Hi 2 all.. I would just like to know if the joule thief circuit gets overunity? I was searching for easy to build solid state overunity circuit and this is the best i found. I will try to replicate it if its really capable of getting overunity.
Quote from: Neo-X on September 05, 2012, 12:17:13 PM
Hi 2 all.. I just like to know is joule thief circuit gets overunity? I was searching for easy to build solid state overunity circuit and this is the best i found. I will try to replicate it if its really capable of getting overunity.
I personally believe it can be 101% efficient BUT out of 100's of Builds exactly the same you might get one that is displayed that way . The reason is different placement of parts . different gains in the same batch of transistors . different internal Core structure even thou you got 50 that look the same .and the stray capacitance in your circuit SO with that information do like we did build 100's of them Wind different ways . and see :)
Gadget
Quote from: Neo-X on September 05, 2012, 12:17:13 PM
Hi 2 all.. I would just like to know if the joule thief circuit gets overunity? I was searching for easy to build solid state overunity circuit and this is the best i found. I will try to replicate it if its really capable of getting overunity.
I've found that of the hundred or more of the conventional JTs that I've made, the average efficiency is between 40 to 70 percent. I've not seen any above that. OLn the other hand, my Supercharged Joule Thief (http://rustybolt.info/wordpress/?p=221) is about double the efficiency of the conventional JT.
Quote from: gadgetmall on September 05, 2012, 12:27:50 PM
I personally believe it can be 101% efficient BUT out of 100's of Builds exactly the same you might get one that is displayed that way . The reason is different placement of parts . different gains in the same batch of transistors . different internal Core structure even thou you got 50 that look the same .and the stray capacitance in your circuit SO with that information do like we did build 100's of them Wind different ways . and see :)
Gadget
Have you considered "resonance"?
Try Osiris JT..
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 20, 2012, 09:16:50 AM
Have you considered "resonance"?
Have you considered "reading" the existing Joule (Jule) Thief threads on this forum?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 07:27:13 PM
Have you considered "reading" the existing Joule (Jule) Thief threads on this forum?
I read some. e.g. http://www.overunity.com/8564/new-jewel-thief-resonate-lcr-circuit-much-less-energy-draw/#.UKxG-Icsk1M
Some JT work better than others in specific situations. The LEDs were brighter. The no-battery time was longer. The ring was louder. The oscilloscope waveforms showed higher amplitude.
Is there a good way to measure and classify such?I call some situations as "commercial resonance conditions"- meaning that commercial products can be built when tuned to such conditions.
BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong was supposed to come out with an "Lead-out Energy Research Kit" that will help in the understanding of such resonance tuning. I was hoping thousands would experiment and hit on many commercial resonance conditions. I have not mastered a scientific technique to accurately predict or produce the commercial resonance conditions. Much is trial and error. The chance of hitting commercial resonance conditions is much higher with thousands of experimenters.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World.
Lawrence, do you have a signal (function) generator? Using the function generator and the oscilloscope you can determine the resonant frequency of your JT coils, I think, without the rest of the circuit. Then you can compare the operating frequency of the running JT to the resonant freq you determined for the raw coils. It might prove interesting.....
As gadgetmall noted earlier, the main researchers in this thread (not me!! not yet!!) have explored the resonance problem and have learned a lot, and are using what they learned to make very efficient JTs, whether or not they are technically "in resonance" or even autoresonating. I think most of this information is in the threads, but I can appreciate that it's a long read....
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 20, 2012, 11:09:28 PM
Lawrence, do you have a signal (function) generator? Using the function generator and the oscilloscope you can determine the resonant frequency of your JT coils, I think, without the rest of the circuit. Then you can compare the operating frequency of the running JT to the resonant freq you determined for the raw coils. It might prove interesting.....
As gadgetmall noted earlier, the main researchers in this thread (not me!! not yet!!) have explored the resonance problem and have learned a lot, and are using what they learned to make very efficient JTs, whether or not they are technically "in resonance" or even autoresonating. I think most of this information is in the threads, but I can appreciate that it's a long read....
We do have signal generators. My first FLEET did not use JT circuits at all. I used a signal generator as the Input Source. I shall ask my teams to look into this line of attack. The JT thread is just too long with both good and bad information mixed. I wish someone can extract the good information systematically. Thanks for your suggestion.
The JT circuit is an oscillator where the primary function of the oscillator is to energize an inductor. The inductor then discharges and makes one or 50 LEDs light up and the cycle starts all over again.
There is a fair amount of energy overhead to run the oscillator. Perhaps up to 30% of the battery power is 'wasted' to run the oscillator. The oscillator 'resonates' at it's natural operating frequency just like any other circuit that is designed to oscillate. Beyond that there is no phenomenon of resonance at play in the JT circuit at all.
When the inductor discharges, perhaps up to 70% of the battery power becomes the useful output. The useful output goes into whatever kind of load you want to connect across the the discharging inductor. Since the discharge of an inductor is a current source by definition, the current decreases to zero but the voltage can be variable. That's why a JT can light up 50 LEDs in series. There is no 'magic' there, it's simply the way a discharging inductor works.
I am quite certain that a CMOS 555 with the right timing components driving an NPN transistor or a MOSFET to energize an inductor would outperform any JT circuit. That's because the overhead to perform the oscillator function might be only 1% of the supplied battery power as opposed to 30% for the average JT. However, this circuit would not be 'friendly' with respect to nearly dead batteries because it would need a higher minimum supply voltage to operate correctly.
The fascination with JT circuits is great and it's a great way to get familiar with electronics. However, one should not forget that there is nothing special or 'magical' about it - it's just a circuit that energizes an inductor and then discharges the stored energy in the inductor through a load. Because the discharging inductor acts like a current source and not as a voltage source, it can light up long strings of LEDs in series.
With a CMOS 555 timer setup, you would have the luxury of choosing your coil inductance and deciding exactly how much energy you want to store in the coil before the discharge. You would also have complete control over the operating frequency.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 21, 2012, 12:15:04 AM
There is a fair amount of energy overhead to run the oscillator. Perhaps up to 30% of t
When the inductor discharges, perhaps up to 70% of the battery power becomes the useful output. The useful output goes into whatever kind of load you want to connect across the the discharging inductor. Since the discharge of an inductor is a current source by definition, the current decreases to zero but the voltage can be variable. That's why a JT can light up 50 LEDs in series. There is no 'magic' there, it's simply the way a discharging inductor works.
Mr MileHigh, so long I don't see you. I have had no chance to go back at the other forum and continue my work on Bedini.
Hey I have some agreement and small notes about your quote above. Thanks to you, once I heard you saying that I decided to take that understanding and expand on it more. I am looking into old school (1911 and earlier) mathematics definitions and teachings of other in this subject.
What I learned is that the inductor does behave as you said with a little trick. It is not relevant to input voltage the amount of the magnetic field created in the coil. W = LI. Also it seems that today school is only focusing in magnetic flux and voltage fields. Engineers tend to think more in terms of "electron" or particle flowing throw a wire than fields at play for BOTH electric and magnetic.
Dollard explain this in detail, and so Charles Steinmetz and to a certain extend Tesla with his concepts of wave length.
I think every time one creates a magnetic field in a coil, in our case a Joule Thief, we have the potential of extracting FREE ENERGY for good. I think you don't agree but I beg you to look into this in more detail.
A resistor will not present the same magnetic field as an equivalent resistive inductor, why? both will "burn" electricity energy into heat but the inductor will create this "BEMF" for you everytime. Where is the energy to heat and expand the field from, that the resistor does not have but a coil does?
I know even straight lines have induction but I am talking about accumulative induction when used in a different geometric form like a coil.
Fausto.
The really nice thing about the simple basic JTs using cheap transistors is the fact that they _do_ start up and continue working on very low input voltages. Perhaps their true efficiency could be beaten using more sophisticated circuitry.... but not on an input voltage of less than half a volt from a discarded AAA battery. MH is perfectly correct, even down to the resonance issue..... in theory. But in practice.... what are you going to do with all those really low voltage sources that can't run even a CMOS 555 or a logic-level mosfet?
Just about anything except a simple flashlight that is battery powered these days has a low-voltage cutoff. Unless it's specifically designed for NiCads or LiPos this cut-off is something around 1.2 volts per cell ....the point at which a AAA or AA cell is considered "discharged". But there is plenty of electrical energy left in a "dead" battery by this definition. Why just throw this energy away until it's been used for something?
And the teaching/learning value of the simple circuits and all their subtle variations is great. You can get all the parts you need for free, practically, from scavenging old TV sets; you can collect batteries from all your neighbors, and you can amaze your friends with your low-voltage Christmas lighting and your emergency light sources and nightlights. Up with the JT !! Viva JT!
Quote from: Neo-X on September 05, 2012, 12:17:13 PM
Hi 2 all.. I would just like to know if the joule thief circuit gets overunity? I was searching for easy to build solid state overunity circuit and this is the best i found. I will try to replicate it if its really capable of getting overunity.
Not all JT circuits are overunity. The hint to whether the JT may be overunity is to examine the Output Voltage, Output Current and Output Power. The attached diagram is from a JT with one LED as load. The Output Voltage has peak much greater than 1.5V (the AA Input Battery Voltage). The frequency is high. This particular JT is not conclusively overunity. But once you tune it with capacitors and resistors, the peak can exceed 100V with the same LED shining brighter. At that condition (I call it resonance condition), overunity is achieved.
To conclude, just building a JT is unlikely to get you an overunity device. If you do the proper tuning by much trial and error, you may hit on a resonance condition. At that resonance condition, a JT may have Output > Input power. If you achieve such a condition and keep it there, your device will be overunity. At resonance condition, electron motion energy will be lead-out or brought-in. Thus your JT does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Many researchers fail to do the tuning but the
joule ringer is likely to have achieved tuning. The ringing sound is an indication of possible resonance. It is annoying but it is a good indicator. The Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI (not marketed yet) has a ringing tone.
Good luck in your resonance hunting. God Bless.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 21, 2012, 08:08:09 PM
The ringing sound is an indication of possible resonance. It is annoying but it is a good indicator.
the 'ringing' sound is an indication of oscillation and no, it's not a good indicator of resonance. it simply indicates that the circuit is oscillating. resonance is usually in a narrow band (or bands) of freq. your circuit could be 'ringing' and still be far from resonant.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 21, 2012, 08:08:09 PM
Not all JT circuits are overunity. The hint to whether the JT may be overunity is to examine the Output Voltage, Output Current and Output Power. The attached diagram is from a JT with one LED as load. The Output Voltage has peak much greater than 1.5V (the AA Input Battery Voltage). The frequency is high. This particular JT is not conclusively overunity. But once you tune it with capacitors and resistors, the peak can exceed 100V with the same LED shining brighter. At that condition (I call it resonance condition), overunity is achieved.
To conclude, just building a JT is unlikely to get you an overunity device. If you do the proper tuning by much trial and error, you may hit on a resonance condition. At that resonance condition, a JT may have Output > Input power. If you achieve such a condition and keep it there, your device will be overunity. At resonance condition, electron motion energy will be lead-out or brought-in. Thus your JT does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Many researchers fail to do the tuning but the joule ringer is likely to have achieved tuning. The ringing sound is an indication of possible resonance. It is annoying but it is a good indicator. The Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI (not marketed yet) has a ringing tone.
Good luck in your resonance hunting. God Bless.
Lawrence.... did you make that graph with data from your scope set to AC COUPLING??? It sure looks to me like you did.
I am afraid I must ask you to rein in your "overunity" claims until you understand properly how to do power computations using your oscilloscope.
And I will remind you once again that POWER isn't necessarily conserved and that it is EASY to get massive gains in instantaneous output power, over instantaneous or even average input power. This does not indicate overunity performance at all. You need to INTEGRATE your instantaneous output power values over an appropriate time interval to obtain an ENERGY value, and compare this to the ENERGY value found from doing the same thing to the input instantaneous power curve.
In addition, your graph image is called "output power" but it's a graph of VOLTAGE. Voltage is not power.
And if your JT isn't making an audible ringing sound, it is either oscillating faster than you can hear (ultrasonic) or your coil is embedded in epoxy, or it's just not working at all.
ETA: I have made YET ANOTHER video explaining and illustrating the use of AC versus DC coupling on a JT output voltage signal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVFyaQY6pR0
I sound a little irate by the end of the video because this must be the tenth time I've explained this, as if to a wall with no ears. You cannot use an AC coupled signal, raw, to give you values for a power computation!! You must know the value of the true baseline and how much your AC-coupled signal has moved with respect to it. This information is lost in LTseung's graph above, and only the AC-coupled values, averaging to zero around the zero baseline, are shown.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 21, 2012, 12:15:04 AM
The JT circuit is an oscillator where the primary function of the oscillator is to energize an inductor. The inductor then discharges and makes one or 50 LEDs light up and the cycle starts all over again.
That's why a JT can light up 50 LEDs in series. There is no 'magic' there, it's simply the way a discharging inductor works.
.
Wow, this is short sighted. So then how did I light 400 leds three years ago from a really dead battery? Nothing special? You have not been following along then. Also, resonance is a factor in this circuit. I do not see how you can claim otherwise.
Bill
Wow, this is short sighted. So
then how did I light 400 leds
three years ago from a really
dead battery? Nothing
special? You have not been
following along then. Also, resonance is a factor in this
circuit. I do not see how you
can claim otherwise.
--End of Quote--
How did you do that? Can u post here your circuits, screenshots and video.?
Quote from: Neo-X on November 21, 2012, 09:56:35 PM
Wow, this is short sighted. So
then how did I light 400 leds
three years ago from a really
dead battery? Nothing
special? You have not been
following along then. Also, resonance is a factor in this
circuit. I do not see how you
can claim otherwise.
--End of Quote--
How did you do that? Can u post here your circuits, screenshots and video.?
Check the original Joule Thief topic and my youtube videos (Pirate88179) it is all well documented. Many others have since surpassed anything I have done with this circuit. Lasersaber and Gadgetmall to name but two.
Bill
***EDIT*** Here is a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RVvdCovYDY
Plengo:
QuoteI think every time one creates a magnetic field in a coil, in our case a Joule Thief, we have the potential of extracting FREE ENERGY for good. I think you don't agree but I beg you to look into this in more detail.
Well a mechanical analogy for a coil with current flowing through it is a spinning flywheel. They both store energy and then release it back and exactly the same equations describe their behaviour. Do you consider a flywheel to be a possible source of free energy? Many times I have posted a simple test to see if a coil discharges more energy than you put into it but not once has a free energy enthusiast offered to run the test.
QuoteA resistor will not present the same magnetic field as an equivalent resistive inductor, why? both will "burn" electricity energy into heat but the inductor will create this "BEMF" for you everytime. Where is the energy to heat and expand the field from, that the resistor does not have but a coil does?
The answer to your question is that the inductor takes extra get energy to get the current flowing but the resistor doesn't require the extra energy. The extra energy builds up the magnetic field and when you discharge the inductor across a high resistance you get the BEMF spike and that extra energy is released. It's exactly the same for a mechanical flywheel. You have to apply torque to it to get it spinning and then when you apply the breaks to the flywheel there is your mechanical "BEMF spike."
Bill:
QuoteWow, this is short sighted. So then how did I light 400 leds three years ago from a really dead battery? Nothing special? You have not been following along then. Also, resonance is a factor in this circuit. I do not see how you can claim otherwise.
I already addressed that issue when I stated that a JT can light up 50 LEDs in series. Your nearly dead battery could still get current to flow though the coil. Then the coil discharged through the 400 LEDs. A coil has a theoretical limit of infinite voltage generation.
What I assume is that no one in the JT group did a simple test. Look at the voltage waveform from the discharging JT coil when you have a single LED as the load. Then look at the waveform for 5 LEDs, then 25 LEDs and then for 100 LEDs. What you would have observed is that the voltage pulse (and associated current pulse) gets shorter and shorter the more LEDs you have in series. That's telling you that the coil can store a finite amount of energy and the more LEDs you have in series, the faster that finite amount of energy discharges.
Eventually the pulse gets so narrow that the longs string of LEDs starts to get perceptibly dimmer. When the coil first starts to discharge, no matter how many LEDs you have in series, the initial current flow is always the same. So that means that you can put a lot of LEDs in series and they will still light up because the initial amount of current flow is enough to light up each LED in series. The persistence of human vision is such that you can keep on addling LEDs and your eyes and brain are latching onto the initial bright flash of the LEDs. Your perception is such that you cannot perceive the fact that the flashing LEDs are flashing on for a shorter and shorter time. You perceive the brightness as remaining about the same but in actual fact each individual LED is outputting less and less light as you make the string of LEDs longer and longer.
So indeed, nothing special. Resonance is not a factor in the JT circuit. It's just an oscillator, nothing more than that. The oscillator that is at the core of the JT does not resonate in the way resonance is commonly discussed around here. When the inductor discharges and lights up a bunch of LEDs, that's a 'pulse circuit' function in the same manner that a 555 timer is a device based on pulse circuitry. Pulse circuits and resonance are two completely separate things.
MileHigh
I have accedientally build a rather efficient, I believe, Joule Thief. With a dead 0.8v AA, it could light up 11 led in parallel brightly. The current draw from the battery is around 38ma. The led keep light up, though very dim, when battery drop to 0.3v. I believe the secret is on the toroid as other toroids would draw over 110ma. I could not replicate it even with the exact ferrite toroid and wires. I have tried 4 exact ferrite toroid and wires from the same source.
Any idea how to prove if the Joule Thief is overunity?
Any idea how to identify what cause the toroid special?
Any idea how to replicate the toroid?
Quote from: bs2012 on November 22, 2012, 07:19:56 AM
I have accedientally build a rather efficient, I believe, Joule Thief. With a dead 0.8v AA, it could light up 11 led in parallel brightly. The current draw from the battery is around 38ma. The led keep light up, though very dim, when battery drop to 0.3v. I believe the secret is on the toroid as other toroids would draw over 110ma. I could not replicate it even with the exact ferrite toroid and wires. I have tried 4 exact ferrite toroid and wires from the same source.
These results are not remarkable; look back thru the several JT threads and you will see much better performances... and replicable ones. I have a simple, basic JT right here in front of me right now that lights up 4 parallel rows of 11 series LEDs -- plus two more to connect to the transistor-- 46 LEDs -- running on a battery that measures 0.43 volts while running. I don't know how long it will run or how low the battery needs to be for it to stop... it hasn't stopped yet !!
But as exciting that is for me, I am fully aware (since I've been reading the threads from the beginning) that even this is a mediocre performance as far as efficient JTs go.
Quote
Any idea how to prove if the Joule Thief is overunity?
Sure. Take the output of one JT, put it into a filter capacitor, and use the filter capacitor to run a second JT. Run the first JT from the output of the second one in the same way. Remove all batteries and stand back. When it keeps running, you have proved that your JTs are overunity. (You might need to daisy-chain a number of JTs in this manner to have it work. Let me know how many it takes.)
Quote
Any idea how to identify what cause the toroid special?
Demonstrating that the toroid IS special in some way would be a good start. Then you'd look at the B-H curve for the material and compare performance with other well-characterized material formed into toroids or other shapes.
Quote
Any idea how to replicate the toroid?
Trial and error, because there isn't enough information in your report to do anything else.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 21, 2012, 11:32:29 PM
Plengo:
Well a mechanical analogy for a coil with current flowing through it is a spinning flywheel. They both store energy and then release it back and exactly the same equations describe their behaviour. Do you consider a flywheel to be a possible source of free energy? Many times I have posted a simple test to see if a coil discharges more energy than you put into it but not once has a free energy enthusiast offered to run the test.
The answer to your question is that the inductor takes extra get energy to get the current flowing but the resistor doesn't require the extra energy. The extra energy builds up the magnetic field and when you discharge the inductor across a high resistance you get the BEMF spike and that extra energy is released. It's exactly the same for a mechanical flywheel. You have to apply torque to it to get it spinning and then when you apply the breaks to the flywheel there is your mechanical "BEMF spike."
MileHigh
first, thank you for answering my question. The inductor takes more energy to store the energy as magnetic field? Extra energy? if the inductor has for example 10 ohms resistance, how can it really take more energy than a regular resistor?
Fausto.
MH:
I agree with you on what you said about the duty cycle and the human eye. No problem there.
If resonance is not a factor in these circuits then why is it when I run a basic JT circuit from say a 10 F cap, and use a vr as the base resistor, I can add resistance and the lights get brighter and brighter and then, they will start getting dimmer as I pass "the sweet spot". This is a very delicate adjustment to get it just right. Any change in the circuit, even one winding, will make this resistance incorrect again and it must be retuned. You are saying that this tuning does not hit a resonance node? If it is not a type of resonance, then what is it that allows this tuning to achieve some very dramatic results when hitting the sweet spot?
Bill
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 09:02:29 PM
Lawrence.... did you make that graph with data from your scope set to AC COUPLING??? It sure looks to me like you did.
YES. Thank you for your enlightenment. I redid the experiments using DC coupling. I can now specifically pick out situations where COP is greater than 1 with DC coupling setting on my oscilloscope at home.
There will be more experiments and many researchers double and triple checking the results. Once that is done and confirmed, I shall publish the results.
The new technique makes
resonance hunting and extracting electron motion energy a piece of cake. The commercial interests may try to stop its publication. The latest date for this information to become public is Oct 2013.
All Glory and Praise to the Almighty.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 22, 2012, 06:20:59 PM
All Glory and Praise to the Almighty.
YES. all glory and praise to Shangdi!
Fausto:
QuoteThe inductor takes more energy to store the energy as magnetic field? Extra energy? if the inductor has for example 10 ohms resistance, how can it really take more energy than a regular resistor?
Not extra energy. When you first put voltage across an inductor no current flows. Electrical work has to be done to get the current to flow through an inductor (voltage x current x time). The current starts from zero amperes and slowly climbs. Once the current is flowing and you put a high resistance load across the inductor then you get a back-EMF spike. The energy in the back-EMF spike is identical to the work (voltage x current x time) that was expended by the battery to get the current flowing in the first place.
This is in contrast to a resistor where the current starts to flow the instant you put voltage across the resistor. There is no "extra work" required to get the current to start flowing through the resistor. Likewise, there is no back-EMF spike from a resistor.
Bill:
QuoteIf resonance is not a factor in these circuits then why is it when I run a basic JT circuit from say a 10 F cap, and use a vr as the base resistor, I can add resistance and the lights get brighter and brighter and then, they will start getting dimmer as I pass "the sweet spot". This is a very delicate adjustment to get it just right. Any change in the circuit, even one winding, will make this resistance incorrect again and it must be retuned. You are saying that this tuning does not hit a resonance node? If it is not a type of resonance, then what is it that allows this tuning to achieve some very dramatic results when hitting the sweet spot?
The "sweet spot" in the example you described is not related to resonance. As you vary the base resistor the oscillator part of the JT is changing its performance characteristics. You tune the base resistor in such a way that you have the coil switched on for a longer time and it's also possible that the switch-off of the transistor is "snappier." The longer the coil is being energized the more current will be flowing through it when the transistor switches off. The faster the transistor switches off the less energy will be wasted burning off through the switching-off transistor and the more energy will be passed to the string of LEDs. So you get maximum brightness with your string of LEDs if you have maximum current flowing through the coil and the fastest switch off of the transistor. In simple terms you were tweaking your oscillator circuit so that you were maximizing the amount of energy per pulse that was being transferred into the array of LEDs. So tweaking in this case is not related to resonance at all.
This is where an oscilloscope is king. What you want to do is make a timing diagram and with the aid of your oscilloscope draw up a timing diagram with all of the relevant voltages and currents that show the JT oscillator in action. If you want to truly understand the circuit and how changing the value of one component affects the operation of the JT, then you want to understand exactly what each waveform represents and the interrelationship between waveforms. It's not as challenging as it may sound. For example, you see the voltage go high at the base resistor, and as a result you might see the voltage at the transistor collector going low because the transistor is switching on, etc.
The fundamental and most important two parameters for any JT circuit are the inductance value for the main coil, and the amount of current flowing through the main coil when the transistor switches off. That determines the initial current flow and how much energy will be transferred into the LED or LEDs that typically form the load component in the JT circuit. And of course that determines the brightness of the string of LEDs.
MileHigh
Quote from: plengo on November 22, 2012, 11:23:11 AM
first, thank you for answering my question. The inductor takes more energy to store the energy as magnetic field? Extra energy? if the inductor has for example 10 ohms resistance, how can it really take more energy than a regular resistor?
Fausto.
Let me jump in with an analogy. Think of electric current as the flow of water in a hose. A resistor, then, is just a simple restriction in the hose: it decreases the flow but the outflow happens immediately that you provide some inflow. An inductor is like a balloon or soft spot in the hose. You apply pressure at one end, and before anything comes out the other end, the balloon must swell up first. Then once it's swelled up... storing energy in the tension in the skin.... then output starts to flow, but it's the same current as the input. When you turn off the input, the balloon collapses continuing the outflow for a while and releasing the energy you stored in the stretched skin.
In an inductor the magnetic field is like the balloon. So there is a slight delay when you turn on an inductor as the field builds, and there is a slight delay.. .the current tries to keep flowing.... as the field collapses when you turn the inductor off.
The resistor takes extra energy to push current through it but this extra energy is lost: dissipated as heat. The inductor returns the energy it took to set up the field back to the circuit, it's not wasted.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 22, 2012, 06:20:59 PM
YES. Thank you for your enlightenment. I redid the experiments using DC coupling. I can now specifically pick out situations where COP is greater than 1 with DC coupling setting on my oscilloscope at home.
There will be more experiments and many researchers double and triple checking the results. Once that is done and confirmed, I shall publish the results.
The new technique makes resonance hunting and extracting electron motion energy a piece of cake. The commercial interests may try to stop its publication. The latest date for this information to become public is Oct 2013.
All Glory and Praise to the Almighty.
OK. You are welcome.... but just to be sure that you are really enlightened, can you please repeat back to me your new understanding of the use of AC and DC coupling on the scope, and why and under what circumstances each is to be used?. By restating it in your own words we can check to see if your enlightenment is real, or an illusion.
ETA: Also, can your scope do math., specifically trace multiplication and integration, and can it store traces in memory?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 23, 2012, 02:52:08 AM
OK. You are welcome.... but just to be sure that you are really enlightened, can you please repeat back to me your new understanding of the use of AC and DC coupling on the scope, and why and under what circumstances each is to be used?. By restating it in your own words we can check to see if your enlightenment is real, or an illusion.
ETA: Also, can your scope do math., specifically trace multiplication and integration, and can it store traces in memory?
The Atten scope can store data from the
two channels simultaneously as CSV files. I can then use Excel to analyze the data as you have seen from the file. This relatively cheap scope (<US$200) bought at ShenZhen is an excellent value for money instrument. I believe PhysicsProf got one too.
I am interested in the formula that is correct in Physics:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current.That formula holds whether the system is DC, AC or Pulsed.
I initially did not use the oscilloscope and rely on Voltage Reading at no load to compare the various FLEETs.
I then put all measurements with AC coupling. That gave high Output/Input ratio (False COP?). Some FLEET with high ratios could light up many more LEDs for longer periods. I used that
ratio as a comparison index to determine which FLEET might be better.
I have now taken your advice. I repeated many experiments with DC coupling. Some low ratio FLEETs no longer show ratio greater than 1.
However, some FLEETs with high ratio in specific conditions still show COP >1. The Average Output Power
can still be negative. It really narrowed down the search for resonance-tuned devices that show commercial value.
Thank you for your advice. Now resonance tuning and
getting commercial resonance conditions is a piece of cake. I already achieved two situations in the last few days. (The first commercial resonance condition took me eight years and G-LED found it. Not me.) When there is lead-out or bring-in energy, having Output power greater than Supplied Input Power does not violate any Laws in Physics and
has been achieved by many (who may not even know or know how to confirm it!)
