To be deleted...

[conradelektro]

I've recently been making some electricity-to-light efficiency tests and it's surprising how much actual brightness change has to happen before the eye can detect it purely visually.

I'm using an Extech LT300 light meter and a box which keeps the light sensor and the light source under test separated by a fixed, standard distance and excludes other light.

J.L. Naudin had to use a light meter in a box to see that the KAPAGEN was not OU:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/

http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33io.htm

http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33pio.htm

Also the calibration was very important.


It is not easy to do meaningful measurements with a light meter. May be comparing the same light source under different drive conditions (in a box) is feasible. But the value of such a measurement will only be a "comparison", no absolute values.

Be aware of the following "feature" of the LT300: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space (CIE standard observer)

This is why I never bought a light meter. But they have become much cheaper and it is interesting to play with such a device.

Greetings, Conrad

[nul-points]

Interesting diversion - thanks for your various inputs there, guys

Conrad is absolutely correct.....

...we don't need to know absolute values if we're comparing results in the same context


So - no need to hypothesize any further - the photometric intensity results are in!

As you would expect, the initial LED intensity is very close for both tests:- LED to ground; LED charging output cap - (because of course the output cap to be charged is at ground potential, initially)

The grounded LED peak intensity is slightly smaller at 98.5% of the full circuit peak intensity

But what about the average light intensity for each test?

If Conrad's theory is true  - ie. that the reason the full circuit illuminates the LED twice as long as the grounded LED is because the LED is dimmer,  then the grounded LED should have an average intensity about 2x the average of the full circuit LED

Here are the photometric intensity profiles for the initial 360 seconds of the two tests - remember that after 360 seconds the grounded LED has discharged the input source and stops illuminating, as expected;   however, in the full circuit, not only has the same amount of input energy been transferred via the LED but its current has also been used to charge the output cap and therefore the input & output storage devices can be swapped to allow the LED to continue its illumination ( & this process can be repeated one or more times, depending on the supply voltage & load current)

So - is one of the intensity averages 50% of the other?  NO!

The dimmer of the two tests is 92% of the other - they are approximately the same! 

I'll let any visitors here decide for themselves which profile is the grounded LED test and which is the full circuit test

These results are showing that, since energy cannot be destroyed, if we are careful about how we transfer energy from one store to another (ie. reducing the conversion of energy into a state which leaves our system) then we can use the energy transfer to perform work on each pass

This circuit is based on the principle that Energy is conserved - Work is not

Thanks for reading, testing continues
np

[conradelektro]

So - no need to hypothesize any further - the photometric intensity results are in!

As you would expect, the initial LED intensity is very close for both tests:- LED to ground; LED charging output cap - (because of course the output cap to be charged is at ground potential, initially)

The grounded LED peak intensity is slightly smaller at 98.5% of the full circuit peak intensity

Here are the photometric intensity profiles for the initial 360 seconds of the two tests - remember that after 360 seconds the grounded LED has discharged the input source and stops illuminating, as expected;   however, in the full circuit, not only has the same amount of input energy been transferred via the LED but its current has also been used to charge the output cap and therefore the input & output storage devices can be swapped to allow the LED to continue its illumination ( & this process can be repeated one or more times, depending on the supply voltage & load current)

So - is one of the intensity averages 50% of the other?  NO!

The dimmer of the two tests is 92% of the other - they are approximately the same! 

These results are showing that, since energy cannot be destroyed, if we are careful about how we transfer energy from one store to another (ie. reducing the conversion of energy into a state which leaves our system) then we can use the energy transfer to perform work on each pass

This circuit is based on the principle that Energy is conserved - Work is not

@Nul-Points:

Very nice result and I am glad that you have proven me wrong. It is a good result, that one can store part of the energy for later use without dimming the LED.

I have to think why that seems to, but your test and the two graphs seem to tell the right story. I wonder where the energy goes if the LED is grounded? Something must become warmer?

If your result is correct it also means that one can make a pulse motor more efficient by feeding the back EMF pulse to a second battery (or cap) for later use (like swapping power source and storage).

And I wonder if one could feed back the back EMF directly to the drive battery in order to draw less power? The LED would shine longer without swapping batteries. Gyula posted the attached circuit in an other thread (as a principle, the important component is the bifilar wound coil, which would mean a third winding in the LED circuit). May be Gyula is reading this and would like to comment?

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Well, I thought about this strange similar light intensity graphs and came to a conclusion:

To make a meaningful comparison and to test what I meant, one should not ground the LED but put it how I show in the attached circuit.

So, test one: the LED is put in the place as I show in the attached circuit. Make the power graph till the LED goes out and make the light intensity graph.

Test two: the full circuit (with storage cap) is used and the power graph and the light intensity graph are already done. It is not necessary to this test again.

In this way we have a "true" comparison between a "normal circuit" and a "swapping circuit".

In the "swapping circuit" the LED is driven with the back EMF, but in a "normal circuit" one would drive the LED directly (as shown in the attached circuit).

And in the normal circuit the LED will be brighter for the same power draw as in the "swapping circuit". But the comparison is difficult, because it is difficult to cause the same power draw in both circuits.

The error in Nul-Point`s comparison and arguments: he always drives the LED with the back EMF and for sure, it always has the same brightness and a similar power draw occurs in the initial phase in both cases.

And I claim: even with Gyula's idea one can not feed back the back EMF (or swap it) in order to gain something. And in Nul-Points circuit one can light the LED longer (by swapping the batteries) but dimmer for the same power draw as in a "normal circuit". There are no miracles, and I started to believe in miracles for a few minutes till I came to my senses again.

Greetings, Conrad

[citfta]

Hi np,

Thanks again for this nifty little circuit.  I am still playing around with mine and trying different LEDs and also tried the super caps except my "super" caps from China weren't so super.  They had a lot of internal leakage so that test was a failure.  I need to get some more super caps to try.

What you are doing with this circuit is what David Bowling has been talking about for the past few years.  You can conserve energy by running it into a load and charging another battery at the same time.  In the original 3 battery generating system as proposed by John Bedini there were 2 batteries connected in series and then to a load and the other side of the load went to a third battery that was connected with the polarity opposite the other two.  While drawing power from the two in series you were also charging the third battery.  As one of the two in series dropped in charge you then swapped it out for the fresh charged one.  Of course they all eventually went down,  BUT the run times were much longer than if the load was merely run off the 3 batteries connected in parallel.

As we have continued our testing we are now using a voltage boost module to raise the voltage so we can run a load and charge another battery using only one primary battery.  Almost identical to what you are doing only on a larger scale.  We are using as our load a scooter motor turning a generator to charge another battery or to run some other load.  We are getting very long run times by swapping the 2 batteries back and forth.  You can get even better performance by using one extra battery so that the one that has just been charged can rest before going back into the system.

No we don't have OU yet but any system that can extend your run time from the batteries by several times normal is worth seeing how far we can push it.

Carroll