
The "original" Joule Thief used an electrolytic capacitor as the voltage source, which was recharged each cycle, through the transformer. The capacitor slowly drained over time, through the losses in the circuit. In resonance, it operated at efficiencies over 90%.
This was analyzed using an oscilloscope, to observe its operation. The LED was added later, as a load, and to visualize the effect.

The JT threads can give you more information if you are interested.

[MileHigh]

Sm0ky2:

I hate to tell you this but you have been smoked out.  You are saying a lot of silly things about electricity and Joule Thieves that are not true.  You can learn a lot from Mark and others around here.  That's my suggestion to you.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

I say this, to state the importance of resonance in that particular circuit being the operational condition.

A Joule Thief doesn't even resonate when you use the standard definition of that term.  It would be more appropriate to say that it has an operating frequency determined by the values of certain components.

[MarkE]

@ MarkE

The "salad" is from tossing your brain around with things you seem to have a hard time comprehending.
As you stated yourself, the energy is "being released back to the source". <- this is the key point.
Because when we measure current, we assume this energy being "used", when it is in fact NOT!

Power absorbed by a branch is the product of voltage across and current through that branch.  It is no more and no less.  There is no assumption involved.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Joule Thief example:

The Armstrong oscillator was invented in 1912 by Edwin Armstrong, and has undergone over 100 years of technological advancement.
The "original" JT device, was derived from a specific test unit invented by Steven Mark, in 1997, as a demonstration of his "TPU", or Toroidal Power Unit.  It was debuted publicly in 1999 in a magazine called Everyday Practical Electronics, and was NOT in fact the original schematic, but a user-friendly, dummed-down version, designed for the idiot to make at home.

I say this, to state the importance of resonance in that particular circuit being the operational condition. Therefore, analysis of a non-resonant JT, it is by definition, inefficient.

JT circuits are well documented and they are not resonant power converters.

The voltage requirements of the device are a function of the transistor and the transformer, there is no "1v minimum" as you are trying to imply, but rather a very wide range of power requirements, depending on the circuit design.

JT circuits will not start with a supply voltage less than one Vbe.  Vbe for common NPN transistors at room temperature is around 0.6V.

Here is one I made, operating from an Earth Battery, at 0.86V - this was blinking 8 LED's and has a lot of inefficiencies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrFsiMXrvA

also: Use of an LED in a JT circuit is not part of its construction, but rather a usable 'load' to demonstrate that power is actually being drawn through the circuit. We can see the light !!
And- you must include the energy of these photons in your efficiency calculations.

Shall we remove the LED as see how long your typical 2N2222A transistor survives?

Furthermore, to speak in terms of "switching" of the LED, is a farce, because in most applications that use an LED, the transistor is switching at a rate well beyond the response time of the diode, and the LED never actually "turns off".

Common LEDs readily turn on and off at in one microsecond or less.  For JT's operating under several hundred kHz the LEDs completely extinguish.

i.e. it does not stop emitting photons before the next pulse arrives, giving it a truncated negative side of the square-wave.
(generally the biased 0-line of waveform analysis gives us a positive value at the "off cycle")

The "power recycling" effect, utilizes the collapse of the magnetic field through the inductor, to send some of the energy back through the transistor, instead of draining more power from the source. This lowers the total energy over time consumed by the circuit.

That's more word salad.  The positive feedback of the transformer wiring to the transistor helps square up the transistor transition times, reducing switching loss in the transistor.  But the price to get there on the turn-off is saturation of the magnetics, which depending on the magnetics can be quite soft resulting in poor efficiency.

The "original" Joule Thief used an electrolytic capacitor as the voltage source, which was recharged each cycle, through the transformer. The capacitor slowly drained over time, through the losses in the circuit. In resonance, it operated at efficiencies over 90%.

If this "original" JT circuit is different than the well-documented JT circuit found in many references, then I would need to see a schematic in order to comment on its likely efficiency.  The power source being a capacitor or a battery or a power supply is not germane to much of anything other than the run time, and losses in the ESR of the source.

This was analyzed using an oscilloscope, to observe its operation. The LED was added later, as a load, and to visualize the effect.

The JT threads can give you more information if you are interested.

[sm0ky2]

A Joule Thief doesn't even resonate when you use the standard definition of that term.  It would be more appropriate to say that it has an operating frequency determined by the values of certain components.

On the contrary, the proper design of the JT circuit, is such that the resonant frequency of the inductor (i.e. ceramic toroid)
and the operating frequency of the transistor (controlled by the resistance) should be the same
or resonant octaves of one another.
To do anything else, is absurd, as you are fighting against the induction and field collapse each cycle, increasing losses in the system. If you do not understand this ( as many JT experimenters don't) then you are just playing around with the JT circuit.

You can make reference to a million erred replications of the JT, like the ones used in college demonstrations, or found on the "How to Make" websites, which do not discuss circuit resonance.
However, historically (for those who were not participatory in the process), this circuit is derived from a resonant SM TPU device.
Wherein the operating frequency of the components are necessarily and inherently resonant.
This is how the power is recycled.

If the waveforms are non-resonant octaves, it will result in an additional energy loss by destructive interference.
This can be observed on the scope, as the spike from the field collapse collides with the on/off switching of the transistor.
If mark can bring his JT into resonance, he will see the scope image will look a lot cleaner.

The lack of understanding in this area is why there is so much confusion over the JT, and thousands upon thousands of pages in this and many other forums, describing varying results.

But, to relate this back to the topic at hand::  The goal is to feed the energy that passes out of the load, back INTO the circuit,
or lead it off to another circuit to be further used, without increasing the losses in the system, or to decrease said loss.
and before you comment or state that it is not possible,
I urge you to think about where this energy is going after it leaves the load, and why.

Follow the energy in circuits shown in the battery recharging videos. And look at what is happening after it leaves the motor.

Now, look at a simple circuit with a resistor and a battery, that uses a given amount of energy over time.
How does this compare to a circuit with a battery and a capacitor that uses the same amount of energy to charge the cap?
     In the second example, where does this energy go? can it be "reused" ??