*** The use of Vpp or AC coupling as comparison index was useful - even now. The high index FLEETs work better! So one can be wrong in the exact understanding but right in the general direction!
God Bless.
TK:
QuoteLet me jump in with an analogy. Think of electric current as the flow of water in a hose. A resistor, then, is just a simple restriction in the hose: it decreases the flow but the outflow happens immediately that you provide some inflow. An inductor is like a balloon or soft spot in the hose. You apply pressure at one end, and before anything comes out the other end, the balloon must swell up first. Then once it's swelled up... storing energy in the tension in the skin.... then output starts to flow, but it's the same current as the input. When you turn off the input, the balloon collapses continuing the outflow for a while and releasing the energy you stored in the stretched skin.
In an inductor the magnetic field is like the balloon. So there is a slight delay when you turn on an inductor as the field builds, and there is a slight delay.. .the current tries to keep flowing.... as the field collapses when you turn the inductor off.
I am not a fan of your analogy because the current going in one end of an inductor is equal to the current going out the other end of an inductor. With your analogy that's not the case. In your analogy, the "balloon" is more akin to a capacitor connected to ground before the resistor. Then the KCL works.
But let me modify your analogy and keep with the garden hose idea.
You have a straight 10-foot length of garden hose with a restriction at the end of the hose. That's equivalent to a wire connected to a resistor.
Now, suppose at the 5-foot point along the hose you have a hose coupling. You open up the coupling and you add a coiled 50-foot length of hose.
Now the setup is as follows: A 5-foot length of hose, connected to a coiled 50-foot length of hose, connected to a 5-foot length of hose with a restriction at the end of the hose.
The coiled 50-foot length of hose is the inductor. There is a lot of "extra" water inside the 50-foot length of hose and it has mass and momentum. You have to do "extra work" to overcome the inertia of all of that extra water to get the water flowing. If you block the end of the hose, you will get a big surge in water pressure. That's the back-EMF spike.
You note in this analogy KCL is respected and works.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 22, 2012, 10:53:39 PM
Fausto:
Not extra energy. When you first put voltage across an inductor no current flows. Electrical work has to be done to get the current to flow through an inductor (voltage x current x time). The current starts from zero amperes and slowly climbs. Once the current is flowing and you put a high resistance load across the inductor then you get a back-EMF spike. The energy in the back-EMF spike is identical to the work (voltage x current x time) that was expended by the battery to get the current flowing in the first place.
This is in contrast to a resistor where the current starts to flow the instant you put voltage across the resistor. There is no "extra work" required to get the current to start flowing through the resistor. Likewise, there is no back-EMF spike from a resistor.
MileHigh
so if I had a resistor and the flow is constant I get heat in exchange for the voltage x current x time I got that. But the inductor ALSO has the same resistance so it has to also create the same heat as the equivalent resistor and on top of that returns a BEMF for the same input time of power/energy.
What I see here is free energy as BEMF, it is not the same 100% input of energy but it is there, while the resistor does not have that same effect (at least in the same level).
How can this not make you think differently? An Inductor has the ability of providing what the resistor is not. This to me is free energy. The work done by an equivalent resister is the SAME as the work done by an inductor concerning the input power/energy.
Btw, on the BEMF we also have more resistive heat loss on the indcutor which goes in line with another experiment the shows more heat is generated over a resistor when pulsed many times.
The inductor is doing twice the work that a resistor does with the same input of power/energy.
Fausto.
Fausto:
You are not getting it. What you are doing is showing your wishful thinking about inductors. The truth is that every electronic circuit that you see discussed here is under unity. I am not trying to stop anybody from experimenting with electronics. You notice that when people get excited about an electronic circuit and think it might be over unity, they never attempt to explain where the over unity is produced. What is implicit in all of this is that there is a belief system that says that coils "just might" get extra energy from the "environment." Sterling Allen states that all the time and in a sense you are stating it now.
Let's review the concept of inductors using energy and power as the frame of reference.
Let's assume that the inductor has a resistance of 10 ohms.
Now, using a simple way of describing it and omitting some details for clarity:
1) You apply voltage to the inductor and it takes some time for the current to reach the full current flow. During this "start up" time the battery expends 10 Joules of energy to get the current flowing. That means that 10 Joules of energy are stored in the magnetic field.
2) While the inductor has the full current flow let's say it is dissipating 5 Watts of power continuously. Of course we know that power is coming from the battery.
3) When you stop supplying battery power and you put a high resistance across the terminals of the inductor you get a high-voltage back-EMF spike discharge of energy. The amount of energy in the back-EMF spike is 10 Joules.
Do you get it? The battery expends 10 Joules of energy to get the current flowing. The 10 Joules of energy are stored in the magnetic field. Then when the inductor discharges it discharges 10 Joules of energy.
In other words: + 10 Joules - 10 Jules = ZERO.
i.e.; The energy in the back-EMF spike from a coil comes from the battery, and nowhere else. Nor is it "radiant energy," nor is it "cold electricity."
The inductor is a temporary energy storage device. It temporarily stores energy that was supplied by the battery and discharges it at a later time. There is no such thing as "double usage" of energy for an inductor.
That is the reality Fausto.
MileHigh
Happy Thanksgiving to you all. I think that we can settle the question of whether a JT can be overunity once for all. Please refer to Nov 22a.zip in the following:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471)
If we believe in the formula:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current
and that the Instantaneous Voltage value can be obtained from the DC Coupling of the Oscilloscope, then all we need to do is to examine the oscilloscope results.
The oscilloscope result for case 4 was obtained with the battery removed. The capacitor was connected for some minutes. The Output Voltage frequency increased from 1.4KHz when the battery was disconnected. As the both the Input and Output Voltage dropped, the frequency increased. At this state, the Output Power was negative and the numerical value of the COP was greater than 1. This can be reproduced from the Lead-out Energy Research kit components from BSI.
God Bless.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 23, 2012, 10:14:43 PM
Fausto:
You are not getting it. What you are doing is showing your wishful thinking about inductors. The truth is that every electronic circuit that you see discussed here is under unity. I am not trying to stop anybody from experimenting with electronics. You notice that when people get excited about an electronic circuit and think it might be over unity, they never attempt to explain where the over unity is produced. What is implicit in all of this is that there is a belief system that says that coils "just might" get extra energy from the "environment." Sterling Allen states that all the time and in a sense you are stating it now.
Let's review the concept of inductors using energy and power as the frame of reference.
Let's assume that the inductor has a resistance of 10 ohms.
Now, using a simple way of describing it and omitting some details for clarity:
1) You apply voltage to the inductor and it takes some time for the current to reach the full current flow. During this "start up" time the battery expends 10 Joules of energy to get the current flowing. That means that 10 Joules of energy are stored in the magnetic field.
2) While the inductor has the full current flow let's say it is dissipating 5 Watts of power continuously. Of course we know that power is coming from the battery.
3) When you stop supplying battery power and you put a high resistance across the terminals of the inductor you get a high-voltage back-EMF spike discharge of energy. The amount of energy in the back-EMF spike is 10 Joules.
Do you get it? The battery expends 10 Joules of energy to get the current flowing. The 10 Joules of energy are stored in the magnetic field. Then when the inductor discharges it discharges 10 Joules of energy.
In other words: + 10 Joules - 10 Jules = ZERO.
i.e.; The energy in the back-EMF spike from a coil comes from the battery, and nowhere else. Nor is it "radiant energy," nor is it "cold electricity."
The inductor is a temporary energy storage device. It temporarily stores energy that was supplied by the battery and discharges it at a later time. There is no such thing as "double usage" of energy for an inductor.
That is the reality Fausto.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
thank you again for the explanation and this time you said it yourself exactly what I said but you are still not seeing.
Let go slow: you said: energy goes from the battery to the inductor. Good. Inductor discharges that stored energy back to us (or another system, whatever). Good, all the same, what goes in, goes out.
Is that correct? Good, now, think again, battery give 10 watts of power in a second, so 10 joules. Great. Inductor discharges and gives back (minus losses) 10 joules or less back.
Now, this process heats up the resistive wire TWICE, not once like a regular resistor. Can you explain that? How come a resistor for the same 10 joules of input power ONLY heat once ? in others words a regular resistor will give you only an equivalent amount of 10 joules of heat, while the SAME resistance in a inductor will give you more than that in heat.
I would love to hear how you going to explain that out!
Wishful thinking is YOURs in thinking that you can deny that simple fact that power has nothing to do with the amount of magnetic energy stored or produced by an inductor.Fausto.
Hmmm... I can imagine how a transformer gets overunity but in inductor im still double thinking. If the inductor really has more power in bemf or when the magnetic field is collapsing, then it will self oscillate when a capacitor is added because the extra energy from the bemf sustain the oscillation.
Quote from: Neo-X on November 24, 2012, 01:02:05 PM
Hmmm... I can imagine how a transformer gets overunity but in inductor im still double thinking. If the inductor really has more power in bemf or when the magnetic field is collapsing, then it will self oscillate when a capacitor is added because the extra energy from the bemf sustain the oscillation.
I am not saying that BEMF is more power back than we put it in. BEMF will be much less.
BTW, it is funny how IGNORANT people are to overunity. Look at this video from Newman (he has been doing this for decades) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMYo1QlvK5g&list=PL4E7C4E1A7713B3D8&index=1&feature=plpp_video, it is very clear that his machine 2000 pounds is running in voltage only.
I want to see how any one can explain this to not be overunity. 2000 pounds doing work, pumping water is NOT fake and it is not running on current, since ALL the batteries are in series.
If this is not the power of induction at work, I don't know what is power than.
Fausto.
and to show more work: http://youtu.be/N1Fj4r-we84
This video is a trial replication of Lasersaber Joule Ringer Cross Over. I did not replicate it 100% BUT I did replicate the input energy growing effect. I had to burn about 30 or so transistors.
Very difficult this circuit. Extremely sensitive.
Fausto.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 24, 2012, 01:36:12 AM
Happy Thanksgiving to you all. I think that we can settle the question of whether a JT can be overunity once for all. Please refer to Nov 22a.zip in the following:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471)
If we believe in the formula:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current
and that the Instantaneous Voltage value can be obtained from the DC Coupling of the Oscilloscope, then all we need to do is to examine the oscilloscope results.
The oscilloscope result for case 4 was obtained with the battery removed. The capacitor was connected for some minutes. The Output Voltage frequency increased from 1.4KHz when the battery was disconnected. As the both the Input and Output Voltage dropped, the frequency increased. At this state, the Output Power was negative and the numerical value of the COP was greater than 1. This can be reproduced from the Lead-out Energy Research kit components from BSI.
God Bless.
A Picture is worth a thousand words. Four pictures may be worth 4 thousand words. Refer to the above link and the nov 22a.xlsx file for full details.
All Glory and Honor to the Almighty. I am just the humble Server of the Divine Wine.
@LTseung: I'm glad you are taking me seriously. Thanks for posting the scopeshots.
Yes, you are right that instantaneous power = instantaneous voltage x instantaneous current, at each _instant_. This automatically takes into account phase angles, complex waveforms and the lot. However there are other considerations.
First, and perhaps most importantly, Power is NOT energy. Power is not necessarily "conserved" because you can take lots of small chunks of power and concentrate them into a bigger chunk. ENERGY is conserved. To sustain a claim of overunity performance you must show that energy out > energy in.
How do you find the energy? By integrating the instantaneous power curve over an appropriate time period.
So your COP claims based on power are still incomplete.
Second..... if you load samples from your DSO into your spreadsheet and have the spreadsheet integrate the values making up the instantaneous power curve, you need to make sure you aren't "looking at your data thru a picket fence". That is, all DSOs are _sampling_ instruments, they do not read continuous values from your signal. They sample it at discrete intervals. Digital Sampling Oscilloscope. Many DSOs... high end ones....have very large sample rates like 1 Gs/sec. Clearly..... if you are sampling a waveform at 1 Gs/sec..... you are going to have a +lot+ of samples per cycle. A lot of data for a spreadsheet CSV file. On the other hand if your scope is a basic one, it probably has a much slower actual sample rate, and may even be interpolating between sample intervals rather than giving you actual measurements.
This means that using a spreadsheet to integrate a complex signal with fast risetimes, based on data dumps from a low-end digital scope is a process that is.... er.... um...... "fraught" as someone once said. Fraught with difficulty and opportunities for error, that is.
It is better, in general, to use an integrating power meter like the Clarke-Hess power analyzers, or in especially problematic cases, even bolometric power analyzers, or to beg or borrow a high-end scope with huge sample rates and built in integration math, and have the scope perform the necessary integrations on-board.
Finally (for this post anyway) you must use the _input power used to charge the capacitor_ as your "input" for your COP calculations on capacitor-powered devices. This is actually the benefit of using caps: the input power can be much more precisely known than otherwise by measuring the charging voltage and current and, again, doing the inst. mult. and integration. The _energy_ that is on the cap at any given time can be known simply by computing E in Joules = (CxVxV)/2 where C is the capacitance in Farads and V is the measured voltage in volts.
So you charge a cap to a certain voltage. You know the energy it took to charge the cap.... and you know the energy ON the cap. Then you compare these to your output _energy_ value over a suitable period of time.
Quote from: plengo on November 24, 2012, 05:07:12 PM
and to show more work: http://youtu.be/N1Fj4r-we84 (http://youtu.be/N1Fj4r-we84)
This video is a trial replication of Lasersaber Joule Ringer Cross Over. I did not replicate it 100% BUT I did replicate the input energy growing effect. I had to burn about 30 or so transistors.
Very difficult this circuit. Extremely sensitive.
Fausto.
Here's my first complete demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro36zIieP3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro36zIieP3w)
And another one coming in an hour or so.
But I've only burned out two transistors.....I must be doing something wrong..... :(
;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 24, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
@LTseung: I'm glad you are taking me seriously. Thanks for posting the scopeshots.
Yes, you are right that instantaneous power = instantaneous voltage x instantaneous current, at each _instant_. This automatically takes into account phase angles, complex waveforms and the lot. However there are other considerations.
We shall send at least 30 oscilloscope-test-ready boards to the top universities of the World. They have the very high end 4 channel scopes to do very thorough tests. That was the objection 3 years ago when I first took the simple FLEET to the Hong Kong University. The immediate reaction was - your China made Oscilloscope may not give the right result.
*** Another major objections was that with a 2 channel oscilloscope, one cannot measure the Input and Output waveforms simultaneously. In the particular experiment, I took pictures of the Output and then the Input. Thus there were no guarantee that the LHS corresponds to the RHS exactly. ***
I believe PhysicsProf also met with similar comments. He had to drive many miles to BYU to use the high end scope.
Both G-LED and BSI have produced Forever Lighted Lamps based on the resonance tuning of the Atten Oscilloscope. From the many repeated peaks, I believe the oscilloscope gives reasonable answer. I do not need exact values to confirm the lead-out energy theory. Let the Universities and their Professors shine. Let them come out with the top scientific papers.
Let the Almighty bring out the top Wine Servers.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 24, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
First, and perhaps most importantly, Power is NOT energy. Power is not necessarily "conserved" because you can take lots of small chunks of power and concentrate them into a bigger chunk. ENERGY is conserved. To sustain a claim of overunity performance you must show that energy out > energy in.
How do you find the energy? By integrating the instantaneous power curve over an appropriate time period.
So your COP claims based on power are still incomplete.
The COP claims are based on
Average Output Power over Average Input Power with 11250 sample points.
Lawrence, you do not absolutely need high end digital oscilloscopes to do accurate power measurements! They are nice, can save a lot of time, but not required. What do you think people did before there +were+ DSOs? The folks that designed the first DSOs "only" had analog scopes to work with, and they made accurate power measurements of complex waveforms just fine.
I want to see if I can check your present computations, if I may. Can you please tell me the following little bits of data, for _one_ JT that you think is OU.... (and let's continue to speak only of that _one_ that you select, please.)
What is the oscillation frequency and the approximate duty cycle (the ratio of the "on" output time to the total period of a full cycle)?
What is the sample rate setting of your DSO when making your measurements?
How large (how many samples) is your CSV file for a set of _four_ complete cycles in the waveform?
May I examine your present spreadsheet computations (not just results, I'd like to see your formulae and procedures if I may.)
Now, I am mostly concerned with the output waveforms (voltage, and current represented by voltage drop thru a monitoring resistor) here. We will consider how you are measuring the input power a bit later on. You may not even need a scope at all for that.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 25, 2012, 12:17:22 AM
The COP claims are based on Average Output Power over Average Input Power with 11250 sample points.
And that is where you likely are going wrong. Please see my post above. I think you may be undersampling your waveform on the output, and I think you might not be doing your input measurements correctly. But without closer examination I can't really tell.
Still, for a quick check, you could always daisy-chain your 30 boards together into a real fleet of FLEETS.... and have them run themselves in a big Ring of Power. If they are even the slightest bit OU.... by the time you turn on the 30th one you will be in Overunity Heaven.
With all those OU Wine Servers, no doubt.
;D
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 24, 2012, 11:59:54 PM
We shall send at least 30 oscilloscope-test-ready boards to the top universities of the World. They have the very high end 4 channel scopes to do very thorough tests.
The Top Universities include TsingHua University (the MIT of China), MIT, Columbia, Stanford Universities of USA, Imperial College of England etc. They will receive the Lead-out Energy Research Kit and an oscilloscope-test-ready board.
All the Lead-out Energy Research Kits from BSI will have enough components to build an oscilloscope-test-ready board. BSI and G-LED will be meeting early December to decide on the final details.
Initially, I intended to wait until Oct 2013 before providing the full tuning information. One event at the hospital changed my mind. Someone used the "survival of the fittest" statement. That statement is a thorn in the heart for me. That was what the Colonialists used to justify murdering other races.
The gun and the atomic bomb were paradigm shift technologies. The Lead-out Energy technology will be a similar paradigm shift technology. No one group or nation is allowed to own and control this technology exclusively. The Divine Wine is for all humans.
I do not care whether someone believes or does not believe my posts. The analogy was the thousands of objections before the Wright Brothers demonstrated their plane. The moment the 30 top Universities publish their reports; when any one can purchase the Lead-out Energy Research Kit; when the Forever Lighted Lamp appears on TV etc., it will be reality.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World. Amen.
So that's pretty much that, then. OK, fine.
Here is my version of the Ghost light.
The Ghost Light LED can be on forever? At least 7 days and lights without dimming.
For tuning purposes, one can focus on Minute3.jpg.
The Output Voltage Waveform has more peaks. That potentially produces more power peaks. The percentage drop in amplitude is less than that of the Input. This is a good candidate for COP > 1.
Another angle is to look at the frequency. Can we use a low value of DC power supply to keep the circuit at that frequency? Can we build a circuit to maintain that frequency??? It is like keeping the same frequency for a radio station. Get there and hold it there.
Once the top Universities see the possibilities and the results from their top-of-the-line oscilloscopes, They will take Lead-out Energy technology to the next level. The Top Chinese Universities are looking for projects that will let them excel. They are good candidates to become Wine Servers.
God Bless.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 04:43:56 AM
So that's pretty much that, then. OK, fine.
Sample saved file with parameter save ON.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 24, 2012, 08:05:50 PM
First, and perhaps most importantly, Power is NOT energy. Power is not necessarily "conserved" because you can take lots of small chunks of power and concentrate them into a bigger chunk. ENERGY is conserved.
...
Second..... if you load samples from your DSO into your spreadsheet and have the spreadsheet integrate the values making up the instantaneous power curve, you need to make sure you aren't "looking at your data thru a picket fence". That is, all DSOs are _sampling_ instruments, they do not read continuous values from your signal. They sample it at discrete intervals. Digital Sampling Oscilloscope. Many DSOs... high end ones....have very large sample rates like 1 Gs/sec. Clearly..... if you are sampling a waveform at 1 Gs/sec..... you are going to have a +lot+ of samples per cycle. A lot of data for a spreadsheet CSV file. On the other hand if your scope is a basic one, it probably has a much slower actual sample rate, and may even be interpolating between sample intervals rather than giving you actual measurements.
This means that using a spreadsheet to integrate a complex signal with fast risetimes, based on data dumps from a low-end digital scope is a process that is.... er.... um...... "fraught" as someone once said. Fraught with difficulty and opportunities for error, that is.
It is better, in general, to use an integrating power meter like the Clarke-Hess power analyzers, or in especially problematic cases, even bolometric power analyzers, or to beg or borrow a high-end scope with huge sample rates and built in integration math, and have the scope perform the necessary integrations on-board.
That is very insightful of you. I know a little bit about digital sampling and how music software works and you are absolutely right. Your explanation of the artifacts of digital sampling concerning the reality of measuring power-in/power-out is very helpful.
Now I understand the so many years of discussion around this issue. One would have to have an infinite amount of sampling to allow instantaneous measurement of voltagexcurrent In and Out to measure correctly.
I admire your patient and politeness with our friend Itseung in his wonderful work when explaining the issues of the data.
How that device you mentioned (Clarke-Hess) works internaly if you don't mind asking. If they are not sampling, how are they calculating the true power?
Many thanks,
Fausto.
Much Thanks to TinselKoala
TinselKoala pointed me to the correct use of Instantaneous Voltage on the Oscilloscope - Use DC Coupling. I used this technique to greatly improve the resonance tuning process.
At BSI, we used to have a demonstration to show how to cut electricity bills. The circuit turns 30 LEDs ON for 15 seconds and OFF for 2 minutes and repeats. The values selected were more or less random with the human eye judging the brightness.
With the new tuning technique, we can detect the range that the circuit is in overunity mode. It turned out that the frequency range from about 3 KHz to 24 KHz fits such description. If we want the circuit to remain in this range and still show acceptable brightness, the best time is 3 Seconds ON and 10 minutes OFF. We can use the oscilloscope instead of the human eye.
Resonance tuning and obtaining overunity is now a piece of cake. Thanks to the Almighty and TinselKoala.
Lawrence: the positive lead of your power supply is connected. Disconnect that and your "forever light" will fade normally just as mine does. Maybe slower, I haven't spent any time optimising my circuit variant... I just built it last night !! But I've been able to discover a few things and explain them to myself to my _preliminary_ satisfaction.
As I have emphasized in my recent videos, you _cannot_ have any line connected device at all connected to this circuit or its variants or you will fool yourself. I mean by the ground lead, the positive lead or any lead at all.
Even a scope probe or reference will screw up your circuit _unless_ the scope is fully isolated. I don't know if this is the case for your scope. Are the probe reference leads (cable shields, outer conductors) connected together inside the scope, and is the internal chassis grounded to the mains ground back thru the line cord? Does it use a 2-prong "wallwart" style power supply, or is the power supply internal?
And please don't mention me and the Almighty in the same breath. He and I don't get along too well. I don't believe in him..... and I don't think he believes in me, either.
Fausto:
QuoteLet go slow: you said: energy goes from the battery to the inductor. Good. Inductor discharges that stored energy back to us (or another system, whatever). Good, all the same, what goes in, goes out.
Is that correct? Good, now, think again, battery give 10 watts of power in a second, so 10 joules. Great. Inductor discharges and gives back (minus losses) 10 joules or less back.
Now, this process heats up the resistive wire TWICE, not once like a regular resistor. Can you explain that? How come a resistor for the same 10 joules of input power ONLY heat once ? in others words a regular resistor will give you only an equivalent amount of 10 joules of heat, while the SAME resistance in a inductor will give you more than that in heat.
I would love to hear how you going to explain that out!
You are not correct here. So we know any real-world inductor is made of wire and has resistance. So what we can easily do is model the real-world inductor as an ideal inductor with zero resistance in the wire in series with a small resistor.
So what happens when we energize this inductor? Let's say it takes 5 seconds to energize the inductor. So after 5 seconds some of the supplied battery energy was used to create the magnetic field to energize the ideal inductor. At the same time during the 5 seconds some of the battery energy was burned off in the resistor.
After five seconds the only thing that is happening is that battery power is being burned off in the resistor. Also after five seconds there is energy stored in the inductor. That energy came from the battery. Important: Note that this energy stored in the inductor has not gone anywhere else, i.e.; it has not passed through a resistor.
Then after some time the inductor discharges its stored energy. This stored energy will discharge through the resistance of the inductor itself, and some sort of a load resistance. Therefore this energy is only discharged ONCE, not twice.
Here is the energy path: [energy in battery] -> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance and load resistance]
There is no 'magic' in the inductor that allows the same energy to get used twice.
MileHigh
@Lawrence: I take it that you are charging the cap for the short interval , then running on the stored energy for the longer interval. Here's a tip: the capacitor will charge up to very near the battery or supply voltage quickly. Once it gets to that voltage (actually it approaches it asymptotically) you can't put any more charge on the cap!! So leaving it connected to the power supply beyond that point is just wasting power from the supply. You should be able to rig a system that shuts off charging just at the time the cap reaches the PS voltage setting and no longer; this will improve (lower) your input power figure, I think. You could use a simple voltage comparator made from , eg, a 741 op amp, comparing the voltage from the supply, dropped by a quarter of a volt or so by a resistor divider network, to the voltage on the cap. When the comparator flips, have it trigger another switching stage to cut off the cap from the power supply.
Fausto:
QuoteI want to see how any one can explain this to not be overunity. 2000 pounds doing work, pumping water is NOT fake and it is not running on current, since ALL the batteries are in series.
If this is not the power of induction at work, I don't know what is power than.
Here is where you have to analyze things without any emotion. First of all, the 2000 pounds is not doing any work at all. The 2000 pounds is the dead weight of the rotor of Joe's big motor (or it is the weight of the entire motor assembly, I can't remember.)
What do you mean the motor is not running on current? How can you say that after all these years? You know electrical power is voltage times current. There is no such thing as a motor running on voltage only and there is no such thing as a motor running on current only. Those are nonsensical concepts.
The "power of induction" is not doing any work and there is no power associated with induction. Inductance can only store and release energy provided by an external power source.
So, we know that Joe is using what? I think it's about 170 batteries in series?
I challenge you Fausto to explain how what Joe Newman demos is perfectly explainable with his 2000 pound rotor and the 170 AA batteries. You are claiming that is overunity and I am challenging you to explain how it is in fact under unity.
MileHigh
Bill:
I made the effort to explain to you what's under the hood of your JT. No resonance at play, it's just the tuning of the oscillator and it's all about the size of the inductance and how much current is flowing though it when the JT transistor switches off.
Do you have any comments?
MileHigh
@Plengo... thanks for the comments, I really appreciate the positive feedback.
The CH 2330 is a sampling instrument but uses a unique methodology at high resolution (16 bits).
From their website:
QuoteUNIQUE SAMPLING APPROACH / ISOLATED INPUTS
The Voltage and Current inputs of the Model 2330 watt meter are simultaneously sampled (with 16 bit resolution), converted to digital form, and transmitted via optical links to the main chassis. This allows both the Current and Voltage inputs to be completely isolated from each other and from the main chassis. The asynchronous sampling frequency is controlled by the system microprocessor in such a fashion that neither it nor any of its harmonics can come close to the measured input frequency or any of its harmonics. This precaution prevents "beats" with their accompanying jitter in the displayed values.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2330.html
The instrument has a practical limit of 600 kHz for the basic signal IIRC; it will still be accurate on smooth signals at higher frequencies. Signals with fast risetime spikes will have a lot of power (relatively) in high-frequency harmonics, and so these are best measured with calorimetric or bolometric instruments. But the JTs we are using here, with frequencies in the tens of kHz and minimum risetimes of tens or hundreds of nanoseconds _seem_ spiky .... but that's a relative measure after all.
I used to be able to find a report of EarthTech's test of a Clarke-Hess 2330 against their extremely accurate calorimetric systems, and the two tracked almost perfectly, but I can't remember what the power specifications or the load were. I can't find that document now, the ETI website has changed drastically since I last visited it. But I would trust the readings from a CH2330 on the JT circuits we are discussing, until demonstrated otherwise. Note that the inputs and outputs are optically isolated and so presumably wouldn't disturb the JT LS GhostLight circuit like normal probes do.
I might be able to borrow a CH2330 from some friends of mine, but I'd have to drive 200 miles to do it, and I'm not up for that right now. Let's see what we can come up with using "TKLabs Seal of Approval" analog power measurement tech, ported to the DSO that Lawrence is using. If we still are getting massive OU after that, then I'll go get the CH and we can see if we can fool it too.
BTW it handled the 1.4 MHz "Tar Baby" just fine, gave numbers that agreed with my analog scope and manual calcs, and also with the actual performance of the DUT.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 05:13:28 PM
Bill:
I made the effort to explain to you what's under the hood of your JT. No resonance at play, it's just the tuning of the oscillator and it's all about the size of the inductance and how much current is flowing though it when the JT transistor switches off.
Do you have any comments?
MileHigh
MH:
First, thanks for the reply. And second, I do have a comment on your response. I still tend to disagree that when hitting the "sweet spot" it is not resonance as you say, just the most efficient configuration for that system. The reason I disagree is that the results do not appear to be linear....this is hard to explain but I will try....In other words...when tuning the circuit using the base vr, as I am sure you know, you add more resistance and the bulbs get brighter and brighter and then, the almost explode in an order of magnitude in brightness....turn a little more and....they dim very sharply.
This has been my experience and, I can't explain it other than claiming that by tuning that circuit, i hit a resonance node of some sort. I am trying to say that when you hit that spot....if you are careful, you get so much more out than you thought you would. Just a fuzz more and you are back climbing down the opposite of how you climbed up in a linear fashion. So, I feel there is something else happening since it is suddenly not linear just at that sweet spot. If you were to graph it using the accepted info that you know so well....you would see a nice even curve going up and then, a huge jump off of the paper, and then and nice even curve going down. If resonance is indeed the incorrect term for this event, I guess I would need another term to use in its place. If all were linear, I would just say that I have tuned the circuit to the best efficiency. It is that major jump that stands out so well that confuses me.
Thanks for the reply.
Bill
Lawrence, can you give me specific details about how you are measuring and calculating your _input_ power, or rather energy, please?
Are you monitoring the voltage and current used to charge the capacitor, or are you using the values obtained from measuring the voltage waveform on the capacitor and the current waveform in the Current Viewing Resistor while the circuit is running?
Properly, you should be using the former, that is, the energy used to charge the capacitor between running intervals.
So you charge the cap to the voltage of a power supply or battery. Its energy is then (CVinit2)/2. You then run the JT circuit for your timer interval. Then you measure the voltage on the cap again, and the energy remaining in the cap will be simply (CVfinal2)/2. The difference between these two values is the energy the cap supplied to the JT circuit proper, and can be compared to the total energy output of the JT (the integral of the output power curve during the time interval). (C in Farads, V in Volts, answers in Joules.)
But is that the whole story? What about the energy used to charge up the cap in the first place? Is it the same as what we measure as the energy "on" the cap that it can supply? This you measure in the usual manner with an inline CVR in series with the charging power supply, and the voltage on the cap........ before you let the cap run the JT.
@Bill.... yes, I think changing the value of the base resistance does change the frequency somewhat, but what you are describing.... which I have seen many times too, usually just before blowing a transistor or a load LED ;D ..... might be attributed to overdriving the transistor into and beyond full saturation. Back off from this point..(after putting in a new transistor!!) and you get back to your "sweet spot" where you are switching the transistor cleanly and it makes the best waveform for amplification in the transformer coils.
Try this sometime: When your 2n2222 JT is running along nicely, cool off the transistor with the liquid from an inverted spraycan of "air duster" stuff. You know what I mean... if you just barely press the button while the can is upside down you get the cold liquid to come out in dribbles. Dribble this onto the 2n2222 and watch what happens when the transistor gets really cold. It will usually shut off. Don't change the base resistance while it's cold, or you might get a surprise when it warms back up.
@MH: if the JT circuit isn't in "resonance".... what determines the oscillation frequency?
How are we defining resonance here, anyway?
ETA: If the JT coil set is considered to be a transformer, then you could determine its resonant frequency in the usual way: drive one coil with a FG, sweep frequencies, look for voltage peak on the output. Then put the coil into a JT circuit, compare its running freq with the resonant freq you determined by sweeping. Then see what happens when you change one or the other, by adding caps to the JT, varying its base current, or by adding or removing turns from coils, to get them to match...... if you can, or need to. I haven't tried this, so consider it a testable hypothesis at this point. And another evening of playing around with recycled parts, for me, I guess.
:o
ETA2: I agree with both of you actually, because I think you are both right. The normal operation of the JT is determined as MH says. But it's undeniable that operating at the correct frequency for the transformer's natural resonance is going to give you the greatest voltage rise on the output. And if you go even further and prevent core saturation by using non-saturable air or vacuum, and use a quarter-wave resonator for your secondary .... you will have invented the Tesla Coil !!
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 05:47:32 PM
@MH if the JT circuit isn't in "resonance".... what determines the oscillation frequency?
How are we defining resonance here, anyway?
Exactly!
Bill
PS I will try the cold soak experiment soon. Thanks.
Thanks for the answer. No emotional here just saying what I think. It does frustrates me to see an individual as intelligent as you are and not see it. But, hey family frustrates me too!
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Fausto:
Here is where you have to analyze things without any emotion. First of all, the 2000 pounds is not doing any work at all. The 2000 pounds is the dead weight of the rotor of Joe's big motor (or it is the weight of the entire motor assembly, I can't remember.)
It is doing work off course, did you see it running the water pump? That is work, now I would agree that once the wheel is spinning to the maximum for the given power, yes, from now on it would be easy to maintain the rotation but still there is a price because friction and off course the work been done by moving gallons of water from one point to another. Freely spinning wheel without horrible friction, sure no work, which is NOT the case in the video.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
What do you mean the motor is not running on current? How can you say that after all these years? You know electrical power is voltage times current. There is no such thing as a motor running on voltage only and there is no such thing as a motor running on current only. Those are nonsensical concepts.
Sure, you could say it is non-nonsensical, just like when one uses the "negligible" statement into the equation. What I meant is just that, those 500 or 170 batteries (could be 1000) in series can maximum give a few mili-amps for all that time running, NOT AMPS and AMPs like a motor of equivalent size would need. Oh boy, he showed the graph right in the beginning or the video to show exactly that. Did you see the video?
So the motor is using current, but very little compared to the size and work done. The difference in voltage and current is so big and disproportional to the whole apparatus that one can safely say "no current to run this gigantic beast motor".
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
The "power of induction" is not doing any work and there is no power associated with induction. Inductance can only store and release energy provided by an external power source.
So, we know that Joe is using what? I think it's about 170 batteries in series?
I challenge you Fausto to explain how what Joe Newman demos is perfectly explainable with his 2000 pound rotor and the 170 AA batteries. You are claiming that is overunity and I am challenging you to explain how it is in fact under unity.
[size=78%]
[/size]
MileHigh
I agree, induction itself and the inductor nothing special really. But still heats the wire twice!!!
Challenge, oh boy, no need, I have my WORK at WORK and AT THE LAB every night already to challenge me, I don't need your understanding criticism. I like when you explain things without being negative concerning peoples beliefs. It does not matter if the belief we have is GOD, Jesus, the Devil or Free Energy. So respect on the answers and statements is essential.
Reading 1911 Proteus Charles Steinmetz on
Elementary Lectures on Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses, and Other Transients (1911) (http://www.archive.org/details/elementarylectu00steigoog)[/size]
- pdf (http://ia700201.us.archive.org/15/items/elementarylectu00steigoog/elementarylectu00steigoog.pdf)[/size]
(another version) (http://www.archive.org/details/ElectricDischargesWavesAndImpulses)[/size] http://archive.org/details/elementarylectu00steigoog is a good start concerning what is missing in your understanding of the fundamental forces. Energy is not the fundamental force.
Besides being obvious that the amount of magnetic flux is not proportionally equivalent to the amount input power. There are many other factors at play here so looking at a coil just like induction theory is a grave mistake that leads you to only see one side of coin.
Fausto.
Fausto:
I don't have time for a complete reply but here is the answer. A 1.5-volt alkaline AA battery can easily output one ampere of current. I am wondering if you are thinking that a bunch of them in series lowers the current output capabilities of the AA batteries. You seem to be implying that. If you are that's not the case.
So, a single AA battery at 1.5 volts and one amp can output 1.5 watts. 170 of them in series can output 255 watts (255 volts at one amp.)
So you have a giant "Newman" pulse motor with a large coil. The larger the coil the more voltage you need to get the current flowing in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you look at Joe Newman's water flow rate and the vertical height his pump is displacing the water. Do the calculations and you will find that if you power an electrical motor with 250 watts of electrical power that powers a water pump it should be able to easily displace the water that Joe Newman is demonstrating.
Honestly, I think that you should have been able to see this. The conclusion is that Joe Newman is demonstrating nothing special at all. It's all just a fake demo in an attempt to impress people and get people to "invest" or "donate" to his "Newman motor" cause.
The "2000 pounds" means absolutely nothing. Yes it takes some battery energy to get it spinning but after that it makes no difference and does not affect anything.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
Fausto:
I don't have time for a complete reply but here is the answer. A 1.5-volt alkaline AA battery can easily output one ampere of current. I am wondering if you are thinking that a bunch of them in series lowers the current output capabilities of the AA batteries. You seem to be implying that. If you are that's not the case.
So, a single AA battery at 1.5 volts and one amp can output 1.5 watts. 170 of them in series can output 255 watts (255 volts at one amp.)
So you have a giant "Newman" pulse motor with a large coil. The larger the coil the more voltage you need to get the current flowing in a reasonable amount of time.
So, you look at Joe Newman's water flow rate and the vertical height his pump is displacing the water. Do the calculations and you will find that if you power an electrical motor with 250 watts of electrical power that powers a water pump it should be able to easily displace the water that Joe Newman is demonstrating.
Honestly, I think that you should have been able to see this. The conclusion is that Joe Newman is demonstrating nothing special at all. It's all just a fake demo in an attempt to impress people and get people to "invest" or "donate" to his "Newman motor" cause.
The "2000 pounds" means absolutely nothing. Yes it takes some battery energy to get it spinning but after that it makes no difference and does not affect anything.
MileHigh
I am speechless for you. If you really believe that, go ahead. You are making my life much easier to work with overunity ideas and devices even more than before. Overunity is EASY to believe compared to YOUR explanation of how Newman's motor (that freaking gigantic motor) can even start spinning with 255 watts of power second. Much less pump water.
Fausto.
@TinselKoala (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg345876/#msg345876)
This thread is growing too fast for me to keep up.
I shall answer one point at a time. The point here is the comparison of power and energy.
You are perfectly correct that those two may be very different . Energy is the integration of power over a certain period of time. The minimum time interval should be one complete wave. In the examples I posted, there were at least 4 complete Output Voltage waves. Thus the average power over such intervals should be very close to the actual energy comparison.
I think that we are getting closer and closer to the truth now. I do not mind your searching questions as they are preparing me for the inevitable "examination" at places such as Tsinghua University.
Sorry about putting your name in the same sentence as the Almighty. I never thought that you two were close. It will not happen again. ::)
Quote from: MileHigh on November 25, 2012, 04:48:59 PM
Fausto:
You are not correct here. So we know any real-world inductor is made of wire and has resistance. So what we can easily do is model the real-world inductor as an ideal inductor with zero resistance in the wire in series with a small resistor.
So what happens when we energize this inductor? Let's say it takes 5 seconds to energize the inductor. So after 5 seconds some of the supplied battery energy was used to create the magnetic field to energize the ideal inductor. At the same time during the 5 seconds some of the battery energy was burned off in the resistor.
After five seconds the only thing that is happening is that battery power is being burned off in the resistor. Also after five seconds there is energy stored in the inductor. That energy came from the battery. Important: Note that this energy stored in the inductor has not gone anywhere else, i.e.; it has not passed through a resistor.
Then after some time the inductor discharges its stored energy. This stored energy will discharge through the resistance of the inductor itself, and some sort of a load resistance. Therefore this energy is only discharged ONCE, not twice.
Here is the energy path: [energy in battery] -> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance and load resistance]
There is no 'magic' in the inductor that allows the same energy to get used twice.
MileHigh
Sorry you are wrong.
The correct path is:
[energy in battery] ->
[energy dissipated in resistance of inductor] --> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance] -> [LOAD]
You missed the second resistance when discharging SINCE the current path is exactly the same.
Fausto.
Fausto:
I will leave the final challenge for you if you want to double-check the numbers. 255 watts is 1/3 horsepower. So the question is can a 1/3 horsepower DC motor power a pump and move the same amount of water per second up the same height differential that Joe Newman is demonstrating. The answer is yes. I have seen the numbers crunched on PESN, Joe Newman's demo means nothing. He is simply not demonstrating anything remarkable. If you don't believe me, then check it for yourself.
I am under the impression that you were not aware that 170 AA batteries in series could generate 1/3 horsepower. Am I correct in my assumption? Joe Newman knows that many people will not be aware of this, and that is the smoke and mirrors game he is playing.
MileHigh
Fausto:
QuoteThe correct path is:
[energy in battery] -> [energy dissipated in resistance of inductor] --> [energy stored in inductor] -> [energy dissipated in inductor internal resistance] -> [LOAD]
You missed the second resistance when discharging SINCE the current path is exactly the same.
If you believe that somehow an inductor is somehow generating energy from "somewhere" then why don't you do set up a simple experiment where you can clearly demonstrate and measure some "extra" energy from a charging and discharging inductor.
Here is a thought experiment: If it's so easy then why isn't science and engineering exploiting this property of inductors right now? They aren't doing it because it's not true. There is a multi-billion dollar magnetics industry and an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars for buck power converters, boost power converters, and buck-boost power converters. It employs thousands of engineers that design these pulsing inductor circuits every day. If what you say is true how come they aren't exploiting this "magical" property of pulsing coils?
MileHigh
I am at the Office and can use the Digital DC Power Supply. Unfortunately, the 2n2222 JT is too powerful. A zero amp reading can still keep the LED on. See attached picture.
So I still need to switch from Output connection to Input connection. Cannot guarantee the exact instant for Input and Output Power comparison.
Need to rely on the top Universities with their more powerful oscilloscopes.
Lawrence: thank you for posting the sample spreadsheet file. Am I correct that the file you posted only contained 10 sets of data points out of the 11250 sample total record length? Kind of stingy, isn't it, to not give me the whole 11250 points?
Even a casual inspection of those twenty data points (ten from each channel) shows that I am right, though: your signal is undersampled, and your scope is giving you discrete values that are probably interpolated. Do you really think that the only voltage levels of your signals during the 10-sample interval at 400 nanoseconds per sample are changing by the intervals your scope is indicating? Look at the values:
Source | CH1 | CH2 |
Second | Volt | Volt |
-0.0022500002 | 0.08 | -0.01 |
-0.0022496002 | 0.16 | -0.008 |
-0.0022492002 | 0.16 | -0.012 |
-0.0022488002 | 0.16 | -0.01 |
-0.0022484002 | 0.16 | -0.008 |
-0.0022480002 | 0.16 | -0.01 |
-0.0022476002 | 0.08 | -0.01 |
-0.0022472002 | 0.16 | -0.008 |
-0.0022468002 | 0.08 | -0.01 |
-0.0022464002 | 0.08 | -0.01 |
Gahh.... the table formatting is all screwed up. It looked fine in the text entry window.
Sorry.... it is just as I have said. You are looking at your data thru a picket fence.
Secondly, I have told you that the circuit cannot be evaluated when it is connected to a line-connected piece of equipment, MOST DEFINITELY not while it is connected to your power supply by even a single wire. You have seen why.
Third: You absolutely CANNOT use the numbers on the meters of your power supply for ANYTHING, except a rough guide to setting up the supply! I am flabbergasted that you even attempt to use these numbers as real data to make your extravagant claims.
I've told you in a previous post where and how the input power must be measured. No readings from your power supply meters were even mentioned by me!
I am happy to give you advice and to help you to perform correct power and energy calculations. Please take my advice to heart, run it by your consultants and correspondents, ignore it if you must, but please have good reasons for ignoring it if you do so.
Let's review:
First, Your output data is undersampled and likely interpolated. This may or may not be a fatal flaw.... my intuition at this point is that the bigger problem is with your input data.
Second, you must be completely isolated from any line-connected equipment during evaluation and data collection. This may be an easy or a difficult problem to solve, depending on your scope's isolation. Please answer the questions I asked about your scope's isolation.
Third, you absolutely CANNOT and must not use the numbers on your power supply meters as data! These are rough guides to setting your knobs and must be verified during use by inline ammeters and voltmeters of higher precision and accuracy.... and the power supply must be completely disconnected _from this circuit_ anyway during evaluations.
And finally..... I would like to see a _full_ data set _and_ the calculations your spreadsheet is performing on them. Either the .xls file you sent got truncated somehow or it only contains 10 sets of samples and no calculations.
Yes, four complete cycles of the waveform is sufficient to do the calculations, but you should include 6 cycles in the data so that the starting and ending points of the measurement interval are precisely known. In other words, don't "crop" your data window by trying to include just the 4 periods exactly, include a little extra so that the "edges" can be precisely cropped for the calculations.
(I see no indication in the spreadsheet parameters file of the channel coupling settings. Am I missing it? It is good that your scope records the channel offset, but I can't tell if the scope includes the offset in its reported values or not. )
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 01:45:25 AM
Lawrence: thank you for posting the sample spreadsheet file. Am I correct that the file you posted only contained 10 sets of data points out of the 11250 sample total record length? Kind of stingy, isn't it, to not give me the whole 11250 points?
Please use the nov22a.xlsx file in
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471)
That file is too big for this forum. You need to unzip it.
The sample file you mentioned with 10 sample points contains the
parameter save values. No analysis was done.
Examine
case 4 in nov 22a.xlxs in particular.
That particular case has been reproduced. We shall do more modifications around it. My contacts at Tsinghua University suggested that I bring the oscilloscope-test-ready board to them. They believe any additional measurement from the cheap Atten Oscilloscope may be a waste of time. They have well qualified persons operating their top-of-line oscilloscopes. Those results will be used to justify the claims.
I shall take that suggestion. I do not have a way to access the expensive oscilloscopes. Let Tsinghua University shine.
@MH: re the Joe Newman motor:
you said,
QuoteThe "2000 pounds" means absolutely nothing. Yes it takes some battery energy to get it spinning but after that it makes no difference and does not affect anything.
Does he really hook up the battery stack with the rotor at a standstill, and let the whole thing accelerate to running speed on the power from the battery stack alone?
Every Newman demo I've seen he has to give the wheel a big spin to get it started.
;)
So we have a large heavy flywheel on good bearings, if somewhat roughly constructed. It's given a good spin initially and then it's supplied with, say, 200 Watts of power from the battery stack. Or even much less: all the batterypack has to do is to replace the friction losses, it doesn't have to accelerate the rotor, thanks to Joe.
Now you want to pump some water. You have a 2000 pound flywheel turning at some rpm maintaining a constant speed because it's being supplied with power from the batteries. Does the flywheel slow down when you start pumping? Could you detect, say, a 10 percent loss in RPM by eye and ear over the few minutes of water pumping? How much stored energy would that represent?
In the "zed is ded thred" I wound up looking up some water pump and head parameters. There are pump calculators that will tell you how much mechanical power in Watts is required to pump a certain flow rate to a certain head height. It's interesting to run the numbers. 20 kW, as I recall, is just about the same as a flow of 3500 gallons per minute to a head height of 10 meters, neglecting pump losses. Can that be right? That means that 200 W could pump 35 gpm to 30 feet of head....
Actually I see that is 'ballpark' correct: even assuming a 60 percent efficient pump you can pump 25 gpm to 30 feet of head on 240 Watts of mechanical power.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-power-d_505.html
So if your flywheel is running at equilibrium speed at 240 Watts input from the battery stack, and you then put a 240 watt mechanical load on the shaft, the rotor will then begin to slow down at its unpowered speed. Right? And a 2000 pound rotor will take a while to slow perceptibly even when its input power is taken away and used somewhere else.
@Lawrence: is it possible for me to download the user's manual and technical information for your Atten oscilloscope?
The reason the universities are interested in your system enough to talk to you is because of your nice personality and your self-assurance. They are politely giving you the full opportunity to demonstrate your claims... or to fall on your face in public. In the event you are incorrect in your claims of OU, due to your equipment and analysis techniques and your misapprehensions, would you not like to find out this fact before you have sent out 30 boards for evaluation, met face-to-face with a room full of grad students, and spent money on travel and supplies? So I recommend strongly that you delay your plans a bit, until you can integrate your new-found knowledge completely into your thinking. You might even change your conclusions, if your data upon which they are based is correctly gathered and analyzed.
QuoteThose results will be used to justify the claims.
That is not a scientific attitude.
"Those results" may very well indicate that your claims are not justifiable. But you have already decided that they are, therefore you will conclude that the evaluations are incorrect somehow and failed to see what you clearly know is true.
ETA: Your "slide5.jpg" scopeshot is uninterpretable garbage. You are seeing "aliasing" artefacts due to the noisy signal and your scope's pixellated low-res display. The parameters include garbage in their values and can't be trusted. Does the scope compute the params based on the windowed display, or can you select the area for computation with cursors?
For clarity please remember to show only 2, 3, 4, or 5 complete cycles _unless_ you are doing frequency computations based on large numbers of cycles. Also please remember to put the channel zero reference line (offset) directly on a horizontal graticule line unless there is some good reason not to. Both your channels are DC coupled as is proper, but for some reason you have chosen to put the "T" for the trigger voltage value, right on a horizontal graticule line, rather than putting the channel baseline (the "2" with the little horizontal arrow indicating the zero reference) there.
ETA2: You speak English very well. May I ask, is it your first language, or do you speak Cantonese or Mandarin "at home"? I wish I could learn a Chinese language; I am fascinated by the cultures and someday I hope to visit what we call "the Orient".
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 02:26:42 AM
@Lawrence: is it possible for me to download the user's manual and technical information for your Atten oscilloscope?
*** http://www.atten.eu/media/catalog/product/pdf/User%20Manual%20ATTEN%20DSO.pdf
The reason the universities are interested in your system enough to talk to you is because of your nice personality and your self-assurance. They are politely giving you the full opportunity to demonstrate your claims... or to fall on your face in public. In the event you are incorrect in your claims of OU, due to your equipment and analysis techniques and your misapprehensions, would you not like to find out this fact before you have sent out 30 boards for evaluation, met face-to-face with a room full of grad students, and spent money on travel and supplies? So I recommend strongly that you delay your plans a bit, until you can integrate your new-found knowledge completely into your thinking. You might even change your conclusions, if your data upon which they are based is correctly gathered and analyzed.
That is not a scientific attitude.
"Those results" may very well indicate that your claims are not justifiable. But you have already decided that they are, therefore you will conclude that the evaluations are incorrect somehow and failed to see what you clearly know is true.
I know the professors at Tsinghua personally. I gave lectures and got great receptions. At that time, Mr. Lee Cheung Kin and I presented the Leading-out of gravitational energy. Mr. Wang Shen He also presented his magnet only device. We helped to explain one of their devices that "magnified Input 30 times" with the lead-out energy theory. [size=78%]
We went into political problems afterwards.[/size]
This time, the political problems have been removed. The Chinese Academics have a different mentality from their Western counter-parts. They love to check-out theories that "humble the Westerners". If it were wrong, they just treat it as listening to another theory. If right...... ??? ??
Use of the twin timer in the "overunity" range to cut electricity bills.
Are you even reading my posts?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 06:34:15 AM
Are you even reading my posts?
No, he doesn't. Lawrence only cherry picks things that support his fantasies.
Trying to teach Lawrence is somewhat similar to trying to teach Rosemary Ainslie; it's a futile endeavour.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 26, 2012, 08:47:23 AM
No, he doesn't. Lawrence only cherry picks things that support his fantasies.
Trying to teach Lawrence is somewhat similar to trying to teach Rosemary Ainslie; it's a futile endeavour.
Hey, at least I got him to consider the AC vs DC coupling issue. Maybe only because it makes his output power measurements look larger when DC coupled, but at least he tried it, instead of trying to tell me I was fos like Ainslie does.
I got comments that the nov 22a.xlsx file was too big (>5M) and some people could not open it.
I shall break it up in pieces and explain each piece in detail.
The file consisted of the following main parts:
1. CSV file of Input and Output of the basic JT using components from the Lead-out Energy Research Kit.
2. CSV file of the same but with the 2.3V 10F capacitor connected in parallel with the battery.
3. CSV file of the same but with the battery disconnected at minute 0.
4. CSV file of the same but with the battery disconnected after 3 minutes.
DC coupling was selected. Case 1,2,3 showed COP < 1 but case 4 showed COP > 1 (-6.4)!
Case 4 was then repeated and the same result occurred.
After double, triple checking, 30 of these oscilloscope-test-ready boards will be sent to top Universities. They will have the top-of-the-line oscilloscopes to confirm the results.
Meanwhile my explanations will be on the results of the Atten Oscilloscope without the 4 channel and the maths functions. There are limitations which I know about. You are welcome to point them out again or point out new doubtful areas.
Those of you who can build JT and have 2.3V 10F capacitors can repeat the experiment now. make sure you use DC Coupling on your DSO. ;)
Fausto:
We are going to revisit the mechanical power issue again.
I am going to quote Mark Euthansius from the comments from the recent PESN article about Jue Newman:
QuoteThe video lined in the current article says 900gph = 15gpm which looks about right. Given that and the pump inlet height of no more than 1 meter, translates to less than 10W mechanical power. It's more of the same old story: Bad assumptions about input versus output lead to unsupportable claims of free energy. For Joe Newman, this has been going on for 30 years.
Do you understand now Fausto? The Joe Newman video linked to in the October 2012 PESN article is showing about 10 watts of mechanical work being done to pump water (I think you linked to the same video). You now understand that a bunch of alkaline AA batteries in series can easily do this.
Another Mark E. quote:
Quotethe mechanical power required to lift the claimed 900
gph of water 1 meter is less than 10W. That's within the reach of 10 AA cells.
It is a light load for the 80 9V 522 alkaline cells shown in the video. If you think that pumping that modest quantity of water by that small height requires 300hp, then you have very funny ideas about power. The machine's mass is irrelevant.
I note also that TK showed some calculations showing that it was feasible for the water pumping to get done. So what Joe Newman is showing is nothing of any significance. What you have to do when you look at video clips like this is is do the calculations and find out for yourself. Don't believe me and especially don't believe Joe Newman, check things out for yourself.
TK:
Yes indeed, after I made that posting I was thinking that Joe probably spins up his big honking rotors by hand before he powers them with the AA batteries. So I salute you in your Brownie Point wisdom. lol
Once the big honking rotor is turning it acts like a mechanical low-pass filter and the AA batteries can happily run the pump without worrying about the varying mechanical resistance of the actual pump itself. The rotational inertia of the rotor smooths things out.
Fausto:
Another interesting quote from the PESN article, this time from Asterix:
QuoteNewman, on his website (joseph newman dot com) claims that it is possible to do work using voltage only with no current. This is pure babbling. It's entirely possible to have a charge (voltage) with no current flow--we know it as static electricity. But the moment that the charge is dissipated, a current flows--and work is performed. Potential energy changes to kinetic energy. No laws of physics broken (sorry, Sterling). P=IE--as easy as pie.
Sorry again, Sterling, but the same potential-to-kinetic energy relationship holds regardless of the force involved: gravitational, intertial, electrostatic or magnetic. Your #1 and the "looped" MG sets on your list must follow the rule; it's the way our universe is constructed.
So that's where you are getting your statement about "voltage only with no current" or "voltage only with so little current it's not worth mentioning."
I hope that you realize now that what Joe says is a lie. Power is voltage times current and there is no such thing as a Newman motor that runs on voltage only.
MileHigh
Yes,
Newman is mostly exaggerating the effects,
BUT MileHigh is forgetting how long he is running the 10 Watts pump power !
Newman achives to run it at least 3 to 10 times longer than a normal 10 Watts Direct Current draw would
take to discharge his batteries !
So Newman can pull much more energy out of the batteries !
Gentlemans,
please, let's be more honest with each other.
Some of you are picking the arguments and ignoring others. Others are speculating in how Newman's machine work without knowing how he built really and looking thing at the windows views of current science and IGNORING everything else that he is saying.
I presented a book for review where this is explained (magnetic laws) in detail. No one mention anything against the book or in favor, Lots of articles flying around but no real conversation, just I am right and you are wrong.
Please, this site is looked by a lot of eyes in the world including my family and probably some of yours. We are in the pursue of understanding, so understanding let us do.
Converting the energy stored in those batteries of Mr Newman's video is ludicrous really, he did not even measure the batteries again to show how much was used. You cannot know how much power (or energy ) he used in that video, you only speculated that the energy stored in those batteries to the MAXIMUM and calculated how he potentially could have done,
BUT,
you don't know that either, do you?
And how you think he build that motor, like conventional motor ? Really?
So far I am not impressed with our ability to calculate things and show what is possible, I am here to find the impossible, get it?
Either teach correctly, and correctly really, not just half way, please.
I have much more respect for those that SHOW work and not only talk.
@TinselKoala (http://www.overunity.com/profile/tinselkoala.13644/)[/color],
I am building up more respect for you every day. I see how you are teaching Lawrence how to professionally measure things and prepare himself for his next challenge. I am learning with him too. Thank you. Please, keep that attitude of professionalism you have been showing. It is very good for us all here.
@Lawrence,
Keep learning and bringing your arguments and measurements. It is very plausible that you are correct, data will eventually show US that or not. I admire your diligence all this years and persistent approach to many here.
Fausto.
Attached is the oscilloscope analysis file for the basic JT.
The components are from the Lead-Out Energy Research Kit from BSI.
2n2222, 1 inch toroid with 28 turns, 1 K ohm resistor, AA battery. 1 white 3V Led, two 1 ohm resistors.
DC coupling was used for both Ch1 and Ch2. Ch1 measures the voltage. Ch2 measures the voltage across a one ohm resistor (thus representing current.) 11250 sampling points were taken. The auto function was used. The Input and Output were done separately with the same oscilloscope. The AA battery was connected all the time.
The details are in the file. The voltage, current and power waveforms for both Input and Output are available. The COP as calculated from the average Output Power over average Input Power is 0.68.
Since the COP is less than 1, there is no surprise.
This file is the oscilloscope analysis file for the JT with a 2.3V 10F capacitor.
The readings were taken with both the AA battery and capacitor connected. The capacitor was connected in parallel with the AA Battery.
The COP was 0.64. No surprise.
This is the oscilloscope analysis file for the JT with the 2.3V 10F capacitor.
The readings were taken immediately after the AA battery was disconnected.
The COP increased to 0.73. No surprise.
This is the interesting case.
The AA battery was disconnected. The 2.3V 10F capacitor was left connected. The Output Voltage Frequency increased from 1.4 KHz to 5 KHz.
The readings (Input5 and Output5) were then taken.
Bingo! The COP was -6.4!!!
Let the replication, the interpretation and the application begin. Thank you to the Almighty.
@Plengo: thank you for your nice comment. Sometimes I feel like I'm shooting in the dark. We shall see what becomes of my efforts and if I can really help or am just wasting everyone's time.
@LTseung: Thanks for providing the spreadsheet files. I'll be taking a look at them over the next day or two. Meanwhile, could you please post the _exact_ schematic used for the tests, and please be sure to indicate exactly where the scope probes, power supplies and external meters are attached. I need this information to be able to evaluate the data, and to reproduce the experimental trials if necessary.
Meanwhile, for your amusement, here's a motor that _does_ run on lots and lots of voltage and not much current at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE
I have a question for those that know anything about Mr. Newman. What is the inductance of the coil he is using in his coil on that 2000 pound motor? Speculation of our part, yes, but I can speculate based on the previous motors he has shown all his life and are very well documented in how to build one.
I would think the induction would be enormous. I don't think 270 volts will pass even 5 mili-amps of current. Now, how that motor with that little current can even run?
I really want to see how smart the engineers here are, specially Mr. Mile HIgh.
Fausto.
Fausto:
We can all express our opinions. This is of fundamental importance and this is something that we all have to deal with in our own way. When I tell you that the setup that Joe Newman demonstrated is of no significance I am expressing my true opinion in all sincerity. You have to "go with the flow" and sometimes that means agreeing to disagree.
A Newman motor is a big coil with a rotating magnet inside the coil. I think that sometimes he plays with the contacts on the commutator to "chop" the energizing of the coil as the rotor turns. I don't see anything special.
Then, take a look at Joe Newman himself. He has been at this for 30 years and after all that time he still doesn't present any measurements when he does a demo. Why can't he put a current sensing resistor in series with the coil to show the current and also show the voltage across the coil with two channels of a scope.
You ask me to read a 1911 book and I might not listen to you and I might ask you to look at the current waveform for a coil to look at the R/L time constant and you might not listen to me. We can both get frustrated but we can just move on. Try not to get too emotional about this stuff!
Live and let live!
MileHigh
Then I won't jump in until MH has had a chance to answer.
Meanwhile, here's a quick video showing how Lawrence -- or anyone else who cares to -- can determine the actual resonant frequencies of his JT coils, out of circuit. In the circuit the resonant frequency will change depending on the load the coil sees. This method can also be used in-circuit by disconnecting the circuit's input to the coil and using the FG instead, and monitoring the output voltage with the output side of the circuit connected, I think. Or if the circuit's own oscillator can be swept in frequency, that is the very best way to do it: sweep frequencies until the output voltage peaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY
Fausto:
I can give you a generic answer and then you or someone else can punch in the numbers. I don't know the coil specifics myself. The Hyperphysics web site has the formula for determining the inductance of an air-core coil based on the number of turns and the dimensions of the coil. That formula is created by using calculus and doing a derivation. So that is your starting point.
Then when you drop the big rotating magnet inside the coil it is likely doing two things. As it rotates it generates EMF in the coil. At the same time it may increase the inductance because it may offer some magnetic domains that can flip - i.e.; increased permeability.
The other parameters of interest are the resistance of the coil and the output resistance of the battery source. The internal resistance of the battery source is probably negligible and can be ignored.
To keep it simple you can ignore the rotating magnet for starters. All you need is the coil resistance and to punch in the numbers into the formula on the Hyperphysics web site.
QuoteI don't think 270 volts will pass even 5 mili-amps of current.
You sentence above is not well worded. May I suggest that you look up "RL circuit" on the Hyperphysics web site or on Wikipedia.
MileHigh
Fausto:
I want to address this issue very seriously.
QuoteI have much more respect for those that SHOW work and not only talk.
I see that comment mentioned all the time by many people and I never say anything but this time I will say something. I also noted you made some sort of comment a few days ago like "I have to go back to WORK on the bench" or something like that.
The implicit message is that you disrespect people that comment but don't show any experiments. The other implicit message is that you can ignore the knowledge of people that aren't actively doing bench work. It's almost like it's an excuse to feel justified in ignoring things that you don't want to hear.
For me personally, it's been more than 20 years since I worked on a bench for real work, to make a living. What I can tell you in all seriousness is that even after 20 years, when it comes to working on a bench, I could spin circles around you with my eyes closed. That's an expression in English that you probably know, it means that my skills on a bench are excellent, they are far beyond your current level of understanding. I could also spin circles around John Bedini and Joe Newman. If you don't believe me just ask TK and Poynt99. They can tell you what my bench skills are just from reading what I have posted over the past four years.
Don't underestimate my bench skills whether it be with an analog scope, a digital scope, or a logic analyzer, or a frequency spectrum analyzer. I know what I am talking about, but at the same time I am fully aware that there are limitations when you don't have the equipment in front of you. However, for the majority of cases, I am just fine commenting on what I see and my analysis is correct and accurate. What you are doing on your bench now, I was doing similar things more than 30 years ago.
MileHigh
Another file to confirm that producing overunity devices is now a piece of cake.
This file used the DC Power Supply. The DC Power Supply Voltage was increased from 0 V to light the LED to an acceptable brightness. In this case, the DC Power Supply Voltage reading was 0.5 V.
The Output Voltage frequency was allowed to increase to 3 KHz before the oscilloscope readings were taken.
Enjoy and Bless the Almighty. Replications are welcome.
Are you even reading my posts?
You _cannot_ have this circuit connected to a power supply or ANY mains-connected instrument while you are evaluating it, especially a power supply. Even your scope reference leads must be isolated from each other and from the mains and Earth grounds.
You _cannot_ use the power supply's meter readings as data.
That is, if you care for accuracy at all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 03:54:42 AM
Are you even reading my posts?
You _cannot_ have this circuit connected to a power supply or ANY mains-connected instrument while you are evaluating it, especially a power supply. Even your scope reference leads must be isolated from each other and from the mains and Earth grounds.
You _cannot_ use the power supply's meter readings as data.
That is, if you care for accuracy at all.
I let the top Universities worry about accuracy. The Atten Scope has its limitations. It also gives the top Universities an excuse to get involved.
They want to look good and helpful. Any indication of overunity is acceptable to me. A 6.x value is more than good enough for me. Let the Universities worry about the values after the decimal point.
I shall do "indication" experiments. Give room for others to shine.
You can shine too. You probably can get access to better DSO than the Atten. If you desire, I can send you one of the oscilloscope-test-ready boards. In that way, you do not need to raise objections and guess what I may do wrong all the time.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 26, 2012, 11:32:44 PM
When I tell you that the setup that Joe Newman demonstrated is of no significance ....
MileHigh
Again you misappropriated that Newman can run his Motor 3 to 10 times longer on the same charge
of the batteries !
So there is his overunity.
Just use accumulator packs, charge them up via solar energy, and put a normal 10 Watts DC motor on
it and then compare it to the big Newman motor.
Newman´s motor will run the same 10 Watts mechanical load much longer than the standrad 10 Watts DC motor,
until the accumulator packs are discharged !
Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Fast chopping of the input current and reusing the BackEMF of the coils always helps in motors to
reduce Lenz law.
So if you build a motor keep this mind.
Don´t use straight DC but a fast chopped DC input and reuse the BackEMF generated from the coils
to recharge your batteries.
For the same mechanical output power you need then to apply more voltage but you also will
get more BackEMF power this way, the higher the input voltage is.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 27, 2012, 06:02:53 AM
I let the top Universities worry about accuracy.
So you do not care if your results and reports are accurate? Astounding.
Quote
The Atten Scope has its limitations. It also gives the top Universities an excuse to get involved. They want to look good and helpful. Any indication of overunity is acceptable to me.
Even if it's wrong, and due to your incorrect measurements??
QuoteA 6.x value is more than good enough for me. Let the Universities worry about the values after the decimal point.
Lawrence, what are you thinking? YOU must be worried about whether your extraordinary claims are true or not, yes? You don't even care if you are accurate, you've already decided that you are right..... even though I've pointed out many things you have been doing wrong..... What are you thinking? ???
Quote
I shall do "indication" experiments. Give room for others to shine. You can shine too. You probably can get access to better DSO than the Atten. If you desire, I can send you one of the oscilloscope-test-ready boards. In that way, you do not need to raise objections and guess what I may do wrong all the time.
Lawrence..... have you been reading my posts?
I have JTs sitting here in front of me that have the exact same circuit as your boards, and I have other units that FAR OUTPERFORM those, both in terms of instantaneous output power, and low voltage/current input requirements, thanks to groundloop and gadgetmall and the other builders who DO care about accuracy and correct measurements. You do not need to send me anything except what I've asked you for:
++The instruction/owner's manual for your scope.++
++The _exact_ circuit schematic you are using, ONE circuit, including the positioning of ALL measurement probe leads, ground wires, power supply connections etc.++
I will continue to help you.... I am interested in preventing you from falling on your face in public.... so once again I recommend strongly that you BACK OFF and be completely sure.... in a REAL SCIENTIFIC SENSE, not a faith sense.... that your claims are correct. If you can't even prove them to a willing Koala over the internet, you will be wasting your time and money sending off your boards to your sacred "top Universities". If you do not want to take my advice, that is of course up to you. In that case, I will continue to challenge you on your claims, without being willing to help you refine them. The onus of proof is ON YOU. We can work together in the interests of determining the real truth, or you can work alone..... but you will still need to find the truth, one way or the other.
I think you will find that "top Universities" have what they might call a "crackpot file". Are you a cracked pot, that leaks and is so brittle that it will shatter at the first challenge, or are you sound and strong, ringing like a bell with clarity and resonance when you are tested with the hammer? Into which file should you be placed, the "crackpot" file, or the file of continuing interest and cooperation? It's up to you..... and we all know to which pile you've been assigned in the past.
@MH
I asked a question and you are in purpose not answering. I think I know why, it is because with 5ma of power you are not going to explain his motor anymore. All the calculations you did for power is useless in this case.
You cannot explain that motor pumping water with 5ma. His coil has an huge inductance. You know that very well.
Now, for the sake of science, which is why I brought that example to this forum, I am trying to say something important here very relevant to Joule Thief.
The amount of input power to a coil has nothing to do with the amount of magnetic field created. Simple. You cannot change that.
This is extremely important to understand now how things are indeed working and how a coil can give you free energy.
I have no interest in convert you to believe in OU or anyone BUT we must look at the science with open eyes. Running a motor that big is indeed by sheer voltage, specially when he is using physical switching.
The battery are not giving amps of output, I really don't see how you or anyone will show the opposite. I small motor with a few hundred feet of wire, sure, but a huge motor with probably miles of wire, no.
The resistance alone on that motor size will be in hundreds of kilo ohms. Just turn on and off to the coil is a challenge all by itself, the arcing, the thousands of volts created.
You are ignoring those important facts which is CRUCIAL for us to understand truly what is going on in joule thief. The 1911 book explains at the university level what is going on, so don't read it, continue blind for all that cares.
For those that care, look into the induction laws and scale it to the size of Newman's motor (which Tesla obviously dealt with) and you will see what I am talking about.
With kilo ohms the maximum current you can get from those batteries would be what? mili-amps. The magnetic field created is obviously huge since it is spinning his motor really fast and as he add voltage it accelerates tremendously while pumping water.
That one evidence alone shows that his motor is running in voltage and miserable amount of mili-amps.
Now, you might ignore my facts here presented, but I am sure others are reading and listening and you once for all without explanations about how this works.
If anyone has real evidence to explain that motor taking in consideration the physical dimensions, not just theoretical crap, calculate and see for yourself.
Fausto.
Fausto:
I won't be available much for a few days. What evidence do you have for stating that the big Newman motor draws only milliamps? If it's just what Joe claims then I need more evidence. Are there any clips or links showing properly done measurements on one of these devices?
I answered your question, but I don't have the information for the number of turns, the diameter of the coil, the length of the coil. That will give you the inductance.
QuoteThe amount of input power to a coil has nothing to do with the amount of magnetic field created. Simple. You cannot change that.
For starters, the amount of magnetic field created has to do with the current flow through the coil and the number of turns. You should know this. After a certain point in working with electronics you have to be able to use the terms and concepts properly.
The amount of current through a coil and the number of turns and the permeability of the medium always determines the magnetic field created. That's something that nobody can change.
QuoteThis is extremely important to understand now how things are indeed working and how a coil can give you free energy.
No, a coil cannot give you free energy. I challenged you a few postings ago to make a simple experiment that shows your claim but you ignored it. How about a scientific experiment to back up your claim?
QuoteNow, you might ignore my facts here presented, but I am sure others are reading and listening and you once for all without explanations about how this works.
Supposing I make a guess that the motor is consuming 50 watts of power and doing about 10 watts worth of mechanical work. That seems reasonable to me. Now, if you actually made measurements of the power consumption of the motor and the work required to lift X litres of water per second up a vertical displacement of about one meter then we have some sort of a basis for discussion.
My assumption right now is that we have no electrical input power measurements for the Newman motor and no measurements of the flow rate of the water and the vertical displacement.
So, if it's true that we are just guessing then why should your guess that it's over unity be any more valid than my guess that it's under unity?
Quotenot just theoretical crap
The "theoretical crap" will answer every single question about the Newman motor as demonstrated. With the right measuring equipment you could analyze the operation of the motor and understand exactly how it works and everything would make perfect sense, I assure you. Unfortunately I don't think that Joe Newman is capable of doing that.
MileHigh
@MH,
now I see you starting to participate in a more elegant manner, thank you.
Very simple my speculation. In his motors in the past he uses miles and miles of copper wire for his motors. Right there I can speculate the resistance of his coil and by looking at his history and his motor size, I can safely say that that motor has miles of copper wire inside. Unless he has changed his ways of doing things.
He even measured the high voltage of over 1000 volts in his coils of that motor. That is a sign of high inductance and therefore lots of wires.
Now, if this assumption is correct, which I would think it is, I can also say his motor does not run in current, because at mili-amps he will not run that motor via conventional thinking.
So Mr Mile High, bare with me for a second, IF (big IF), IF his motor is indeed of extremely high inductance, would you agree that the current possible in flowing through it would be in mili-amps not amps? Specially with him physically having switches that arcs? So he is not running direct current, it is in worse case scenario, pulsed DC which in a coil with high inductance will resist most of the current flow on the first mili-seconds and develop a huge magnetic field that when collapses causes the arcing in thousands of volts.
If yes, how do you think his motor is spinning.
now, the theory of magnetic and electric induction is very clear (in the 1911 book of Charles Proteus Steinmetz) is dictating that the amount of magnetic flux will be proportional to the current and Inductance. Inductance will be proportional to the mass of the coil (or area). So say turns but that too simplistic, turns is really mass, more copper wire.
Longer the coil, bigger the magnetic field and less current can pass to the point where resistance will be the next barrier against current.
BUT, the magnetic field will still be tremendous for 270v and 1ma if you want. And that can move a ton of magnets attached to his shaft. I think his motor is just like the small ones he created in the past.
So we all agree he did not measure well things but it is very clear that my logic is pretty good and that is a challenge for conventional physics to explain. He is indeed cleverly and ineffectively using a huge coil to spin under higher voltage very limited by its resistance.
That one point is what I WANT you to understand, because I think you can study that and even help us. You are very smart but for some strange reason is not seeing the magnitude of my statement based ON SCIENCE.
It is correct to say that 1 mile of 1 ohm resistance wire will not have the same magnetic field as 10 miles of 1 ohm resistance wire under the same input power. The one with more mileage will have a much bigger magnetic field, if both are the same resistance.
This should be enough to light a bulb in your head.
[size=78%]Fausto.[/size]
Hi folks, Hi plengo, here is a Newman chart.
peace love light
tyson ;)
Fausto:
I am trying to encourage you to use your analytical skills to investigate Joe Newman's statements but unfortunately you are not taking the bait. The best way to learn is to do the exploration yourself.
For starters, let's examine the Newman chart that Tyson just posted. Everything on the left side where he equates current times the number of turns to give you one amp-turn is correct.
However, look at the right side of the chart. He quotes the current times the volts and shows decreasing wattages as you increase the number of turns. Why is he always quoting 10 volts? Should the voltage change the more turns you have? Have you ever questioned that part of the chart? The right half if the chart is complete nonsense and doesn't even make any sense. What is he talking about? Is he talking about the resistive power dissipation of the coil? If yes, that has nothing to do with the strength of the magnetic field generated by the coil.
It simply makes no sense to quote "volts x amps = watts" for a coil. That's Joe Newman for you. He either does not know what he is doing, or, he is intentionally deceiving his audience.
Back to the exploration....
MileHugh
MH:
ignore Newman please. I never seen that chart, neither I read Newman's theories or books more than an allegorical story.
I am not taking anything form him, I am reading the physics books myself and the formulas are very clear. Magnetic strength is equated with area of the wire, simple. More wire to the same equivalent resistance is indeed more magnetic field.
If you scale that where it will end? I really would like you to think in this lines and help me and us.
What would you do if you could have a mega Tesla magnetic field for a few mili-amps? Would not that be amazing? The theory is very clear, more mass more magnetic field. The current is also important but not only. Voltage is even more important.
Off course things are not so easy, but it is true. I did the experiment myself. More wire for exact same input power is more magnetic field, as long as you keep the resistance the same.
Fausto.
Fausto:
Back to the exploration. I will state it again, you should be doing this and not me.
The web page to calculate the inductance of a coil:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1
For a coil length of 50 cm, radius 50 cm, with 1000 turns, (3.14 km wire length), air core, the inductance of the coil is 1.97 Henries. I believe that is much less inductance than you were expecting.
Let's assume that Joe is using 12 gauge wire with a 3 mm diameter. 12 gauge wire has 0.1588 ohms resistance per 100 feet. 3.14 km is 1.95 miles. 1.95 miles is 10296 feet.
Therefore the resistance of the coil is (10296/100) x 0.1588 = 16.35 ohms.
So, what happens when you put 255 volts across the coil?
The time constant is L/R = 1.97/16.35 = 0.12 seconds. So five time constants is 0.6 seconds.
Therefore after 0.6 seconds the giant coil could have 255/16.35 = 15.6 amperes of current flowing through it. I don't think the alkaline AA batteries could put out 15.6 amperes. I am guessing they start to strain around 7 amperes.
The rotating magnet can add some counter-EMF to reduce the current flow. The giant rotating magnet might also increase the length of the time constant due to increased permeability to reduce the rate of increase in current flow.
That doesn't matter. My conclusion is that you have always viewed the giant Newman motor with an emotional reaction and you never tried to do some very basic calculations to see what the results would be like. That was a huge mistake on your part. It seems pretty apparent to me that a bunch of AA cells in series can easily power the giant strange "Newman motor." In reality the Newman motor is just an ordinary pulse motor that just happens to be so big that you have to move it around on the back of a pickup truck. You pump somewhere between 50 and 200 watts into it, and it does between 10 and 20 watts of mechanical work to pump water.
Can you see how easy that was Fausto? It's pretty clear to me that your assumptions were way off. The mistake was to never try to model the motor and make some basic calculations.
Finally, in the chance that you don't understand the "time constant" references then I suggest that you go and study. Every single pulse motor you will ever build has a time constant and it is critical to understanding how the motor works. Without that level of understanding it's like you are flying blind.
MileHigh
Hi Fausto,
One question: how would you utilize the higher flux if you had it from the longer wire? Lenz law will react on it in the same way as it normally does, no?
Another thing: if you think of normal coil shapes (multilayer cylindrical), then the dynamic fluxchange would be different at switch-on, than for the case of the static case. IF you wind a coil with X inductance from a certain wire diameter and "l" wire length and it would have say 3 Ohm DC resistance, and then you would wind a coil with a thicker wire and "10*l" wire length to get the same 3 Ohm DC resistance, it is obvious that this latter coil would have higher than X inductance and for a static case this latter would make a stronger electromagnet than the first coil, and DC input power would be same if you use the same DC source. BUT the moment you start pulsing these coils, then their AC impedance is what counts and the second coil will surely have a higher AC impedance than the first. So how do you think this?
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 10:40:21 AM
So you do not care if your results and reports are accurate? Astounding. Even if it's wrong, and due to your incorrect measurements?? Lawrence, what are you thinking? YOU must be worried about whether your extraordinary claims are true or not, yes? You don't even care if you are accurate, you've already decided that you are right..... even though I've pointed out many things you have been doing wrong..... What are you thinking?(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Ffile%3A%2F%2F%2FC%3A%2FUsers%2FJen%2FAppData%2FLocal%2FTemp%2Fmsohtmlclip1%2F01%2Fclip_image001.gif&hash=d120e86edf8aa597491650a1f5340fe264629a7b) Lawrence..... have you been reading my posts?
*** There is one overriding thought. I was in hospital and realized that I might see the Almighty any moment. In USA, someone tried to run me over. A man tried to break-in my home in Hong Kong and scared my daughter. Both my home computer and the office computer at BSI have been hacked.
I have JTs sitting here in front of me that have the exact same circuit as your boards, and I have other units that FAR OUTPERFORM those, both in terms of instantaneous output power, and low voltage/current input requirements, thanks to groundloop and gadgetmall and the other builders who DO care about accuracy and correct measurements. You do not need to send me anything except what I've asked you for:
++The instruction/owner's manual for your scope.++
*** Google Atten Oscilloscope Manual.
++The _exact_ circuit schematic you are using, ONE circuit, including the positioning of ALL measurement probe leads, ground wires, power supply connections etc.++
*** See the summary page on nov 22a1.xls. You will find the schematics, the photos and the exact points for the various probes. I do not have a specific ground wire. The position of the power supply connections is clearly marked on the schematics and on the photo.
I will continue to help you.... I am interested in preventing you from falling on your face in public.... so once again I recommend strongly that you BACK OFF and be completely sure.... in a REAL SCIENTIFIC SENSE, not a faith sense.... that your claims are correct.
*** I now have a number of volunteers (retired electrical engineering professors, rocket scientists, mathematicians, physicists, bankers, LED store owners) helping me to do the thorough double, triple checks. I welcome help from all places simultaneously.
If you can't even prove them to a willing Koala over the internet, you will be wasting your time and money sending off your boards to your sacred "top Universities". If you do not want to take my advice, that is of course up to you. In that case, I will continue to challenge you on your claims, without being willing to help you refine them. The onus of proof is ON YOU. We can work together in the interests of determining the real truth, or you can work alone..... but you will still need to find the truth, one way or the other.
*** Do not worry about my wasting money. An investor has already given me a platinum Visa card with an upper limit that will allow me to go visit any of the top Universities.
I think you will find that "top Universities" have what they might call a "crackpot file". Are you a cracked pot, that leaks and is so brittle that it will shatter at the first challenge, or are you sound and strong, ringing like a bell with clarity and resonance when you are tested with the hammer? Into which file should you be placed, the "crackpot" file, or the file of continuing interest and cooperation? It's up to you..... and we all know to which pile you've been assigned in the past.
*** I was at Tsinghua University three years ago. I know how they treat "crackpots" – free meals and lodging; private conferences; use of lab facilities; meeting with Professors and Research Students and a recorded lecture to Students. One of the Lawyers took the prototype Lead-out Energy Research Kit to Columbia University. He showed the lighting of the 38 LEDs making up BSI without battery for over 20 minutes after touching it with the battery for 10 seconds. He assembled the circuit from the Kit. The response was – when will you send the oscilloscope-test-ready board?"
When I looked back, the lead-out theory was revealed to me in July 2004. That showed leading kinetic energy of air molecules. In Dec 2004, the second Divine Revelation on leading-out gravitational energy was revealed. We spent four years building the Tong Wheel. It worked and the objection was – you cannot rely on voltmeters and ampmeters for such measurements. We got the Atten Oscilloscopes. We had dozens of toroids. I used the Output Vpp over Input Vpp as comparison Index. Some Internet users told me that was totally useless. Fortunately I ignored them and kept my records. The totally useless high Index toroids NOW turned out to be good candidates for overunity research and implementation.
***I believe the Almighty will guide me. I pray and listen to the message from my heart. If you know that I had two strokes and recovered via prayer, you will realize that I do not rely on human wisdom or logic. I already KNOW that lead-out energy is real. It is just a matter of timing from the Almighty to let the World taste the Divine Wine. Your suggestion of use DC instead of AC coupling is very helpful. But you probably already know that the waveform comparisons using DC and AC coupling are similar. I can be wrong on the details but right in the general direction.
" how would you utilize the higher flux if you had it from the longer wire"?
We would use it to light bulbs brighter when using equal or less input. That is where the ferrite cores help to provide more output, from shorter wire or less turns, than when using the longer wire higher turn air cores, iron powder cores, etz...
We are talking about Joule Thief type circuits here, not other mechanical devices.
This is what we have seen in our experiments, and this is common knowledge even in basic electronics transformer circuitry.
I don't mean to butt in, but If this is all wrong... please explain.
NickZ
It is perfectly easy to show that a flow of current is necessary for Newman's motor --- or any "voltage" motor, even the electrostatic Enhanced Franklin Motor that I exhibited earlier. Simply hook the motor to a voltage source that isn't being supplied with outside power, and monitor the voltage. Does the voltage on your battery or capacitor decrease faster when the motor is hooked up, than it does when the motor is not hooked up?
Hey, current is current. A magnetic field depends on amp-turns, not amp-kilogrammes. A ten turn coil of copper busbar weighing nine kilos will have the same magnetic field as a ten turn coil of the same dimensions but made of tiny copper wire, as long as the current thru them is the same.
And microAmps, picoAmps, even femtoAmps.... still current, and will still make magnetic fields. Send 97 picoAmps thru your nine-kilo busbar coil and it will make the same field as 97 picoAmps thru a ten turn coil of #40 magnet wire. Try it!
The point about mechanical commutation and switching such a heavy coil under such small currents is a good one, though. There could be all kinds of crazy things happening in a mechanical commutator switching a couple hundred volts into a load of tens or hundreds of Hy inductance.
ETA: Please let's not get picky about the different self-inductances of the same total cross-sectional area ( hence same resistance per unit length) but different shapes.
@Lawrence: I am so jealous.
It's clear that I have nothing to offer you and that you are far ahead of me in obtaining funding.
But I am far, FAR ahead of you in attaining what you would no doubt call "overunity" results.
Will you please inform your investors and your top University scientists that I have JTs that far outperform yours? I am ready to prove this contention at any time, and my devices are ready to be tested NOW. I'd rather work together with you than to compete with you...... but after all, a Platinum Visa card is quite a carrot.
(The only problem I see is that I am not prepared to claim that any of my devices are actually overunity.)
(By the way, I have heard of Google and I do know how to use it. When I ask you for a manual, I don't expect to be referred to Google; I think it would be courteous of you to provide an actual link, since I neither speak Chinese nor know just what model of Atten scope you have. But of course all that is moot now anyway. I found an Atten manual and it gave me some of the information I needed: the scope is NOT isolated from the mains ground and the probe references are connected together and to the chassis ground.)
Quote● Ground the Product. This product is grounded through the grounding conductor
of the power cord. To avoid electric shock, the grounding conductor must be
connected to earth ground. Before making connections to the input or output
terminals of the product, ensure that the product is properly grounded.
● Connect the Probe Properly. The probe ground lead is at ground potential. Do not
connect the ground lead to an elevated voltage.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
Meanwhile, for your amusement, here's a motor that _does_ run on lots and lots of voltage and not much current at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
That's such a nice video, just electrostatic energy powered machine, so nice and light. Compared to today's current driven machines they are like plums.
Fausto.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 12:13:36 AM
Then I won't jump in until MH has had a chance to answer.
Meanwhile, here's a quick video showing how Lawrence -- or anyone else who cares to -- can determine the actual resonant frequencies of his JT coils, out of circuit. In the circuit the resonant frequency will change depending on the load the coil sees. This method can also be used in-circuit by disconnecting the circuit's input to the coil and using the FG instead, and monitoring the output voltage with the output side of the circuit connected, I think. Or if the circuit's own oscillator can be swept in frequency, that is the very best way to do it: sweep frequencies until the output voltage peaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY)
Nice tip. I have not seen the video yet BUT the explanation is very very good. So you replace the signal that drives the Coil with an FG and look for the best output in voltage with the other probe?
Just like if I just put one coil with the FG and probe across coil input and look for the highest voltage pk-pk. The exact same thing but with yours I can do that on the circuit, right?
I must admit this is probably for the engineers a must have babe steps learning thing, but for me it has been very valuable to learn a little bit more today.
Fausto.
Quote from: gyulasun on November 27, 2012, 06:28:54 PM
Hi Fausto,
One question: how would you utilize the higher flux if you had it from the longer wire? Lenz law will react on it in the same way as it normally does, no?
Another thing: if you think of normal coil shapes (multilayer cylindrical), then the dynamic fluxchange would be different at switch-on, than for the case of the static case. IF you wind a coil with X inductance from a certain wire diameter and "l" wire length and it would have say 3 Ohm DC resistance, and then you would wind a coil with a thicker wire and "10*l" wire length to get the same 3 Ohm DC resistance, it is obvious that this latter coil would have higher than X inductance and for a static case this latter would make a stronger electromagnet than the first coil, and DC input power would be same if you use the same DC source. BUT the moment you start pulsing these coils, then their AC impedance is what counts and the second coil will surely have a higher AC impedance than the first. So how do you think this?
Thanks, Gyula
Excellent questions.
I don't know really. I would think that Lenz law would still apply and therefore you will still have the problem of trying to "re-use" that field. Every time it will cause the reversed field and the story goes. So I guess longer wire coil no difference here.
Concerning the AC. I think I will answer with another question: What would be the possibility of not only creating a massive big coil that you can know or design with the correct wave length, so that one pulse will travel forward and return at the same moment you pulse again, or just right before or after, but just at the right "place" in the coil to cause for example a differential when one applies the next pulse?
Certainly a coil with very large inductance would be difficult to pulse at large frequencies. So motors with magnets is a picture that comes to my mind.
But more seriously, those are not high frequency coils so I guess what you are trying to build is of relevance here.
[size=78%]Fausto.[/size]
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 27, 2012, 09:11:40 PM
@Lawrence: I am so jealous.
It's clear that I have nothing to offer you and that you are far ahead of me in obtaining funding.
But I am far, FAR ahead of you in attaining what you would no doubt call "overunity" results.
Will you please inform your investors and your top University scientists that I have JTs that far outperform yours? I am ready to prove this contention at any time, and my devices are ready to be tested NOW. I'd rather work together with you than to compete with you...... but after all, a Platinum Visa card is quite a carrot.
(The only problem I see is that I am not prepared to claim that any of my devices are actually overunity.)
(By the way, I have heard of Google and I do know how to use it. When I ask you for a manual, I don't expect to be referred to Google; I think it would be courteous of you to provide an actual link, since I neither speak Chinese nor know just what model of Atten scope you have. But of course all that is moot now anyway. I found an Atten manual and it gave me some of the information I needed: the scope is NOT isolated from the mains ground and the probe references are connected together and to the chassis ground.)
I shall make sure the Investors and Top Universities know about your work and your help in the use of DC Coupling. The Investors are looking for top experts. They prefer to wait for the Top Universities to come out with definitive reports before pumping in serious funding. Some of their advisers are betting and want to see me fall flat on my face. There is some pressure on me but I am not rushing.
Repeat my experiments. Use the necessary grounding and better DSOs. Use your better prototypes. One hint is to use the 2n3055, higher voltage capacitor, better resistors and toroids. I am requesting many volunteers to do the same. At the moment, the carrot is a nice meal with my Visa Card! :)
NickZ:
QuoteWe would use it to light bulbs brighter when using equal or less input. That is where the ferrite cores help to provide more output, from shorter wire or less turns, than when using the longer wire higher turn air cores, iron powder cores, etz...
We are talking about Joule Thief type circuits here, not other mechanical devices.
This is what we have seen in our experiments, and this is common knowledge even in basic electronics transformer circuitry.
I don't mean to butt in, but If this is all wrong... please explain.
A ferrite core will simply increase the inductance of the coil. It will allow the coil to provide more output energy, as long as you provide it with more input energy.
TK:
In your coil resonance clip your excitation from your signal generator should have been a sine wave. That's actually of critical importance and I assume that you know that.
MH
Quote from: plengo on November 27, 2012, 10:21:25 PM
Nice tip. I have not seen the video yet BUT the explanation is very very good. So you replace the signal that drives the Coil with an FG and look for the best output in voltage with the other probe?
Yes, that's right, essentially. With the scope probe on the second coil.
Quote
Just like if I just put one coil with the FG and probe across coil input and look for the highest voltage pk-pk. The exact same thing but with yours I can do that on the circuit, right?
Hmmm.... With a single winding? I'm not so sure that is equivalent. I'll have to do some comparisons to check. For a single coil I usually make an improvised "primary" with a few turns of scrap wire, and feed that, thru a 50R resistance, with the FG output. Then look for resonant rise on the original coil as usual. This will probably also work for coils that are in-circuit, but be careful that the resonant rise doesn't blow up stuff downstream or overload your scope probe.
For, eg, Tesla coil secondaries, I use a 1meg or 10meg resistor in series with the already 10x attenuated probe tip at the top of the secondary, and just use a single loop or two around the base of the coil as the FG-driven "primary" (with the 50R in series).
Quote
I must admit this is probably for the engineers a must have babe steps learning thing, but for me it has been very valuable to learn a little bit more today.
Fausto.
I am glad. I hope the information is useful, and thanks so much for the feedback. The DeepBunker can be a cold and lonesome place at times, even with a good dog at my feet.
@Lawrence: You might try the MPSA18 in place of the 2n2222 or 2n2222a for your low-voltage, low current models. I find that it works better, but it is also more delicate. It is also a lot cheaper.
I just bought a new 2n3055 today from my component supplier. It cost 4.85 US, plus tax. Outrageous! The MPSA18 can be had for fifty cents each or even cheaper. A lot of 25 for under four dollars on Ebay, I see.
Don't worry, I won't be competing with you. Just try to have fun, and I wish you the best of success and happy experiences along your quest.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 27, 2012, 06:10:50 PM
Fausto:
Back to the exploration. I will state it again, you should be doing this and not me.
The web page to calculate the inductance of a coil:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indsol.html#c1)
For a coil length of 50 cm, radius 50 cm, with 1000 turns, (3.14 km wire length), air core, the inductance of the coil is 1.97 Henries. I believe that is much less inductance than you were expecting.
Let's assume that Joe is using 12 gauge wire with a 3 mm diameter. 12 gauge wire has 0.1588 ohms resistance per 100 feet. 3.14 km is 1.95 miles. 1.95 miles is 10296 feet.
Therefore the resistance of the coil is (10296/100) x 0.1588 = 16.35 ohms.
So, what happens when you put 255 volts across the coil?
The time constant is L/R = 1.97/16.35 = 0.12 seconds. So five time constants is 0.6 seconds.
Therefore after 0.6 seconds the giant coil could have 255/16.35 = 15.6 amperes of current flowing through it. I don't think the alkaline AA batteries could put out 15.6 amperes. I am guessing they start to strain around 7 amperes.
The rotating magnet can add some counter-EMF to reduce the current flow. The giant rotating magnet might also increase the length of the time constant due to increased permeability to reduce the rate of increase in current flow.
That doesn't matter. My conclusion is that you have always viewed the giant Newman motor with an emotional reaction and you never tried to do some very basic calculations to see what the results would be like. That was a huge mistake on your part. It seems pretty apparent to me that a bunch of AA cells in series can easily power the giant strange "Newman motor." In reality the Newman motor is just an ordinary pulse motor that just happens to be so big that you have to move it around on the back of a pickup truck. You pump somewhere between 50 and 200 watts into it, and it does between 10 and 20 watts of mechanical work to pump water.
Can you see how easy that was Fausto? It's pretty clear to me that your assumptions were way off. The mistake was to never try to model the motor and make some basic calculations.
Finally, in the chance that you don't understand the "time constant" references then I suggest that you go and study. Every single pulse motor you will ever build has a time constant and it is critical to understanding how the motor works. Without that level of understanding it's like you are flying blind.
MileHigh
I think you made a little mistake in your calculations but here it goes. On the picture I show your number for the resistance and mine and a little bit more.
It is very clear to me that with even 1/2 amp you will not be able to run that gigantic motor. I barely can run my toy motors with that much less with a load.
In the picture one can see that playing with gauge wires one can get what he/she wants concerning amperage.
In the picture I used first this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge and the second picture I used this site: http://www.cirris.com/testing/resistance/wire.html
Fausto.
Fausto:
If you switch to higher gauge wire the size of the wire gets much smaller. 36 gauge wire would most likely be too thin and too fragile for Newman's giant motor.
If you increase the wire resistance all that does for you is increase the battery power that is lost to heat and reduces the maximum current through the coil. That reduces the strength of the magnetic field and therefore it reduces the strength of the motor.
Let's not forget what we are talking about: Is the Newman motor demonstrating anything special or any over unity?
I showed you how in a few simple steps you can make some good estimates of how the motor is performing in real life. When Joe Newman says that his "amazing" motor runs on voltage only or he says it runs on voltage with negligible current it's not true.
You listened to Joe and believed him and then you made a bunch of estimates and assumptions yourself about the motor that are not true.
The inductance calculator for a coil on the Hyperphysics web site is a valuable tool. Once you know the output impedance of the voltage source that is charging the coil and the inductance of the coil then you know the L/R time constant and then you know how long it takes for the coil to reach the maximum current flow. This is applicable to any pulse motor.
You made reference to how much voltage a "big coil" can produce. The truth and reality is that just about any coil can produce high voltage when it discharges its stored energy. The "big coil secret" that people like Bedini don't want to tell you is that the voltage the coil can product is not dependent on the coil, it's actually dependent on the load on the coil. A high resistance load will result in high voltage. A low resistance load will result in low voltage. A short circuit for the load will result in zero volts output from the coil. So yes, the same coil that can output thousands of volts can also output one volt and it can also "output" zero volts. It all depends on the value of the load resistor.
MileHigh
MH:
thank you again for the response. I understand what you are saying. Previous Newman's motors are notorious for small diameter wires. One guy once even mention how crazy he was to coil one of his gigantic motors with tiny little wires like gauge 36.
That is what I was trying to raze to you. If it is indeed small gauge like that I don't think he can even spin that motor. Can he? Is too little current.
I agree with what you said about the voltage and so on on the coils, no problem here.
Do you think it is possible the statement that "the amount of input power has nothing to do with the strength of the magnetic field created"? I know you will say it is dependent on current and inductance and wire size or area and turns and so on, but for a moment, knowing what you know of the laws of induction, is this statement correct or not?
many thanks,
Fausto.
Quote from: NickZ on November 27, 2012, 07:32:08 PM
" how would you utilize the higher flux if you had it from the longer wire "?
We would use it to light bulbs brighter when using equal or less input. That is where the ferrite cores help to provide more output, from shorter wire or less turns, than when using the longer wire higher turn air cores, iron powder cores, etz...
We are talking about Joule Thief type circuits here, not other mechanical devices.
This is what we have seen in our experiments, and this is common knowledge even in basic electronics transformer circuitry.
I don't mean to butt in, but If this is all wrong... please explain.
NickZ
Hi Nick,
I know the topic here is on joule thief circuits and sorry for a slight off topic, I simply tried to answer plengo's question which was in general (apart from joule thiefs) on more flux from longer wire at the same input power. Of course as you say shorter wire is preferred and increase inductance by using ferrite (or other better quality) cores in case of joule thiefs, I agree, this does not sound to me wrong.
rgds, Gyula
Gyula:
I know that you know... nothing new there. Just thought that I'd add that in, just in case there was something else that I was not aware of.
Thanks for the reply.
There is one more thing... it now seams that we can have a solid state device that can run on just voltage, and still provide for a useable output, with no real current as we know it. This probably has to do with frequency, or possibly even something else.
As I value your input... what do you, or anyone else think about this type of device(s)???
NickZ
Hi Nick,
I apologize for not thoroughly following progress on joule thief circuits here or other forums so could you point me to schematics on such solid state circuits, I do now like wading through too many pages if that would be the case.
EDIT My bad, I think you meant joule thiefs in general and in this respect I think that if extra flux could be brought into the core from an outside permanent magnet so that the this flux and the 'normal' JT flux be summed up in the core then maybe some progress could be had. I will ponder on this how it might be possible.
What Gadget just reported here http://www.overunity.com/6123/jule-thief/msg346371/#msg346371 is also promising, hopefully replicateable by many.
Thanks, Gyula
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new)
The magic of the Joule Thief is revealed in the thread above.
The explanation file is attached.
The situations where Average Output Power was greater than Average Input Power were shown.
The situations when Average Input and Output Power turned negative were also shown.
We can now "resonance tune" the FLEET circuits. A FLEET circuit is different from a JT circuit in that it is resonance-tuned. Forever Lead-out Electromagnetic Energy Transformer. We can claim Forever because energy is lead-out or brought-in. That Electromagnetic Energy is the Electron Motion Energy of the atoms from the surrounding environment. There is NO violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
The circuit can cool the environment?
*** Edited to put in graph. Note the comarison of Output Power and Input Power over a 20 minute interval. Resonance tuning and estimating how much energy can be lead-out is now a piece of cake.***
God Bless.
Mark Dansie will be testing the FLEET devices at G-LED USA in a couple of hours.
Independent verification of the technology is starting.
Expect at least 10 teams to finish their verification before Christmas 2012. Photos and test results will be posted.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 29, 2012, 09:45:18 AM
Mark Dansie will be testing the FLEET devices at G-LED USA in a couple of hours.
Independent verification of the technology is starting.
Expect at least 10 teams to finish their verification before Christmas 2012. Photos and test results will be posted.
I hope there will useful information because the information at http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new) is totally useless.
Greetings, Conrad
Lawrence, your graph is largely uninterpretable without knowing the exact conditions under which the data were obtained. In addition, several things _are_ interpretable about the graph. First, both traces go below the zero baseline toward the end of the interval. This indicates either nonconservation of Miracles, or a certain imprecision or error in your data, or both. Secondly, the magnitude of the difference at any given time is on the order of the value of the measurement itself. In other words, you are seeing a difference of a few milliWatts in a signal whose amplitude is a few milliWatts.
In such conditions it is imperative that results be shown _not_ from a single trial, but averages from multiple, even many trials, and error bars or some other measure of the variance in your data also shown. This will allow the signal-- any real differences-- to rise above the "noise" or random variations that can affect the results from single trials. And if the variance in the data -- the "error bars" -- is of the same order as the differences noted, then it is likely that the difference is not real and only due to chance variations in the noise level or the data.
I have already discussed some of the problems with your data collection methods, and I believe that if you have collected and used the data in that manner, to make this graph, that you are once again making extravagant claims without _real_ support from your experiments.
Quote from: conradelektro on November 29, 2012, 04:15:29 PM
I hope there will useful information because the information at http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26794#new) is totally useless.
Greetings, Conrad
I just took a look at the spreadsheet.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1516.0;attach=8782
If I am reading it right, the circuit is powered by the charged-up capacitor and allowed to run. As it runs the frequency changes a bit as the cap runs down. The data collection begins at 1 kHz and continues for 20 minutes. The data is gathered like this, since Lawrence's scope only has two channels. The output power measurements are made and recorded first, and then the probes are unhooked, moved to the input power measuring points, and the input power is measured. Then for the next measurement pair the probes are moved back to the output power, etc. This moving around takes a minute, according to the notes in the spreadsheet.
So for the final comparison, the output power measurement at time t is paired with an input power measurement at time t+1 minute, in a system with constantly decreasing input voltage from a capacitor.
Am I getting that right?
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
I just took a look at the spreadsheet.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1516.0;attach=8782 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1516.0;attach=8782)
If I am reading it right, the circuit is powered by the charged-up capacitor and allowed to run. As it runs the frequency changes a bit as the cap runs down. The data collection begins at 1 kHz and continues for 20 minutes. The data is gathered like this, since Lawrence's scope only has two channels. The output power measurements are made and recorded first, and then the probes are unhooked, moved to the input power measuring points, and the input power is measured. Then for the next measurement pair the probes are moved back to the output power, etc. This moving around takes a minute, according to the notes in the spreadsheet.
So for the final comparison, the output power measurement at time t is paired with an input power measurement at time t+1 minute, in a system with constantly decreasing input voltage from a capacitor.
Am I getting that right?
@Tinselkoala: I am afraid it is a total waste of time to discuss data which is created with a secret device. The data can be everything.
One would have to know the circuit, the components used and the measurement methods.
But you are right, analysing the presented data, it even look fishy when making educated guesses.
Let's hope the many alleged validation teams are better when doing electronics and may be Marc Dansy is really looking at this and will do measurements.
It definitely does not look good. Again they refer to god. Are they praying for help? Or is it blasphemy?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 04:24:00 PM
Lawrence, your graph is largely uninterpretable without knowing the exact conditions under which the data were obtained. In addition, several things _are_ interpretable about the graph. First, both traces go below the zero baseline toward the end of the interval. This indicates either nonconservation of Miracles, or a certain imprecision or error in your data, or both.
*** Think about the condition of negative power as feedback to source as standard in AC Power Circuits.
Secondly, the magnitude of the difference at any given time is on the order of the value of the measurement itself. In other words, you are seeing a difference of a few milliWatts in a signal whose amplitude is a few milliWatts.
In such conditions it is imperative that results be shown _not_ from a single trial, but averages from multiple, even many trials, and error bars or some other measure of the variance in your data also shown.
*** There will be at least 10 groups of volunteers doing the trial before the oscilloscope-test-ready boards are sent to the top Universities. Many Students will be having the Christmas Holidays. Some may even be able to use the DSO at their university labs.
This will allow the signal-- any real differences-- to rise above the "noise" or random variations that can affect the results from single trials. And if the variance in the data -- the "error bars" -- is of the same order as the differences noted, then it is likely that the difference is not real and only due to chance variations in the noise level or the data.
I have already discussed some of the problems with your data collection methods, and I believe that if you have collected and used the data in that manner, to make this graph, that you are once again making extravagant claims without _real_ support from your experiments.
Do not worry about my data.
They are "indication experiments". Do not trust their accuracy. The accurate results will be from the top universities with top-of-the-line DSOs and
experts in using such.
I have made the same claims hundreds of times before. Now the top universities and "investors" are taking interest.
If I do not make such claims, no one will give me a platinum Visa card. No invitations to present at top universities. No participation at invention conferences. The nay sayers and the "paid debunkers" might have silenced me. Please repeat the experiment.
(1) Use your best 2n2222 JT.
(2) Add a capacitor (e.g. 2.3V 10F) in parallel with a DC Power Supply.
(3) Start your DC Power Supply from 0 V and get it to light the LED to acceptable brightness.
(4) Turn off your DC Power Supply and take it out all together if you prefer.
(5) Check whether your LED can stay on for at least another 20 minutes with only the capacitor.
(6) If so, do your oscilloscope experiments. If you have only one DSO, follow the circuit diagram in nov 22a1.xls
(7) Discharge the capacitor thoroughly first. Do the Output measurements at minute intervals first. Use the steps mentioned at point (3) to create a known starting condition.
(8 ) After 20 readings or so, discharge the capacitor again thoroughly.
(9) Repeat (7) and do the Input measurements. The starting condition may not be exact.
Treat this as an " Indication Experiment". Show it to your contacts at top universities and admit that your DSO cannot provide the academic grade. Your contacts may be able to arrange a chance for you to send an oscilloscope-test-ready board to the top university. Your platinum visa card???
Relax and pray. Document all efforts on the Internet. Your safety is better when the knowledge is public. Ignore all nay sayers. Most of them do not even have the equivalent of an Atten Oscilloscope!
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 29, 2012, 04:39:34 PM
I just took a look at the spreadsheet.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1516.0;attach=8782 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1516.0;attach=8782)
If I am reading it right, the circuit is powered by the charged-up capacitor and allowed to run. As it runs the frequency changes a bit as the cap runs down. The data collection begins at 1 kHz and continues for 20 minutes. The data is gathered like this, since Lawrence's scope only has two channels. The output power measurements are made and recorded first, and then the probes are unhooked, moved to the input power measuring points, and the input power is measured. Then for the next measurement pair the probes are moved back to the output power, etc. This moving around takes a minute, according to the notes in the spreadsheet.
*** No, No and No. See my previous post for the exact measurement steps.
So for the final comparison, the output power measurement at time t is paired with an input power measurement at time t+1 minute, in a system with constantly decreasing input voltage from a capacitor.
Am I getting that right? Sorry, your got it wrong this time.
Continue your questions.
Your questioning of the AC coupling was excellent. It really helped me to leap a giant step. I am using DC Coupling from now on - so are all the volunteers.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 29, 2012, 10:59:03 PM
Continue your questions. Your questioning of the AC coupling was excellent. It really helped me to leap a giant step. I am using DC Coupling from now on - so are all the volunteers.
Quote(7) Discharge the capacitor thoroughly first. Do the Output measurements at minute intervals first. Use the steps mentioned at point (3) to create a known starting condition.
(8 ) After 20 readings or so, discharge the capacitor again thoroughly.
(9) Repeat (7) and do the Input measurements. The starting condition may not be exact.
I am astounded !! Lawrence.... that is even worse! You CANNOT take output data from one twenty minute run and compare it "minute by minute" with input data from another, different twenty minute run!!! Who told you that was legitimate?
I am flabbergasted that you would even consider doing such a thing. It's outrageous. It invalidates ALL of your comparison data.
It is such a basic error in methodology that most people would never even think it's possible. It's like coming to work with your pants on backwards and shoes from different pairs. Nobody is going to tell you "when you go to work, be sure your pants are on right and your shoes match" . They would never consider that anyone would NEED to be told that.
How are you "discharging thoroughly" your capacitor? Please give me the exact procedure you use for this, including times.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110630015105AAuZR0y (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110630015105AAuZR0y)
Can power factor of an electrical system be measured as a negative value?
A negative power factor would indicate that current leads or lags the voltage by more than 90 degrees. Physically, that can happen if the load is returning power to the source rather than using power. For example, if an induction motor is used to operate an electric railway locomotive, the power factor will be lagging by less than 90 degrees as the locomotive climbs a hill. If the motor is nearly loaded, the power factor might be about 0.85. If the track is level at the top of the hill, the motor's load will be reduced and the power factor might drop to 0.65. As the locomotive begin to go downhill, the power factor drops more and may be come negative as the motor begins to operate as a generator returning braking power to the source.
Source(s):
I have worked as an engineer in the manufacture of variable frequency drives (VFD). We tested drives under load by using the VFD under test to control an induction motor which drove a second induction motor that was connected to utility (mains) power. Using the VFD to slightly overspeed the second motor forced that motor to become a generator and return power to the utility.
Another Answer:
The power factor itself, will be positive, between 0 and 1, and is given from cos (theta).
If it is 1, your load is purely resistive.
If it is 0, your load is purely reactive.
The angle theta, however, could be negative or positive.
If it's negative, then the reactive portion is capacitive, and your voltage is lagging behind the current.
If it's positive, then the reactive portion is inductive, and voltage is leading current.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 30, 2012, 09:23:10 AM
I am astounded !! Lawrence.... that is even worse! You CANNOT take output data from one twenty minute run and compare it "minute by minute" with input data from another, different twenty minute run!!! Who told you that was legitimate?
I am flabbergasted that you would even consider doing such a thing. It's outrageous. It invalidates ALL of your comparison data.
*** As I mentioned, I do indication experiments. The top universities will have the DSO and experts to do the real experiments. That is why we need them.
How are you "discharging thoroughly" your capacitor? Please give me the exact procedure you use for this, including times.
*** Use a wire to directly connect the two ends of the capacitor for 5 minutes. Put it back on the JT circuit and the LED should show no light. Check the Output voltage waveform on the Atten Oscilloscope. It should show NO more characteristic pulsing waveform.
Great questions. I am glad that I have ready answers before going to Tsinghua University. Any more???
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 30, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110630015105AAuZR0y (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110630015105AAuZR0y)
Can power factor of an electrical system be measured as a negative value?
A negative power factor would indicate that current leads or lags the voltage by more than 90 degrees. Physically, that can happen if the load is returning power to the source rather than using power. For example, if an induction motor is used to operate an electric railway locomotive, the power factor will be lagging by less than 90 degrees as the locomotive climbs a hill. If the motor is nearly loaded, the power factor might be about 0.85. If the track is level at the top of the hill, the motor's load will be reduced and the power factor might drop to 0.65. As the locomotive begin to go downhill, the power factor drops more and may be come negative as the motor begins to operate as a generator returning braking power to the source.
Source(s):
I have worked as an engineer in the manufacture of variable frequency drives (VFD). We tested drives under load by using the VFD under test to control an induction motor which drove a second induction motor that was connected to utility (mains) power. Using the VFD to slightly overspeed the second motor forced that motor to become a generator and return power to the utility.
Another Answer:
The power factor itself, will be positive, between 0 and 1, and is given from cos (theta).
If it is 1, your load is purely resistive.
If it is 0, your load is purely reactive.
The angle theta, however, could be negative or positive.
If it's negative, then the reactive portion is capacitive, and your voltage is lagging behind the current.
If it's positive, then the reactive portion is inductive, and voltage is leading current.
Lawrence this is garbage. It is true, but it does not apply to your instantaneous power computations. POWER FACTOR is not POWER. Your instantaneous power curves that go negative at the end have nothing to do with POWER FACTOR or returning power to the source.
When you do instantaneous multiplication of current and voltage, as you are doing, your POWER FACTOR is automatically compensated for. It is only when you are dealing with average values of regular sine waves of current and voltage, phase shifted because of reactance in the load, that you need to consider power factor and do all of that trig algebra.
http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power (http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power)
Quote
There are several different definitions of power in AC circuits; all, however, have dimension of V*A or W (watts).
1. Instantaneous power: [/i] p(t) is the time function of the power, p(t) = u(t)*i(t). It is the product of the time functions of the voltage and current. This definition of instantaneous power is valid for signals of any waveform. The unit for instantaneous power [/i]is VA.
2. Complex power: [/i] S [/font] (http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power.1.gif (http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power.1.gif))
Complex power is the product of the complex effective voltage and the complex effective conjugate current. In our notation here, the conjugate is indicated by an asterisk (*).Complex power can also be computed using the peak values of the complex voltage and current, but then the result must be divided by 2. Note that complex power is applicable only to circuits with sinusoidal excitation because complex effective or peak values exist and are defined only for sinusoidal signals. The unit for complex power [/i]is VA. [/font]3. Real [/i]or average power[/i]: P can be defined in two ways: as the real part of the complex power or as the simple average of the instantaneous power.[/i] The second definition is more general because with it we can define the instantaneous power [/i]for any signal waveform, not just for sinusoids. It is given explicitly in the following expression (http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power.2.gif (http://www.tina.com/English/tina/course/29power/power.2.gif))
The unit for real[/i] or average power[/i] is watts (W), just as for power in DC circuits. Real power is dissipated as heat in resistances.
4. Reactive power: [/i]Q is the imaginary part of the complex power. It is given in units of volt-amperes reactive[/i] (VAR). Reactive power is positive[/i] in an inductive[/i] circuit[/i] and negative[/i] in a capacitive circuit[/i]. This power is defined only for sinusoidal excitation. The reactive power doesn't do any useful work or heat and it is the power returned to the source by the reactive components (inductors, capacitors) of the circuit [/font]
5. Apparent power: [/i]S is the product of the rms values of the voltage and the current, S = U*I. The unit of apparent power is VA. The apparent power[/i] is the absolute value of the complex power[/i], so it is defined only for sinusoidal excitation.[/font]
Well, the formatting and the formulae got screwed up in the quote. Please go to the link and read it there. I have highlighted the part you are misunderstanding. Your discussion of Power Factor is irrelevant because you are obtaining your instantaneous power curve by multiplying the instantaneous values of voltage and current.
Mark Dansie and team visited G-LED USA and were impressed. They saw the FLEET without battery lighting during the entire meeting. They also saw the 2KW unit lighting 2,500 LEDs.
Their plan is to fly to Hong Kong to meet me and the owners of BSI. They wanted to purchase a number of Lead-out Energy Research kits for testing now and may go into business arrangement afterwards.
Apparently, they have much better equipped laboratories and can do the 4 channel, maths function tests. My indication experiments will be improved to a much higher degree of accuracy.
The owners of G-LED and BSI will also meet shortly to decide on the marketing strategy. Hopefully, that will happen before Christmas.
The Divine Wine will be tasted by many this Christmas.
I said,
I am astounded !! Lawrence.... that is even worse! You CANNOT take output data from one twenty minute run and compare it "minute by minute" with input data from another, different twenty minute run!!! Who told you that was legitimate?
I am flabbergasted that you would even consider doing such a thing. It's outrageous. It invalidates ALL of your comparison data.
LTseung replied:
Quote
*** As I mentioned, I do indication experiments. The top universities will have the DSO and experts to do the real experiments. That is why we need them.
You are getting them all excited over your claims, which are based on your invalid data from your "indication experiments". You are crying wolf when there is no wolf. The more times people do this, the less credibility we all have. You cannot do "indication experiments" INCORRECTLY and then draw conclusions and make claims of overunity! It give everybody a bad name.
I asked,
How are you "discharging thoroughly" your capacitor? Please give me the exact procedure you use for this, including times.
And LTseung answered,
Quote
*** Use a wire to directly connect the two ends of the capacitor for 5 minutes. Put it back on the JT circuit and the LED should show no light. Check the Output voltage waveform on the Atten Oscilloscope. It should show NO more characteristic pulsing waveform.
That might barely be acceptable, but I should think that a much longer time "shorted" by the jumper would be necessary for a low-voltage supercap. I only have 3 Farads, but I'll do some experiments and see what I can learn.
However, the issue is moot because you simply cannot use output and input data from different runs for comparison purposes. You do not have control of all the conditions that could affect your measurements. To be able to make the claim that input power was less than output power in a circuit with constantly varying parameters, you have to measure them at the same time! You might be able to get somewhere by measuring input and output voltage on one run, then measuring input and output current on another run, and then computing your power curves from data taken that way. At least that way you will have simultaneous measurements of _something_ on your input and output. But I still doubt the validity of comparisons made this way.
You don't need to even use the scope for your input measurements, though. Simply monitor the input current and voltage with DMMs and the time with a precise timer. Your graphs reveal that average values will accurately reflect your input power function.
But you must not conclude overunity performance based on your present data gathering methodology. You are comparing apples grown in one season, with apples grown in the next season, and you have no idea of the variables that changed over the winter.
Quote from: ltseung888 on November 30, 2012, 04:13:21 PM
Mark Dansie and team visited G-LED USA and were impressed. They saw the FLEET without battery lighting during the entire meeting. They also saw the 2KW unit lighting 2,500 LEDs.
Their plan is to fly to Hong Kong to meet me and the owners of BSI. They wanted to purchase a number of Lead-out Energy Research kits for testing now and may go into business arrangement afterwards.
Apparently, they have much better equipped laboratories and can do the 4 channel, maths function tests. My indication experiments will be improved to a much higher degree of accuracy.
The owners of G-LED and BSI will also meet shortly to decide on the marketing strategy. Hopefully, that will happen before Christmas.
The Divine Wine will be tasted by many this Christmas.
Lawrence, I have circuits sitting here right in front of me, running right now, that FAR outperform the circuits you are describing here. The reason I am not being wined and dined by Divine Wine and being showered with money and accolades is because I AM NOT MAKING CLAIMS THAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL DATA.
Dear All,
I am facing the following problem and need a reasonable solution:
How to use ONE oscilloscope to compare the Input Power and Output Power when both are decreasing with time?
The Atten Oscilloscope has 2 channels. We can use Ch1 to measure Instantaneous Voltage and Ch2 to measure Instantaneous Current. Such data can be captured as CSV files to be analysed by EXCEL. The important equation is:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current
We can use the Atten Oscilloscope to measure Input waveforms and output waveforms separately but not simultaneously.
Changing the connections from Output measurement to Input measurement will take approximately 1 minute.
At present, I try to produce the same initial condition – same procedure in turning the DC Power Supply ON with the capacitor totally discharged (as checked on the oscilloscope). Then take reading at 1 minute intervals. Use two separate runs - one for Input and one for Output.
Is there a better method assuming that you only have ONE 2 channel oscilloscope?
Yes, Lawrence, there is. But first you must realize that POWER is not the conserved quantity of interest when making excess ENERGY claims of overunity or COP>1.
The true energy INPUT to your system is the energy used to charge the capacitor. But the energy used by the system is what is on the capacitor, not what was used to charge it (there will be losses in the charging process that have nothing to do with the energy balance of the JT itself.)
Since the energy on the capacitor at any time is easily calculated from knowing the capacitance (fixed) and the voltage (varying with time), you can simply measure the voltage on the cap at the beginning of the run, and at the end of the run. The energy in Joules is E=(CV2)/2, so you subtract the energy remaining on the cap at the end, from the energy on the cap at the beginning, and this will give you the number of Joules the cap supplied during the run.
Your scope provides the current and voltage output data; the time integration of the instantaneous power curve calculated from these values will give you the total output energy in Joules over the time of the test. These numbers may be legitimately compared with the energy supplied by the cap as calculated above.
A refinement will then be to measure accurately the energy used to charge the cap in the first place, which can also be done with your scope by monitoring the voltage on the cap and the current as it is charged to the desired voltage, multiplying and integrating as usual to get the number of Joules you applied to charge the cap to your test voltage.
So there are two different "input" energy measurements: that which the cap supplies to the circuit during the run, and that which was used to charge the cap in the first place. The first can be easily known by measuring the voltage before and after the run and computing the energy using the formula. The second can be known by scope monitoring, and since it is done _before_ the cap is used to run the circuit, you have time to change the scope hookup and take output power (current and voltage) readings that will be multiplied and integrated by your spreadsheet and legitimately compared to the energy used to charge the cap right before the test run.
That is a very interesting way of measuring the input/output. So with the Cap we would have a definite buffer of input energy while the output we measure with the scope.
Quick question, would not the dropping voltage of the cap as we use it in the JT change the whole behavior of the JT and therefore its performance?
I had the impression that JT needs a stable input power to perform to its peak performance, no?
Great tip.
Fausto.
Quote from: plengo on December 03, 2012, 09:57:21 AM
That is a very interesting way of measuring the input/output. So with the Cap we would have a definite buffer of input energy while the output we measure with the scope.
Quick question, would not the dropping voltage of the cap as we use it in the JT change the whole behavior of the JT and therefore its performance?
Yes, as the voltage decays the frequency of the JT oscillation changes. As long as you are within a certain range though, you don't notice this by looking at the light output. The light comes from short peaks in the oscillations, so as the frequency changes the duration and spacing of the peaks also changes. As I understand Lawrence's scheme, the timer allows one to set the interval between cap recharges. This is inefficient as I have pointed out because the cap is charged fully as soon as it is at the desired voltage; leaving it connected to the main power source any longer than that is wasteful. I think it should be done like this: the cap voltage should be compared to some reference voltage by a comparator. When the cap voltage reaches the preset value and the comparator flips state, the cap is disconnected from the supply and allowed to run the JT. When the cap voltage then drops to another preselected value, after say 20 minutes but this time going not by time but by energy, the cap is reconnected to the charging source for another "jolt" of energy.
Quote
I had the impression that JT needs a stable input power to perform to its peak performance, no?
Great tip.
Fausto.
Yes, that's right. Since the frequency changes with the voltage change, one would like to keep the input voltage stable at or near the optimum value. This can be done while still running primarily on the cap by tightening the "interval" using the preset comparison voltage. Keep the cap within, say, 1.2 and 1.3 volts by recharging it whenever it drops below the preset 1.2 volts. Or even tighter: 1.25 to 1.30 volts, say. Of course the tighter your voltage control, the more often you will have to recharge, but the smaller the energy input from each recharge.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 03, 2012, 09:18:10 AM
Yes, Lawrence, there is. But first you must realize that POWER is not the conserved quantity of interest when making excess ENERGY claims of overunity or COP>1..............
If we have
two 2 channel oscilloscopes, can we use one to measure the Input Power and one to measure the Output Power at the same time? We can easily calculate the average power values. Will that be a legit comparison?
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 03, 2012, 12:08:59 PM
If we have two 2 channel oscilloscopes, can we use one to measure the Input Power and one to measure the Output Power at the same time? We can easily calculate the average power values. Will that be a legit comparison?
Yes and no. In the first place you are not concerned with POWER, but energy. Please try to remember that. The instantaneous power curve is the intermediate step to obtaining energy flow values, and it is the energy that is important.
Yes, you can take one run, monitored with two oscilloscopes as you describe, and use the integral of the instantaneous power curves for your comparison. However you will have to use statistical procedures to assure that there are no differences in the scopes or probes etc. that affect your values. This means that you will have to do multiple runs (required anyway), switching the positions of the scopes between runs, and average the values across runs, then compare the average values, including a measure of variance like standard deviation or standard error of the mean. So you might do 10 runs, with 5 having Scope A monitoring the input, and 5 having Scope B monitoring the input. This will cancel out any influence of the scopes themselves on the data. This won't allow you to do moment-by-moment comparisons, though, only the final energy numbers will have meaning.
And No, because you will not be able to synchronize the measurements between the two scopes. If you want to display graphs of the rundown as you did in your spreadsheet, moment by moment, the moments must be known precisely. Each data point for input and output power must be made simultaneously for a true moment-by-moment comparison (one voltage and one current data point for each input and output, 4 values simultaneously). If one scope is, say, half a second behind the other one then the momentary comparison will be inaccurate, even though the final computed energy integral values may be correct for the two scopes (if you are comparing the exact same time interval, which requires synch). Really, the 2 channel scope will make the measurements on each channel consecutively, separated by its minimum sample interval, but there is nothing to be done about that. Fortunately the error from this inherent lack of simultaneity will be small if your sample rate is high. It is important to remember that the DSO is a digital Sampling oscilloscope and it only takes one sample at a time, no matter how many channels it has or what its sample rate is. This will inevitably introduce some error into computations requiring simultaneous values on two variables like instantaneous power computations.
It is possible to synch separate oscilloscopes but take my word for it.... it is beyond your pay grade, and would only introduce unnecessary complexity in what _should_ be a relatively simple process.
It is much simpler and even more accurate to use a DMM of high impedance and accuracy to make precise readings of the capacitor voltages and use that to compute the input ENERGY to your system. Of course you must also know accurately your true capacitance value, which can also be easily determined in various ways. The best way is to set up a resonant circuit with a known inductance, find the resonant frequency, and compute the capacitance from that. Or you can let an RLC meter do the same thing and give you a number in a nice box.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 03, 2012, 01:36:12 PM
Yes and no. In the first place you are not concerned with POWER, but energy. Please try to remember that. The instantaneous power curve is the intermediate step to obtaining energy flow values, and it is the energy that is important.
Thank you for the very informative answer. I am lucky to have two Atten oscilloscopes.
On another point, some universities have the 4 channel high end DSOs. Will that make the measurement easier and more accurate?
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 03, 2012, 05:44:37 PM
Thank you for the very informative answer. I am lucky to have two Atten oscilloscopes.
On another point, some universities have the 4 channel high end DSOs. Will that make the measurement easier and more accurate?
Facepalm.
Will you please go back and read my previous posts?
There is a difference between precision and accuracy. Using the high end 4 channel scope with live math and integration will make your measurements easier and more PRECISE. Not necessarily more accurate. And in this case, accuracy is much more important than another decimal place or two of precision.
Consider the archer. She fires her arrows at a big target with a tiny red center bullseye. She tries her best to hit the bullseye dead center (accuracy). She strives to do this with every arrow she fires with very small error (precision).
So she fires off some arrows, and all four of them are in a tight cluster, only a millimeter space between them. This is PRECISION.
But... alas, the cluster is way down and to the left of the aim point, the bullseye. This is a lack of ACCURACY.
So she adjusts the sight of her bow, she trims the fletching of her arrows and fires off four more arrows. This time they are in a looser group, they are further apart. She has lost some PRECISION.
But.... look, one of the arrows is dead center on the red bullseye and the rest are clustered just a few millimeters away. She has achieved much greater ACCURACY, even though her precision is less than before.
Which would you rather achieve, better Precision, or better Accuracy?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 03, 2012, 09:57:27 PM
Facepalm.
Will you please go back and read my previous posts?
There is a difference between precision and accuracy. Using the high end 4 channel scope with live math and integration will make your measurements easier and more PRECISE. Not necessarily more accurate. And in this case, accuracy is much more important than another decimal place or two of precision.
Consider the archer. She fires her arrows at a big target with a tiny red center bullseye. She tries her best to hit the bullseye dead center (accuracy). She strives to do this with every arrow she fires with very small error (precision).
So she fires off some arrows, and all four of them are in a tight cluster, only a millimeter space between them. This is PRECISION.
But... alas, the cluster is way down and to the left of the aim point, the bullseye. This is a lack of ACCURACY.
So she adjusts the sight of her bow, she trims the fletching of her arrows and fires off four more arrows. This time they are in a looser group, they are further apart. She has lost some PRECISION.
But.... look, one of the arrows is dead center on the red bullseye and the rest are clustered just a few millimeters away. She has achieved much greater ACCURACY, even though her precision is less than before.
Which would you rather achieve, better Precision, or better Accuracy?
;) That was a beautiful explanation.
TK:
Wow! Thank you. I have learned a lot from your last several responses here. Well done and thanks again for this information.
Bill
Most people hope to achieve both precision and accuracy.
My eyesight is poor and my hands are shaky. I only hope not to pour too much wine on the floor.
I would like to bring in the topic of "negative power". This will show up lots of times in the Input and Output Power measurements. What is your interpretation?????
It looks liky that the Christmas Present to the World in 2012 is the confirmation of lead-out energy via two oscilloscopes. Pumping out experimental data will not be a problem now.
Let me summarize what I am claiming in this post:
(1) If we can lead-out or bring-in energy from the surrounding, there is NO violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
(2) We can lead-out kinetic energy of air molecules. A water rocket gets colder after firing. Some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules is used to propel the rocket and cools the surrounding. The Hydro is such an application.
(3) A string instrument with a resonance box sounds much louder. The traditional explanation was that the louder sound was only a more efficient use of the energy. No additional energy was involved. The NEW explanation is that kinetic energy of air molecules is brought-in to produce the louder sound.
(4) If we can bring-in kinetic energy of air molecules at sound resonance, we should be able to bring-in electron motion energy at electromagnetic resonance. See the attached diagram.
(5) If we add an appropriate capacitor to a standard Joule Thief, we may be able to turn it into an overunity device.
(6) In the particular case of the Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong, a 2.3V 10F capacitor was added to a 2n2222 Joule Thief with a 28 turns, one-inch toroid. The 38 LEDs remained ON for an average of >10 minutes after the battery was removed.
(7) From the waveform comparison and analysis on an Atten 2-channel oscilloscope, the Output Power was found to exceed the Input Power when the battery was removed and when the Output Voltage Frequency increased from 1.4KHz to 2KHz or above.
(8 ) Thus, in applications such as battery charger and Forever Lighted Lamps, we can stay on this range and use the lead-out electron motion energy. Virtually unlimited, pollution-free and cheap energy is no longer a dream. It is a reality.
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 04, 2012, 01:20:46 AM
Most people hope to achieve both precision and accuracy.
Yes, that is right. But if the choice is for one or the other, choose accuracy.
Quote
My eyesight is poor and my hands are shaky. I only hope not to pour too much wine on the floor.
You and me both. I also want to keep face, for you and for me. Therefore we must pour very carefully indeed, with great accuracy as well as with as much precision as we can muster. Let's try to pour the wine into the right glasses, and don't worry too much about a few drops mismeasured out of a full liter bottle.
Quote
I would like to bring in the topic of "negative power". This will show up lots of times in the Input and Output Power measurements. What is your interpretation? ??? ?
This can be a result of many causes and it is nothing to get excited about... yet. For example, the use of AC coupling will introduce a false, negative voltage in your readings, which when multiplied by a positive current value, will yield a negative power... and it's wrong. Another way, illustrated in my Steorn video showing the negative-going integral, results from just the type of problem I talked about above: timing. Specifically "probe skew". Since I was using an electronic current probe with its own time constant that might have been different from the voltage probe's, the current and voltage readings from the spiky signals were not exactly synchronzised. This can also cause that multiplication, and the integration based on it, to go "skewey" and produce a false indication of negative power, which when integrated gives the negative-going integral if the negative power is of long enough duration and great enough magnitude. Does your oscilloscope have a "probe deskew" function? Many digital scopes do. With your relatively low frequency and long risetime spikes, and your plain voltage probes on both channels, this probe skew issue is unlikely to be the cause of your negative power readings. A third cause, which can be seen in the Ainslie case, is improper filtering of the supply voltage signal. With inductances to be considered, even that of interconnecting wiring, the probes may not give you a true reflection of either the waveform shape, or the actual voltages in the circuit. To overcome this problem one must use special, non-inductive current monitoring resistors, very good circuit component layout, and proper probe hookups to properly filtered signals. Your system might be suffering from this problem.
But I think, right now, that the most significant cause is your prior incorrect use of AC coupling for your voltage readings. Do you still get significant negative power readings now that you know to use DC coupling on your data gathering?
Quote
It looks liky that the Christmas Present to the World in 2012 is the confirmation of lead-out energy via two oscilloscopes. Pumping out experimental data will not be a problem now.
I am worried about you, Lawrence. You should worry more about "testing" than "confirmation", because you must always allow for the fact.... however remote and unlikely.... that you could be wrong, and that your experiments could be pumping out not usable and accurate data, but rather very precise garbage. Your overconfident statements make it sound like you are less of a scientist and more of a public-relations or salesman type of fellow. Nothing is wrong with that.... except that you should be quite sure that you really possess what you are trying to sell, and obtaining that assurance is the responsibility of the scientist in you, not the advertising executive.
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 04, 2012, 05:24:35 PM
Let me summarize what I am claiming in this post:
(1) If we can lead-out or bring-in energy from the surrounding, there is NO violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
IF is known as the biggest word in the English language, because it contains so very much speculation. If pigs had wings and takeoff clearance from the tower.... could they fly?
Quote
(2) We can lead-out kinetic energy of air molecules. A water rocket gets colder after firing. Some of the kinetic energy of the air molecules is used to propel the rocket and cools the surrounding. The Hydro is such an application.
Wrong. Fluids and gases cool when they expand; this is an adiabatic process and has nothing to do with the thrust of the water rocket. It is the reverse of the fact that compressing a gas makes it hotter. Adiabatic: thermodynamically reversible with no change in actual _energy content_ due to the temperature/pressure changes.
Quote
(3) A string instrument with a resonance box sounds much louder. The traditional explanation was that the louder sound was only a more efficient use of the energy. No additional energy was involved. The NEW explanation is that kinetic energy of air molecules is brought-in to produce the louder sound.
Where is the empirical support for your New explanation? What experiments have been done to _rule out_ that explanation and have failed to do so? Link please?
If you do not have empirical support for your contentions like that above, please make sure that you label them clearly as unproven conjectures that are still awaiting experimental exploration.
Quote
(4) If we can bring-in kinetic energy of air molecules at sound resonance, we should be able to bring-in electron motion energy at electromagnetic resonance. See the attached diagram.
IF. And the attached diagram makes no sense to me, because the air pressure at the back of the cabin of an airplane moving even supersonically is the same as it is at the front of the cabin.... ask anyone who travelled on Concorde before it was retired.
Quote
(5) If we add an appropriate capacitor to a standard Joule Thief, we may be able to turn it into an overunity device.
And you may not be able to. Personally, I would bet on the latter, not the former.
Quote
(6) In the particular case of the Lead-out Energy Research Kit from BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong, a 2.3V 10F capacitor was added to a 2n2222 Joule Thief with a 28 turns, one-inch toroid. The 38 LEDs remained ON for an average of >10 minutes after the battery was removed.
Big deal. Like I said, I and the other builders on the JT threads here have JTs that _far_ outperform that set of claims. Do we then have much better OU devices than you do?
Quote
(7) From the waveform comparison and analysis on an Atten 2-channel oscilloscope, the Output Power was found to exceed the Input Power when the battery was removed and when the Output Voltage Frequency increased from 1.4KHz to 2KHz or above.
I believe we have decided that your present data sets are unusable because you gathered your input data on separate trial runs from your output data. Furthermore, in this JT circuit it is a natural consequence that frequency increases as supply voltage dwindles.
I don't believe that your present data support your claim here of output power exceeding input power.
Quote
(8 ) Thus, in applications such as battery charger and Forever Lighted Lamps, we can stay on this range and use the lead-out electron motion energy. Virtually unlimited, pollution-free and cheap energy is no longer a dream. It is a reality.
Conclusions based on false premises are false. You are correct, though, that virtually unlimited pollution free energy is not a dream. I think it's more like an adult fantasy.
Come, let us calculate together.
You have some givens: You are starting with a 10 F capacitor charged initially to 2.3 Volts. We know that a 2n2222 JT will run on as little as 0.45 volts or less.... let's use 0.5 volts as the level at which you decide to recharge the cap. And we know that the energy on a capacitor is given by E=CV
2/2. We also know that one Watt is one Joule per second, and that there are 600 seconds in ten minutes.
Initial energy, then, is E=(10F)(2.3V)
2/2 = about 26.5 Joules.
Final energy is E= (10F)(0.5V)
2/2 = about 1.25 Joules, remaining on the capacitor at the end of the run.
This means the cap has supplied just about 25 Joules to the circuit over the time interval.
There are 600 seconds in ten minutes, and a WATT is one Joule PER second.... and 25 Joules PER 600 seconds is 25/600 = 0.04167 W or almost 42 milliWatts _average power_ for that full ten minutes.
You have 38 LEDs, so that allows each LED 42 mW/38LEDs = a bit over one milliWatt continuous average power for the full ten minutes PER EACH LED.
Now.... I think there are folks in this thread who know that you can take 1 milliWatt of average continuous power, chop it up into a 10 percent ON duty cycle with 90 percent OFF.... and now you have EACH LED receiving 10 mW for one tenth of the time... or 20 mW for five percent of the time ..... and lighting brightly, just like any JT does it, by concentrating the power into short, intense spikes that the eye then merges into the appearance of continuous bright light.
Your numbers do not indicate OU at all, nor even particularly good JT performance.
Now what is needed is the precise and accurate measurement of the battery energy used to stuff that initial 26.5 Joules into the capacitor in the first place.
Please.... everybody check my work, I am prone to dropping decimal points or forgetting to divide by 2. Let me know if there are any errors so that I can correct them right away. I would not want to mislead anyone by allowing bad mathematics and bogus calculations to remain uncorrected, for years, or to appear in any daft manuscripts that I might attempt to publish.
that 'First Divine Revelation Concept' disturbs me.
it doesn't belong in a scientific area of this forum.
if you want keep your work scientifically professional I might suggest leaving out such content.
unless of course you really do wanna be known as a nut and a screwball.
@TK
I wish you have the experimental set up in front of you.
I have two pictures for you. The first is the two scope setup. The Capacitor is connected across the battery.
The second is the INPUT VOLTAGE waveform immediately when the battery was disconnected. The INPUT VOLTAGE waveform should then be interpreted as the voltage of the capacitor. It was NOT 2.3V.
*** Just checked. The Average Input Voltage across the Capacitor immediately after disconnecting the battery was 0.369V. After 20 minutes, that value was 0.345V. If we repeat the TK calculation, we have an overunity JT???!!!
Your educated guess is good. It will prepare me for the inevitable "examination" in front of the academics. So far, I have solid data and answers. Some data can be obtained as soon as I see your comments. Thank you.
From the actual experimental data, time lag between measurement of Input and Output of a few seconds would not invalidate the result. The actual time lag in pressing the two buttons at the two separate DSO should not be more than 1 second. The theoretical discussion of accuracy and precision is good but in practice, it does not matter.
*** We are not comparing apples in different seasons. We are comparing apples picked within hours or at most days. The INDICATION experiments are valid. We shall have 30 top Universities with their top of the line DSOs to confirm and verify. We shall also have thousands of Lead-out Energy Research Kits available for any one interested in doing the testing.
The obtaining of Negative Power.
The Average Input Power Points in magic.xls was obtained with the connection unchanged. The readings were taken at one minute intervals. The voltage waveform always stayed positive. However, the current waveform started getting negative. That gave rise to the negative power results.
The circuit was not changed. If we accepted the positive results, we should also accept the negative results. Thus the TK explanations of "possible errors" would not apply.
That led to the inevitable conclusion - the circuit turned into a feedback circuit. The lead-out energy gave more energy back to the source. If the source could accept such energy, the device might self-run.
With the two oscilloscopes and the set up in the demo Center, I can get my team to do many more runs with different loads, different toroids, different transistors etc. All these will be documented and make available to the top Universities for verification. (Or whoever wants to do the double or triple checks.)
The Divine Wine is being poured out. Amen.
@TK,
For the experiment on sound resonance leading out kinetic energy of air molecules, please read:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg24854#msg24854
Divine Revelation 1 start at A28. The photos of the experiment are in there.
For the arrow diagram, please review the textbooks on kinetic theory of gases. An imaginary cube contains many bouncing balls with different velocities. They collide with each other and with the walls of the container. To simplify the conceptual picture, we can let all such bouncing balls have same velocity and align in perfect +X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions.
You can google "kinetic theory of Gases" if you no longer keep the textbooks.
Keep your excellent comments coming. I may not agree but they help to prepare me for the inevitable examinations.
Lawrence.... To use the method I outlined above you must measure the capacitor voltage BEFORE you hook it to the circuit, and then AFTER you unhook it at the end of the run. In addition you do not show any capacitor on your circuit diagram, nor do you indicate the type and number and connection of your multiple LEDs.
Nevertheless, I DO have _almost_ your experiment in front of me. I only have 3 Farads of capacitance though... I cannot afford to buy more, nobody is funding me with a Platinum Visa card. But I have the complete JT 2n2222 circuit with the toroid and 38 LEDs for the load, and the current viewing resistors in place, etc. And my results do not agree with yours.
If you take a 1.5 volt battery and hook it to a 10 F capacitor for some seconds, the capacitor should come up to nearly the voltage of the battery. That will represent the energy in the capacitor. When you then hook that cap to your running circuit, the voltage will be drawn down.... but I am surprised that it is by that much. I confess that I do not understand your voltage readings, because they do not correspond to mine when I use a 3 F , 5.5 V capacitor (all that I have available). When I hook the fully discharged cap to the 1.3 volt NiMH battery through a 1 ohm CVR, it takes about 30 seconds for the cap to come up to just under the battery's no-load voltage. The bank of 38 LEDs lights up as the voltage rises past about 0.65 volts and by the time the cap is fully charged to the battery voltage the LEDs are glowing nicely. I don't think a 2n2222 JT will even start oscillating at 0.37 volts. At the time of the disconnect of the battery, The Cap Has The Same Voltage As The Battery, nearly. And when I remove the battery, it takes about two minutes to drop down to the JT shutoff voltage of about 0.45 volts. Since you have over three times the capacitance it should take your system about 3 times as long to run down. But....my system _never_ gets down to 0.37 volts! It stops dropping when the JT oscillations stop, at about 0.45 volts with this transistor and coil. (EDIT: or rather, the voltage drops very slowly once the LEDs are too dim to see; after ten minutes or so my caps have drained down to that 0.37-0.38 V level almost exactly and remain there for a long time... but that might just be leaky caps, one of mine is nearly ten years old.)
So I don't understand your voltage graph at all, it does not correspond to what I get, and the fact that you have a 10F cap instead of my 3 is not the reason. I have the same circuit as you, the same transistor, the same base resistor, the same LED load and the same toroid with the same number of turns (I think). In fact your graph looks more like a _current_ graph obtained by monitoring the voltage drop across a resistor. Are you sure you don't have your files mixed up?
Please explain exactly how long you leave the battery hooked to the capacitor to charge it, and also tell me how your 38 LEDs are wired. Are they all in parallel, or what? Mine are in two rows of 19 in parallel, with these rows in series.
You are putting up your... statements.... faster than I can deal with them.
There is nothing in the kinetic theory of gases (I do keep the textbooks by the way) that allows for or predicts what you are claiming for "leading out" the energy of air molecules in the way that you describe. Your experiment does not support your contention, either. But let us please not change the subject.
There is something wrong with your measurements, as your recent voltage graph and my own experiments, just now happening, show.
Do you have a video camera? Can you take a short video of your scope, making that trace under the conditions you describe, including all the scope settings? Or just please do the measurement again, but before you hook up the battery measure its voltage. Then tell me exactly how long it was hooked to the 10F capacitor and measure the voltage on the capacitor WITH A DMM. You can leave the DMM hooked to the cap while your circuit is running, to monitor the voltage as it drops. This will not interfere with the circuit if your DMM is a good one with high input impedance, as all modern ones are. I am sorry to be so picky but I really want to see some confirmation of that voltage trace under the conditions you gathered it.
@TK,
We can make this very simple. Tell me what kind of DSOs you have and how many. I shall get one of the oscilloscope-test-ready boards for you. Before I ship it, I shall have my team double and triple check it just like the ones for the top universities. The data will be posted on the Internet.
All you need to do is to hook up the connections as indicated and show the analysis from your DSO. I can justify it as a rehearsal before the sending of such boards to the Universities.
In resonance experiments, one different component may give you very different results. Let us not waste time and energy.
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 05, 2012, 08:08:30 AM
@TK,
We can make this very simple. Tell me what kind of DSOs you have and how many. I shall get one of the oscilloscope-test-ready boards for you. Before I ship it, I shall have my team double and triple check it just like the ones for the top universities. The data will be posted on the Internet.
All you need to do is to hook up the connections as indicated and show the analysis from your DSO. I can justify it as a rehearsal before the sending of such boards to the Universities.
In resonance experiments, one different component may give you very different results. Let us not waste time and energy.
You are not being cooperative. You are not answering my questions nor are you explaining the things I want you to explain. Let us not waste time and energy talking about resonance when you have none: your scope traces do not reflect a resonant condition in your transformer. If you had resonance in your transformer your output would look very different. Did you not watch my video where I resonate the JT coil? As it is... your output looks exactly like mine.
But OK, I will play your game. I don't want you to send me anything, though. I just want you to do some testing in parallel with me, right here and now. I'll test my board and you test yours and we will compare values and scopeshots and all of that. OK? The first thing I want you to do is to reproduce that voltage measurement graph and tell me exactly the things I have asked for. Surely this is easier and faster than you trying to send me something from your location, and it will be more instructive as well.
For your information, I have available a Tektronix DPO4034 4-channel oscilloscope, with live math capability. Unfortunately only the one. I also have available a Clarke-Hess 2330 power analyzer and some very sensitive high impedance voltmeters. These instruments do not belong to me and I have to travel some little distance to use them, so I do not do so casually. I do not yet feel the need for a DSO in analyzing your system, though, and your reliance on one is actually quite depressing, since it's pretty clear that you are just learning how to use a scope in the first place and you still are not clear on the relationship between power and energy.
I believe that we should at least have oscilloscope-test-ready boards with similar characteristics before our discussions can be fruitful.
My measurements are to be done in 20 minute run intervals. Your board died in about 2 minutes. Please let me send you a properly tuned FLEET. The top Universities wanted and demanded that. I believe that it is the right thing to do. Asking me to accept the result of your 2-minute board as authorative is too much!!!!!
QuoteAsking me to accept the result of your 2-minute board as authorative is too much!!!!!
And it is something that I have not done.
I have asked you to explain to me the exact conditions under which your last scopeshot was obtained. I have also asked you to do some simple experiments in parallel with me, so that we both may understand what is going on. I have never stated that my work is "authorative" (sic), but rather that yours is NOT. There is a big difference there. Unless I can duplicate your conditions I cannot proceed, clearly. And I DO NOT WANT you to send me a board at all, because there will be many accusations resulting from that action should I accept. What I will consent to is for ME to send a board of my circuit to whomever is testing YOUR board, so that they can be tested side-by-side. The fact that I cannot afford to buy copies of your supercapacitor clearly works against me here, but I don't care.... whoever tests can no doubt provide a suitable capacitor to install in my unit.
What is the voltage on your capacitor, measured with a simple DMM, at the start of the 20 minute period and at the end of the 20 minute period? Is this such a hard question for you to answer? Why?
ETA: Do you know the "tolerance" range of your supercaps? The ones I find that look similar have a tolerance of
-20%〜+80%
of rated capacitance.
This means to me that you don't even know the capacitance of your capacitors, unless you have measured each and every one of them with some kind of accurate and precise techniques. Have you done this?
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/746 (https://www.sparkfun.com/products/746)
ETA2: What are the specifics of your toroid windings? Those pictures do not appear to show what you said in your last description that I can find.
More clarification.
The oscilloscope-test-ready board has the following features:
(1) Allow the tester to put in any load.
(2) Allow the tester to use battery, DC Power Supply, Capacitor alone.
(3) Or capacitor with either battery or DC Power Supply.
See the updated diagram.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 05, 2012, 05:29:55 PM
Unless I can duplicate your conditions I cannot proceed, clearly.
you seem to have great difficulty 'duplicating' a lot of these JT circuits... you cannot 'duplicate' gadget's, you cannot 'duplicate' lasersaber's, etc., etc.
anyone else notice this pattern?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on December 06, 2012, 03:43:55 PM
you seem to have great difficulty 'duplicating' a lot of these JT circuits... you cannot 'duplicate' gadget's, you cannot 'duplicate' lasersaber's, etc., etc.
anyone else notice this pattern?
In this field of FLEET research, a different component, a different connection, a different power source etc.
can make a big difference. Note that I use
FLEET and not JT. JT is easy to reproduce. FLEET is NOT - overunity is only achieved at certain frequencies and conditions. TK's refusal to accept an already tried and tested unit makes his research very difficult. His lack of financial resources also make him impossible to exactly replicate every detail.
His assumption that his old 5V 3F capacitor will work in the same way as the 2.3V 10F capacitor is an example. Instead of testing my claim with my prototype, he wants the testers to test HIS prototype side-by-side with mine. Due to his lack of financial resources, he wants the tester to replace the capacitor for the tests. I talked to one of the testers and his remark was to ignore TK.
I enjoy and respect his posts. His recommendation of using DC coupling was a
great help to my work. It helped to narrow down the exact instant when output > input.
The Forever Lighted Lamp research no long relied on trial and error. Thanks to his enlightenment.
I shall meet with the owners of G-LED and BSI in the next few days. The Forever Lighted Lamp is likely to be the
killer application that will convince both experts and layman. There is
no need for argument or comments when the customer does not need to pay any electricity bills.
The Divine Wine is here.
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 06, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
Note that I use FLEET and not JT.
your semantic argument is asinine. a rose by any other name is still a rose... ::)
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 06, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
There is no need for argument or comments when the customer does not need to pay any electricity bills.
yeah... ::) let us know when you manage to accomplish that... ;)
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 06, 2012, 06:49:19 PM
The Divine Wine is here.
and you have obviously had too much.
All right, I'm done with you lot. I've tried to help you Lawrence but apparently you do not need my help....even though you have been making great mistakes all along, as your "ac coupling" error shows. I should think that would have humbled you a little bit.
It takes my circuit, as configured now, driving a bank of 24 white LEDs in series-parallel as shown in my last video, over eleven minutes to run down from 1.500 volts charge on the 3 Farad capacitor, to 0.500 volts remaining. The bank of LEDs is dim at that point but by no means dark. I think that if one recharged at 0.750 volts....that would be at around 8 minutes for me with my old 3 F, 5.5 V capacitors .... one might not notice the dimming over the operational period. I wonder how long it would take if I had a 10 F capacitor, and a Platinum Visa card, like you. I think it would be more like 24 minutes, or even more.... but that's a conjecture, not a claim. I know better than to make claims for which I do not have solid evidence.
Have fun. We'll never know if your circuit outperforms mine or not, will we.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 07, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
We'll never know if your circuit outperforms mine or not, will we.
guess not... when you're such a quitter. ;)
At least he can QUIT, because he is sharing.
Before you can do that, simple thing of quitting, you have first have to start / contributing!?
Regards, Johan
Quote from: Johan_1955 on December 07, 2012, 04:18:09 AM
Before you can do that, simple thing of quitting, you have first have to start / contributing!?
which is why i was able to QUIT as well... ;)
regards... ::)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 07, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
All right, I'm done with you lot. I've tried to help you Lawrence but apparently you do not need my help....even though you have been making great mistakes all along, as your "ac coupling" error shows. I should think that would have humbled you a little bit.
*** That error got me to focus on the voltage fluctuations when I used the battery or the DC Power Supply. I claimed that the FLEET circuit could produce pulsing voltages back to the Input. That led me to develop FLEET with "wrong COP" values in the thousands. On redoing the measurement with DC Coupling, those "wrong COP" FLEETs still give COP>1 with certain frequencies. The researchers that never make that mistake might never go on that path as they gave up when they saw the COP<1 value. It is an example I called God's Blessing. Thanks for pointing out that error before the Universities. However, I am sure that with the oscilloscope-test-ready board in front of them, they will easily detect the COP>1 situations.
*** The AC coupling got me into the investigation of NEGATIVE POWER much earlier. Is that another Divine Blessing???
It takes my circuit, as configured now, driving a bank of 24 white LEDs in series-parallel as shown in my last video, over eleven minutes to run down from 1.500 volts charge on the 3 Farad capacitor, to 0.500 volts remaining. The bank of LEDs is dim at that point but by no means dark. I think that if one recharged at 0.750 volts....that would be at around 8 minutes for me with my old 3 F, 5.5 V capacitors .... one might not notice the dimming over the operational period.
*** If you have a twin timer, charge the circuit for 3 seconds and then turn off the power for 3 minutes and repeat, you will probably find that your lights appear to be bright all the time. If you reharge another rechargeable battery at the same time with the appropriate circuitary, you will be able to compete with G-LED and BSI on their Forever Lighted Lamps. However, they already applied for patents.
I wonder how long it would take if I had a 10 F capacitor, and a Platinum Visa card, like you. I think it would be more like 24 minutes, or even more.... but that's a conjecture, not a claim. I know better than to make claims for which I do not have solid evidence.
*** So you know that our claim of the demo board from BSI can light up 38 LEDS for an average of over 20 minutes is no exaggeration. Hudreds of people have seen and played with it already. Get a 2.3V 10F capacitor. Use your DSO and do your correct measurements with a DC power supply. You will find that charging your circuit with even 0.4V for < 3 seconds, a single LED circuit can be ON for over 20 minutes. Your 4 channel DSO will immediately show COP > 1 at some point over these 20 minutes. I envy you for having such - you do not need to do the many hours of EXCEL analysis afterwards.
Have fun. We'll never know if your circuit outperforms mine or not, will we.
I am sure your results will show similar
support that the COP >1 under certain conditions as the 30 top Universities will. Once we all master the
technique of staying on such conditions and use the resulting lead-out energy, there is no World Energy Crisis. Patrick Kelly's book is a great help.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World.
Instead of rechargeable Battery A and B. Use Capacitor A and B.
*** Recharge at the lead-out energy range..... Use DC coupling on your DSO to confirm. Thanks to TK.
The Forever Lighted Lamps only require a battery to start. (May even use a hand crank unit).
I shall try it out on my Christmas lights. You can too.
*** The components in the Lead-out Energy Research Kit can demonstrate the Forever Lighted Lamp if the user use himself as the timer and the swapper! Providing two 2.3V 10F capacitors in the Kit turns out to be another "lucky decision"? Or is it Divine Guidance???
All Glory to the Almighty.
@tseung888
Will you send me an already tried and tested unit, if I pm you my mail address?
Jesus
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 07, 2012, 07:24:13 AM
Instead of rechargeable Battery A and B. Use Capacitor A and B.
*** Recharge at the lead-out energy range..... Use DC coupling on your DSO to confirm. Thanks to TK.
The Forever Lighted Lamps only require a battery to start. (May even use a hand crank unit).
I shall try it out on my Christmas lights. You can too.
*** The components in the Lead-out Energy Research Kit can demonstrate the Forever Lighted Lamp if the user use himself as the timer and the swapper! Providing two 2.3V 10F capacitors in the Kit turns out to be another "lucky decision"? Or is it Divine Guidance???
All Glory to the Almighty.
Hi Lawrence,
Can I purchase your fleet kit / Forever Lighted Lamp? I could pick them up from your Tsuen Wan office or any other location in Hong Kong. Please let me know the price.
Quote from: nievesoliveras on December 07, 2012, 04:28:25 PM
@tseung888
Will you send me an already tried and tested unit, if I pm you my mail address?
Jesus
Have you got one or two DSO? What make are they? The connection instructions are slightly different.
Will you be willing to post your results on this forum?
I shall test it and post the results here first. Your results will be a direct confirmation. You can then do the improvement later.
God Bless
Quote from: bs2012 on December 07, 2012, 09:53:25 PM
Hi Lawrence,
Can I purchase your fleet kit / Forever Lighted Lamp? I could pick them up from your Tsuen Wan office or any other location in Hong Kong. Please let me know the price.
The business people are working on the marketing strategy and pricing.
However, you can be one of the local testers for one of the units for the Universities. There is no charge if you help in performing the tests. It is all volunteers at present. You may get a free meal.
Email me at ltseung@hotmal.com.
Quote from: ltseung888 on December 08, 2012, 07:44:03 AM
Have you got one or two DSO? What make are they? The connection instructions are slightly different.
Will you be willing to post your results on this forum?
I shall test it and post the results here first. Your results will be a direct confirmation. You can then do the improvement later.
God Bless
I dont think that in order to prove that your devise is overunity I need the DSO.
A joule thief is so sensitive sometimes that connecting it to a DSO will give it extra power.
Just by turning it on without the DSO and let it be, you can see if it is really overunity.
Jesus
The Input Waveforms showing that the Input Power turned negative after 7 minutes.
The top curve was the Instantaneous Voltage. It slowly dropped down with time as expected.
The bottom curve was the Instantaneous Current. The fluctation got less and it slowly dropped down and actually turned negative.
The Instantaneous Input Power thus turned negative. Conclusive evidence???
*** Average Negative power implied Feedback Circuit. More energy went back to source than supplied!!! This is the magic of Lead-out Energy.
*** More conclusive evidence and oscilloscope data will be coming. This will be a very Merry Christmas for the World - especially the free energy researchers.
TK and Bill:
Just to complete the point about resonance from two weeks ago.
How does a 555 timer work? Current from the supply source flows through a resistance to charge up a capacitor. When the capacitor reaches 2/3 of the supply voltage a comparitor is triggered and the capacitor is discharged and the process starts all over again. So the value of the resistance and the value of the capacitance determine the operating frequency for a 555 configured as an astable multivibrator.
Now, would you call that "resonance?" It's not resonance and it has nothing to do with resonance. It's just the "operating frequency" of the device that is determined by the timing components.
By the same token, a JT has an "operating frequency" that is determined by the values of certain components. For all intents and purposes a JT is just an astable multivibrator that charges an inductor and then discharges the inductor through a load that is typically an LED or a string of LEDs.
Again, as a reminder, real "resonance" means that energy is circulating back and forth between an inductive and a capacitive set of circuit elements. It could be an electrical LC tank circuit, a ringing bell, or when you blow air across the top of a beer bottle to make it sound a note.
Resonance is always associated with observing increased voltage and increased current in an LC tank circuit. People see that and they think that perhaps "extra energy" or "extra power" is somehow manifesting itself when in fact that's not true. An LC tank circuit will absorb energy to the point where it is in equilibrium - the energy being put into the storage system is equal to the energy being burnt off in the storage system. There is a pervasive fundamental misunderstanding of what real resonance means.
So why did Bill's JT circuit make the LEDs jump in brightness when he changed the value of the base resistor? I don't know the answer but the way to find out why is with an oscilloscope. Like I said before, the LED will increase in brightness when the JT circuit puts more average power into the inductor. Sometimes astable oscillators like the JT circuit will have characteristics called "metastability" where for a reason that could be determined with enough diligence and investigation, you will find that the circuit can "snap" into a certain operating mode that can give you increased brightness from the LEDs.
It's a challenge to figure these things out and you learn in the process that there is no phenomenon of resonance at play in a JT circuit. For what it's worth there is no "lead out" process happening either.
MileHigh
is this how the atomic bomb got to china???
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 09, 2012, 08:18:23 AM
is this how the atomic bomb got to china???
The oscilloscope-test-ready board (atomic bomb) for China has such data and more. Wait a couple more days. The Business people are working on the marketing strategy.
My goal is to benefit the World - not just one nation. But so far, all indications are that China will pour resources on this Lead-out Energy technology first.
The Output BMP files for the oscilloscope-test-ready board and comments can be found in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26967#msg26967 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26967#msg26967)
The search of overunity devices is over. ONE has been found. The next challenge is the Forever Lighted Lamp. At least three Companies claim to have working prototypes.
Mark Dansie doesn't appear to be convinced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
He talks about Joule Thieves just after he talks about the Wayne Travis buoyancy device.
19:35 is where he expresses his opinion on Joule Thieves ... I believe he is talking about _your_ JT, Lawrence. Didn't you ask him to look at your device?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 07, 2012, 02:44:37 AM
All right, I'm done with you lot.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 13, 2012, 04:09:15 AM
Mark Dansie doesn't appear to be convinced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj8-7nOjRaQ
He talks about Joule Thieves just after he talks about the Wayne Travis buoyancy device.
19:35 is where he expresses his opinion on Joule Thieves ... I believe he is talking about _your_ JT, Lawrence. Didn't you ask him to look at your device?
compare and contrast... ::) and yet this obsessive troll has the audacity to call others "mendacious"... ::)
it took him less than a week to demonstrate his complete lack of integrity.
I see a silly sailor still searches for semantic arguments in an impotent attempt to disparage me.
Lawrence will receive no more material help from me, because he doesn't need it. Even though I seem to have convinced him that at least one of his basic uses of the oscilloscope for power calculations was wrong, amateurish, and the claims based on data gathered this way are unsupportable and premature
Now I've pointed out that the Pope of Skeptics, Mark Dansie, is tired of being harassed by JT aficionadoes, since several pages back LTseung placed his hopes on Dansie's expected confirmation of his gadgetry's overunity performance.
And the main effect of this is that I am once again attacked and disparaged by the Supreme Troll, who is apparently emailed a notice every time I make a post, so that he can descend right away and make some further impotent and stupid attack upon me.
I find it highly amusing that someone who takes this tack is clearly "three sheets to the wind."
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 13, 2012, 02:38:20 PM
I see a silly sailor still searches for semantic arguments in an impotent attempt to disparage me.
Lawrence will receive no more material help from me, because he doesn't need it. Even though I seem to have convinced him that at least one of his basic uses of the oscilloscope for power calculations was wrong, amateurish, and the claims based on data gathered this way are unsupportable and premature
Now I've pointed out that the Pope of Skeptics, Mark Dansie, is tired of being harassed by JT aficionadoes, since several pages back LTseung placed his hopes on Dansie's expected confirmation of his gadgetry's overunity performance.
And the main effect of this is that I am once again attacked and disparaged by the Supreme Troll, who is apparently emailed a notice every time I make a post, so that he can descend right away and make some further impotent and stupid attack upon me.
I find it highly amusing that someone who takes this tack is clearly "three sheets to the wind."
still grasping at strawmen and red herrings i see... ::) did you or did you not say you "i'm done with you lot"? and did you or did you not then post again less than a week later?as an aside, you thinking i am jibguy is about as funny to me as the 'brian little thing' is to you... ::) ironically you're the same as who you mock. :D and again you mendacious troll, it's wilby. as in 'will be'... as in mendacious trolls like you WILL BE driving me to drink. future tense. not past, not present, future. you moron...
You should hold your breath and jump up and down until you turn blue, it will be more effective than what you are doing now.
Did you or did you not promise to send me a mosfet, and then mock me for being such a fool as to trust YOU, the well-known Master Troll of this forum? Of course you did, and whether I "should have" believed what you told me or not is beside the point: you said you would send me a mosfet and you never had any intention of doing so. You lied to me, you tricked me into giving you a mailing address, and I won't let you forget it. You have no credibility at all, you tricky likkle pickle you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 06:05:17 AM
You should hold your breath and jump up and down until you turn blue, it will be more effective than what you are doing now.
Did you or did you not promise to send me a mosfet, and then mock me for being such a fool as to trust YOU, the well-known Master Troll of this forum? Of course you did, and whether I "should have" believed what you told me or not is beside the point: you said you would send me a mosfet and you never had any intention of doing so. You lied to me, you tricked me into giving you a mailing address, and I won't let you forget it. You have no credibility at all, you tricky likkle pickle you.
more red herrings... ::) you're as ignorant as the godtards... ::)
learn something you logically fallacious, mendacious little troll... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdK7Lirngg
FURTHERMORE, you mocked me first... the record demonstrates this. you shouldn't have dished it out if you can't take it little girl. didn't your sensei teach you anything? nor did i "trick you"... ::) the record demonstrates this as well... would you like me post images of the record? so you can curse me and run away to your mommy for a year when you are checkmated AGAIN?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 06:41:15 PMGee, isn't this fun? I get to mock you with your own words.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 07, 2009, 07:05:11 PMAt this point it's mostly because it's fun to rattle your cage.
want more? you're checkmating yourself AGAIN you logically fallacious, mendacious troll... ::)
just as you have admitted it being "personal" between you and rosemary, it is personal between you and i. you should have kept your fat little mouth shut... when you learn to either act professionally and courteously or shut the hell up, i'll leave you alone. until then... you can cry to your mommy some more. ::)
@all
How can i make a high voltage static electricity without using van de graaf generator?
Quote from: Neo-X on December 14, 2012, 06:45:45 AM
@all
How can i make a high voltage static electricity without using van de graaf generator?
whimshurst... but more generally speaking you have two options: triboelectric effect or electrostatic induction.
You can use a Bonetti machine, or a Dirod, or a Kelvin water-drop machine or a few other methods I know about.
What kinds of things do you want to do with your HV static electricity, and why don't you want to use a VanDeGraaf?
My favorite is the Moore's Dirod, but I can get much higher voltages from a Bonetti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir9RIsXzmzY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir9RIsXzmzY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fWasxYQZZw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGFqkXjwZc)
whimshurst... but more
generally speaking you have
two options: triboelectric
effect or electrostatic
induction.
--End of Quote--
What is the easiest to build?
TinselKoala: You can use a Bonetti
machine, or a Dirod, or a
Kelvin water-drop machine
or a few other methods I
know about. What kinds of things do you
want to do with your HV
static electricity, and why
don't you want to use a
VanDeGraaf? My favorite is the Moore's
Dirod, but I can get much
higher voltages from a
Bonetti.
--End of Quote--
Thanks.. I want to experiment with high voltage because i have a feelling that free energy appear at high voltage but using high voltage transformer is very dangerous because of its high current so im thinking to use static electricity. Another problem is i have no money to buy van de graaf generator and i dont know how to make one.
@Neo-X:
A fairly easy way to create high voltage (up to 20 KV) is by building an electrophorus. Search the net for "electrophorus" and you will find good explanations.
I attach a simple circuit (elctrophorus, 3 HV diodes, 1 HV capacitor) and photos of an electrophorus I built.
It is difficult to find HV diodes and HV capacitors (5 KV or 20 KV). The Chinese will sell you some for a good price, look at eBay. They even send them free of charge from Hongkong, PayPal payment works nicely.
The circuit allows you to "pump" a high voltage into the capacitor by lifting the top steel plate of the electrophorus away from the bottom part (acrylic disk covering an other steel plate) and putting it back (many times).
The handle on the top plate is important and has to be plastic. The acrylic plate is best glued to the bottom steel plate with epoxy. The bottom plate needs insulating "feet" (can be wood or plastic). Note, it has to be disks, rectangular eletrophorus plates give strange results (the charge does not spread evenly).
The acrylic plate has to be rubbed a few times with a synthetic fabric or best with real wool, synthetic wool also worked.
The huge diodes on one photo are Russian 10 KV 100 mA diodes, which I bought from a German surplus store some 20 years ago. But I bought HV diodes recently from China (50 KV) via eBay, also HV capacitors.
The best materials for an electrophor: sheet steel disks (e.g. diameter 300 millimeter, thickness 0,5 mm) and acrylic disk (e.g. thickness 3 mm, has to be bigger than the sheet steel disks)
Greetings, Conrad
@conradelektro
Thanks i greatly appreciate your help but i will choose the kelvin drop machine because i think its easy to build and its cost no money.
I watch this m.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rHcC3_Dwk it was really great. The parts are mostly trash yet it worked. :D
I had great trouble building the drop machine.
The droplets start to fly all over (are bent away from a straight downward path) and make everything wet, which short circuits the charges.
It is also tricky to get nice drops, either too few or a water jet.
The Wimshurst machine is not very difficult to build. Use acrylic disks and aluminium foil for the sectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine)
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/wimshurst.html (http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/wimshurst.html)
Study this site http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/electrostatic.html (http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/electrostatic.html) before building anything.
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/bohnenberger.html (http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/bohnenberger.html) quite nice!
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/electro/electro6.html (http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/electro/electro6.html) easy!
http://makeprojects.com/Project/Simple+Van+de+Graaff+Generator/2072/1#.UMtv4ne7kax (http://makeprojects.com/Project/Simple+Van+de+Graaff+Generator/2072/1#.UMtv4ne7kax) about the same!
http://mark.rehorst.com/Van_de_Graaff/ very nice!
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Neo-X on December 14, 2012, 11:56:11 AM
whimshurst... but more
generally speaking you have
two options: triboelectric
effect or electrostatic
induction.
--End of Quote--
What is the easiest to build?
The Bonetti is sometimes referred to as a sectorless Wimshurst. The Wimshurst machine is an induction machine but uses brushes that must physically contact the conductive sectors in order to work. It is also limited in voltage because of the sharp edges of the foil or metal sheet sectors; they blow off charge before the machine develops a really really high voltage. The Bonetti, with essentially the same design, uses no sectors and no contact brushes but rather uses corona combs to deposit and collect charge from the non-conducting surface of the disks. It can reach much higher voltages than a Wimshurst of the same size disks and can make more current too. The advantage of the Wimshurst machine is that it is "self starting" whereas the Bonetti , as you can see in my video, needs a tiny bit of charge... from my fingers or other source.... to begin the induction process.
They are both induction machines. Simple triboelectric machines are easy to build too but are not nearly as much fun as a powerful induction machine. The Moore's Dirod that I show is probably the most complicated of the machines in my "stable" but it is also my favorite, even though it can only make 65 kV on a gry day. That's plenty for ordinary static demonstrations. When you get into the 300kV range like my Bonettis, you are starting to get dangerous. I would not want to take a 300kV spark, with 400 picoFarads behind it, to my body.
The electrophorus that Conrad shows is the very simplest static machine that is practical for use. His design using HV diodes is really cool, I have not seen one like that before. Usually they just have the plates and no wiring, good for single cycles only, but can make incredible HV on just the one cycle.
The Van De Graaf is actually a good place to start and does not require anything more than an electric motor (or a hand crank) and some ingenuity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc
My VDG videos start with this one made from garbage, and continue on to larger ones using Chinese stainless steel soupbowls and later, hub-caps for top and bottom capacities. They all use plain ordinary rubber bands for belts... the larger ones use large rubber bands !
Since the world will end anyway in a few days I disclose some more electrophorus circuits. I could have made trillions selling this technology, but god told me to give it away for free at this late hour. If you send money, send gold, because it will survive December 21st.
(You should believe what is stated below but not necessarily what is stated above this line!)
It is possible to create some sort of alternating current with an electrophorus and one can connect multiple electrophoruses. See the circuits and the photo below.
I know, it has nothing to do with a Joule Thief, but it works in case you want to create high tension with very simple means.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: MileHigh on December 09, 2012, 02:30:26 AM
TK and Bill:
Just to complete the point about resonance from two weeks ago.
How does a 555 timer work? Current from the supply source flows through a resistance to charge up a capacitor. When the capacitor reaches 2/3 of the supply voltage a comparitor is triggered and the capacitor is discharged and the process starts all over again. So the value of the resistance and the value of the capacitance determine the operating frequency for a 555 configured as an astable multivibrator.
Now, would you call that "resonance?" It's not resonance and it has nothing to do with resonance. It's just the "operating frequency" of the device that is determined by the timing components.
By the same token, a JT has an "operating frequency" that is determined by the values of certain components. For all intents and purposes a JT is just an astable multivibrator that charges an inductor and then discharges the inductor through a load that is typically an LED or a string of LEDs.
Again, as a reminder, real "resonance" means that energy is circulating back and forth between an inductive and a capacitive set of circuit elements. It could be an electrical LC tank circuit, a ringing bell, or when you blow air across the top of a beer bottle to make it sound a note.
Resonance is always associated with observing increased voltage and increased current in an LC tank circuit. People see that and they think that perhaps "extra energy" or "extra power" is somehow manifesting itself when in fact that's not true. An LC tank circuit will absorb energy to the point where it is in equilibrium - the energy being put into the storage system is equal to the energy being burnt off in the storage system. There is a pervasive fundamental misunderstanding of what real resonance means.
So why did Bill's JT circuit make the LEDs jump in brightness when he changed the value of the base resistor? I don't know the answer but the way to find out why is with an oscilloscope. Like I said before, the LED will increase in brightness when the JT circuit puts more average power into the inductor. Sometimes astable oscillators like the JT circuit will have characteristics called "metastability" where for a reason that could be determined with enough diligence and investigation, you will find that the circuit can "snap" into a certain operating mode that can give you increased brightness from the LEDs.
It's a challenge to figure these things out and you learn in the process that there is no phenomenon of resonance at play in a JT circuit. For what it's worth there is no "lead out" process happening either.
MileHigh
MH:
I would not think that the 555 timer circuit would hit resonance, but I still believe that a JT can.
Check out this video done by Stefan a few years back on an early replication of Dr. Stiffler's work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRw_sCzhFnk&list=FL0bTBCRogMzrYTQT3pbhxwg&index=397 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRw_sCzhFnk&list=FL0bTBCRogMzrYTQT3pbhxwg&index=397)
I know this is not a JT circuit as it has many more components but, he hits resonance and it has a coil over a ferrite core. I will play around with one of my simple circuits and my scope to see if I can document what happens at the "sweet spot". If it looks like anything, I will post a video.
Thanks for the reply.
Bill
PS I thought of Stefan's video when I was trying to explain the jump in brightness while fine tuning the JT circuit. It is a non-linear jump just as you see happens to Stefan with his circuit. You can see how the brightness jumps to a higher level when he says he hits resonance. This is what made me remember his video.
Bill:
I looked at Stefan's clip where he replicates a Dr. Stiffler circuit. I haven't watched any Dr. Stiffler clips in a long time but I recall how the majority of them were based on a transmitting oscillator based on some sort of LC tank circuit exciting a receiving LC tank circuit tuned to the transmitting frequency. So indeed resonance is at play at both ends of those circuits.
When you look at your JT try to focus on the charge and discharge cycle for the main inductor that drives the LEDs. In theory an inductor charge cycle (transistor on) that is say between three and four L/R time constants, and a discharge cycle (transistor off) that is only long enough for the coil to discharge perhaps 90% of its stored energy will give you maximum brightness with a fairly efficient power consumption. The whole idea being to keep the pump (the inductor) running with as much energy throughput as possible with a minimum of "dead" time.
There are two "dead" times for the inductor. If the transistor is on for too long, say more than four L/R time constants, then most of your supplied battery power is just being burnt off in the resistance of the wires and also in the internal resistance of the battery itself. The other "dead" time is when the the transistor is off for too long. So the LED flashes and the inductor is fully discharged and doing nothing.
I am not factoring in the persistence of vision here, and just focusing on keeping the main inductor "busy" all the time either charging or discharging. I am speculating that this will give you the brightest LED display. However, it might not be the most efficient in terms of how much battery power you used to get the level of illumination.
I am still trying to demystify the JT and I will say it again: It's just a circuit for charging and then discharging an inductor through a load, nothing more than that. If you ignore the property of the circuit where it can work at very low voltages, then a CMOS 555 timer doing the same coil charge-discharge cycle will easily outperform a JT circuit and give you full control over the timing of the charging and discharging, the size of the inductor that you want to work with, and the initial current through the inductor at the start of the discharge cycle. This means that you can decide exactly how much energy you want to discharge through the load and you also have control over the L/R time constant and can decide how much energy you are willing to lose due to resistive losses in the coil wire itself.
MileHigh
Here's a neat little treat. I've been playing with this Arduino inductance tester and the way it operates is very cool.
Take a look at the scope trace below. Using a simple external circuit with an op-amp voltage comparator chip, the Arduino sends a brief pulse to the inductor under test, which is wired in parallel with a fixed and known capacitor to make a resonant tank. (lower trace). The tank responds with a ringing at its resonant frequency when the brief pulse stops. The comparator chip responds to the zero-crossings (voltage reversals) of the ringdown and produces a solid clean pulse at the same frequency, but not decaying, as the inductor-capacitor tank's ringdown. (upper trace). This pulse is read by the Arduino itself and the frequency is used to calculate the final output of the inductance value of the device under test.
The possibilities should be obvious, although I just now thought of them. It should be pretty easy to route the comparator output back into the tank circuit and have a situation where the system seeks and maintains its resonant frequency automagically.
Some of these comparator chips will work on very low power supply voltages, not just input voltages too; the KA393 that I found in a TV circuit board has two independent comparators in it and will work on 2 volts power supply, and as the scopetrace shows it responds to tiny voltage differences, detecting the ringdown until it's almost totally dissipated.
(top trace at 2v/div, bottom at 5v/div, sorry I didn't position it on a graticule line, my bad)
Lets back to joule thief. We all know that ferrite start to sing at audio frequency because of magnetostriction. Suppose we get a magnet with coil around it and connect it in series with the primary of ferrite transformer and we tune it to the loudest sound that ferrite can produce, is it possibe to self oscillate it like Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA) did? I imagine if we tune the ferrite to sing vigorously, the magnet near the feritte transformer will also vibrate and will induce voltage to the coil around it thus supplying additional voltage to the ferrite primary to keep oscillating and singing. This will need a conditioning process like MRA did. When the conditioning process is finished, in theory it powered itself and the ac supply can be removed.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1596.msg27361#msg27361
A 4 LED JT works better than a 1 LED JT???
Resonance or magic???
Neither one, just simple electronics.
4 LEDs in series cause the voltage to rise higher before the LEDs turn on and cause it to drop again. This lowers the frequency of the JT, which in turn reduces the input current drain. But does it affect the light output? There is a difference between what the eye sees and what is actually happening. The eye sees a continuous light, but the LEDs are actually flashing on and off.
This phenomenon is why I changed my flashlight bank of 24 parallel LEDs into a bank of 2 x (12 parallel LEDs) in series, and why I put 4 x NE-2, 90-volt neons in series, in my HVJT.
Your Christmas gift to the world? Well, thank you LTseung for being so generous.
Re-mystifying the Joule Thief: JT basic testbed (circuit identical to LTseung's) with addition of 70 nF poly film cap, switchable across 1k base resistor, and using the modified Loopstick as the inductor. Load is 24 LEDs, (12 parallel) + (12 parallel) in series. Note that I get pretty good "dim" brightness in the array, even at 1 V and 0.6 milliamps (600 microAmps) input. That is 25 _microwatts_ per LED. Even at the "full" brightness level (with cap) the system only draws 9 or 10 mA, or well under half a milliWatt per LED.
And....the system has several distinct operating modes, but a battery that is too full saturates it and makes it stop working.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs)
Resonance or magic?!?
Or just electronics......
:P
PFM ;) Interesting effect.
More: Confirmation of DMM voltage drop across CVR reading, input current and output voltage waveforms, response to changing inductor setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJPi35cRrE
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 31, 2012, 09:34:36 AM
Re-mystifying the Joule Thief: JT basic testbed (circuit identical to LTseung's) with addition of 70 nF poly film cap, switchable across 1k base resistor, and using the modified Loopstick as the inductor. Load is 24 LEDs, (12 parallel) + (12 parallel) in series. Note that I get pretty good "dim" brightness in the array, even at 1 V and 0.6 milliamps (600 microAmps) input. That is 25 _microwatts_ per LED. Even at the "full" brightness level (with cap) the system only draws 9 or 10 mA, or well under half a milliWatt per LED.
And....the system has several distinct operating modes, but a battery that is too full saturates it and makes it stop working.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs)
Resonance or magic?!?
Or just electronics......
:P
@TK,
Great job. Now I appreciate my Atten Digital Oscilloscope much more. If you can capture the instantaneous Voltage and the instanteneous Current on your scope and analyze them, you will get the instantaneous Power. With the Input and Output Power waveforms, you can get the COP.
Your simple technique of varying the inductance is great. I shall learn from that. The tuning gets even better. Resonance or magic???
If you have a higher capacitance (2.3V 10F), you can even take out the battery totally for say, 20 minutes. You can then determine at what frequency range will get you the best COP.
If you use a DC Power Supply, you can find that a lower voltage may get you a higher COP which you already found with two different batteries. But to find a commercial FLEET condidtion, the DC Power Supply is necessary.
By the way, my 4 LED set up was connected in parallel. They gave more light, draw less current and gave higher COP..... Resonance or Magic???
Thanks for confirming the Christmas Gift in your different and brilliant way.
@TinselKoala:
I watched your latest videos (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJPi35cRrE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJPi35cRrE) ) and I remember the following test results:
A Joule Thief starts to oscillate easily in case one uses a high inductanc coil (e.g. a Ferrite toroid). With a high inductance coil one also gets away with many different ratios between primary and secondary (1:1 ratio will always work, higher ratios give higer output Voltage).
It all becomes much more sensitive with a low inductance coil (e.g. air coil). First of all the ratio between primary and secondary starts to matter. And also the power supply voltage becomes an issue. Power supply voltages higher than 8 Volt cause problems (the transistor starts to burn). Careful pulse shaping at the base (capacitor and diode from base to ground) allows higher supply voltages up to 24 Volt.
So, hight inductance coil, one gets away with a lot of the parameters, things are easy.
Low inductance coil, one has to be careful with the ratio between primary and secondary and with the pulse at the base when using a high supply voltage. The low inductance coil is interesting because it allows high frequency operation in the MHz, which seems to lower power consumption.
Greetings, Conrad
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1617.msg27510#msg27510 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1617.msg27510#msg27510)
I am building many prototypes that showed overunity with the two Atten Oscilloscopes. The difference with the standard JT is the addition of a proper capacitor in parallel with the Power Supply. If a super capacitor such as 2.3V 10F were used, the LED would remain ON for many minutes. The frequency would change and some peaks would be observed on the oscilloscope.
The above link will have the details. You are welcome to replicate and have guaranteed overunity devices.
Well, Lawrence, what can I say. Your work always amazes me.
This present set of photos actually makes my teeth hurt, they are so sweet. It reminds me of the very first electronic circuits I ever built.... when I was nine years old.
Since you have so many overunity versions of your Joule Thief, I'm sure you will soon be showing us one of them, running only from the output of another one of them, which in turn is run from the output of the first one.
If you can't get a 2-unit series loop arrangement to work, then you may need to put several more JTs in series to achieve the desired self-looped effect. I think four or five in series should be enough to show something of interest, but you might need ten or more, depending on various factors. At least we know you have all the parts necessary to do this testing.
Please keep us posted on your inspiring work.
Yes, Lawrence, your work is an inspiration to me.
When I saw your photos above, I knew what my morning project would be. So here it is.
Figure captions:
1. Layout for the PCB, drawing the layout on the copper cladding with the resist pen
2. Preparing to etch with Ferric Chloride
3. Etching partially complete
4. Rinsing after 20 minutes in etching solution
5. Clean of resist using acetone
6. Drilling holes for component leads
7. Inspecting, verifying layout
8. Soldering components to the board
9. Initial testing
10. The backside of the completed circuit board
11. Final product, brilliant LED using a depleted LR44 button cell
There may be some problem loading some of those images -- so I put them all together into a short video with a voiceover narration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFEr4o3sp7U
Very good, the audio was "interesting" too... hehe
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 19, 2013, 06:09:27 PM
There may be some problem loading some of those images -- so I put them all together into a short video with a voiceover narration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFEr4o3sp7U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFEr4o3sp7U)
@TK,
Great Job. I believe you have
examined the circuit diagram in detail. The trick is to have
common grounding for the two probes for the two oscilloscopes. That is why A3 and A4 looked strange.
Your technique is much better than using the breadboard or simple soldering. It can stand the shaking during transport. Your workmanship is much superior to mine. I had to spend an average of 3 days to do one board and half of the time, things went wrong due to bad connections or soldering.
If you have two Atten Oscilloscopes or equivalent, you can immediately do the oscilloscope analysis. With the board as is, the chance of achieving overunity is not too high. However, you can improve the odds easily by:
(1) Use a DC Power Supply as Source and watch the waveforms on the oscilloscopes. I found that a lower value (less than 1V DC) can get to higher COP in many cases.
(2) Use the 2.3 10F capacitor (less than 2 USD in Shenzhen) in parallel with the battery or power supply and then disconnect the battery. The LEDs should remain ON for more than 10 minutes and get dimmer slowly. The frequency (best to use the Output Voltage frequency) will slowly shift. At some point, you may find that the COP greater than 1. This will give you a much higher chance of achieving COP greater than 1.
(3) Once you achieved COP greater than 1 with your set up at a
certain frequency range, try to remain in that range with appropriate re-connection of the battery. Do it
manually first and later with circuits.
(4) That is the secret of "Tuning for Tseung Resonance".
Tuning is no longer a shot in the dark or luck.
(5) If you have difficulty in finding the capacitor, I shall be happy to mail you one FREE. Your oscilloscope-test-ready board will be a great help to all free energy researchers.
Keep up the excellent work. You will have
overunity devices in your hands within days or weeks.
Lawrence
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 31, 2012, 09:34:36 AM
Re-mystifying the Joule Thief: JT basic testbed (circuit identical to LTseung's) with addition of 70 nF poly film cap, switchable across 1k base resistor, and using the modified Loopstick as the inductor. Load is 24 LEDs, (12 parallel) + (12 parallel) in series. Note that I get pretty good "dim" brightness in the array, even at 1 V and 0.6 milliamps (600 microAmps) input. That is 25 _microwatts_ per LED. Even at the "full" brightness level (with cap) the system only draws 9 or 10 mA, or well under half a milliWatt per LED.
And....the system has several distinct operating modes, but a battery that is too full saturates it and makes it stop working.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs)
Resonance or magic?!?
Or just electronics......
:P
@TK
Referring to your video, how long can the very bright mode with the
capacitor connected be maintained? That may already show overunity characteristics. You may already have a "commerically valuable condition" that can be developed into a product.
As you have demonstrated, adding a capacitor totally changed the characteristics of a standard JT.
You did not even use a supercap! LCR oscillation matching with the Pulsing frequency of the switching transistor got you into "resonance"?
Please compare the Input Power and the Output Power at this bright condition. The chance that it is overunity is very high. You already have the circuit diagram to do a two oscilloscope analysis.
Congratulations.
The Divine Wine is flowing out from TK...... Amen.
Erased by myself -
due to long waiting for approval of attachement ?
@Lawrence & @all
(I had to give up the long waiting to get the attached file approved,
so I put it on an external service instead) :(
I first found Lawrence work on the FLEET-device on the OUR-forum,
but it was blocked for other than internally admired members :)
So I first sent this mail a couple of weeks ago to the hotmail and
netvigator.com address of Lawrence, but it possibly didn't work.
--------------------------------------------
>
> --- On Fri, 1/11/13, be_design2004
> wrote:
>
> > Subject: Optimizing the efficiency of the FLEET demo
> > To: "Ltseung@hotmail.com"
> <Ltseung@hotmail.com>
> > Date: Friday, January 11, 2013, 1:48 PM
> > Hi Lawrence,
> >
> > hotmail has been unreliable many days lately,
> > so i hope this gets through.
> > (zoho.com may be an ad-free alternative)
> >
> > The OUR-forum was blocked for other than internally
> > admired members :) so I send this mail instead -
> >
> > --------------------------
> > (just in case you would refer to my mail
> > publicly, pls first delete my address and
> > this sentence)
> > --------------------------
> >
> > If you possibly already are aware of the suggested
> details below, just disregard them
> >
> >
> > From reading your experience of varying results with
> > different loads, and as you have some serious instrument
resources, I'll suggest it's a good opportunity to compare
the effect of load matching with your baseline measurements.
> >
> >
> > 1.
> > Here is an xls-tool - Most_effficient_load_impedance.xls:
http://db.tt/vBhbjou6
which should quickly
> > point to the ideal load for the circuit,
> > if the load is mostly resistive.
> >
> >
> > Just plug the three *readings from your setups into
the tool -
> >
> > Like from your example:
> > (Your data below indicates your load is close to 25 Ohm)
>
> >
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=2fa991b1d3da74133797f92f553899a6&action=dlattach;topic=1617.0;attach=9094;image
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Example: *
> > 'Unloaded' use say a 10K load for more safety while measuring
output voltage = ?
> > (dummy or present)Load resistance = 25
> > Voltage(rms) over the connected load = 2.48
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > Then replace the load with one having the resulting
> > equvivalent value, and compare making new measurements.
> >
> > Perhaps it's best to take the 'unloaded'
> > voltage reading with a load of more than 100 times
> > higher resistance than the real estimated load,
> > as a totally unload inductive 'spiky' source cold
give misleading readings and also risk damaging
> > the instruments - a resistive divider will be
> > even more secure while measuring.
> > (the resulting error will be totally
> > insignificant)
> >
> >
> > 2.
> > As we are generating milliwatts, every circuit part
> > matters for improving the result - also on the
> > drive side.
> >
> > The base resistor power loss increases with the square
> of the voltage over it, so it should be matched with the
> > driving winding turns number.
> >
> > Perhaps one could try with some less drive winding
> turns balanced with lower base resistor values.
> > (if not the symmetrical transformer is an essential
> part of the concept)?
> >
> >
> > 3.
> > Something more to try -
> > If you remember, 50 years ago the best method to speed
> up a silicon transistor was to connect a germanium diode
> with it's conducting direction from the base to the
> collector.
> > A modern schottky type could be tried too.
> > (BTW - the 2N2222 is more than 50 years old)
> >
> > 4.
> >
> > The base resistor, after the eventual matching as
> above, could have a small value capacitor in parallel
to help speed the switching to compensate/balance
for a lower average drive current to further save
energy.
> >
> > 5.
> > The core needs to handle the maximum flux at the
> highest supply voltage, otherwise it will saturate
into lower efficiency, this could explain the observed
increased COP at lower drive voltage.
> >
> > The noted correlation with higher frequency also
> > results in less average flux in the core as the
> > impedance increases with frequency.
> >
> >
> > 6.
> > The conclusion of this points to the use of a more stabilized
> > operating source voltage for a practical user device.
> >
> >
> > would be interesting to see if any of this
could be of use as I currently have no lab
setup available
> >
> > Best whises for the comming New Year
>
> > /be_design2004
----------------------------
Lawrence, did you receive this on your hotmail address?
The JT is a great device in its own right for the purposes it was designed for. However Lawrence you have in the past misled so many that it is an "overunity" device. Having seen some of your devices running, and stopping after the battery was removed, I am not sure how you can say these anything but very efficient devices to run LED's and extract the last bit of juice out of battery?.
I was sad to see after my visit with your good friends in CA, where i did not see anything to convince me of anything that was overunity, you chose to inform people I was impressed and flying to see you. We were under NDA so it was a shame you broke that.
The JT is a great piece of electronics and very useful as a training tool.
Anyway that is my 10c worth.
I do admire your enthusiasm
Kind Regards
Mark,
I know Rosemary Ainslie has been sending you emails asking you to review her thesis and/or experimental evidence.
Please let us now where you are with that?
Thanks,
.99
poynt99
It is going very slowly as it is low on the priority list
I will get to it, however so far nothing moves me.
Mark
Well.... not to hijack the thread or anything, but since you mentioned Ainslie.... she is still at it.
Looks like she's getting a little antsy about Mark not snapping to and replying to her right away.
Quote from: be_design2004 on February 01, 2013, 12:16:19 PM
@Lawrence & @all
Lawrence, did you receive this on your hotmail address? NO
@be_design2004,
Sorry to reply so late. I did not read this thread for a few weeks as I was preparing some oscilloscope-test-ready boards for the three forums.
Package 33 overunityresearch.com
Package 38 overunity.com
Package 39 Energetic Forum.
These 3 particular packages are being triple tested to ensure the
Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power. I normally use the bench ltseung888 at OUR to store my findings including preliminary results. After I read your post, I double checked and you are right - there are restrictions on that Forum and the casual reader cannot access the ltseung888 bench.
I shall repost the important test data on the three packages in this thread before shipping.
Lawrence
Received 20 Oscilloscope test-ready boards from Shenzhen this morning. Selected one as package 38 for overunity.com.
A pleasant surprise - the board already showed Average Output Power > Average Input Power without the capacitor.
This is the first of the triple tests. The top curve on the waveform files represents Voltage. The bottom curve represents Current. Thus the Instantaneous Voltage and Current are displayed. Their product gives the Instantaneous Power. With the Atten Oscilloscope, I can save the CSV file and do the analysis (to be described on next post)
The Output Waveform and Vpp and Vrms values all exceeded the corresponding Input values. That is a good indication of possible OU. The CSV was saved and analyzed. In this first test, the COP was -1.71. The negative sign came from Input implying it is a feedback circuit.
Some information is already available at the ltseung888 bench at overunityresearch.com. For example:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1678.msg28886#msg28886 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1678.msg28886#msg28886)
However, some people have expressed difficulty to accessing the information there. The important ones will be reproduced in this thread.
Reproduced from OUR forum
I am now preparing the "Test boards" for the various forums.
There will be a small, standalone demo board (battery and battery holder not included) and an oscilloscope-test -ready board.
The demo board is meant to stimulate interest. Connect the battery for 10 seconds and the LED will be ON for over 20 minutes. The first 2 minutes will shine with full brightness. Thus connect for 10 seconds and then disconnect for 2 minutes and repeat. The LED will shine with constant brightness. Will such a set up save electricity?
If you want the capacitor to fully discharge first, just connect the red and white wires together for 30 seconds. The LED will be OFF within 2 seconds and total discharge as displayed on the oscilloscope will occur well before the 30 seconds. To ensure a fully charged condition to impress your audience, connect the battery for 1 minute for continued full brightness at the beginning.
I use such demo boards at casual meetings to stimulate interest. It is a good conversation opener. It is also an inexpensive gift that is well appreciated.
There will be assigned numbers to ensure quality results.
Number 33 - overunityresearch.com
Number 38 - overunity.com
Number 39 - energetic Forum
These demo boards are shown below and will be triple-tested before shipment. They will be part of the package.
More on the oscilloscope-test-ready board later.
Pouring out the Divine Wine.
Reproduced from reply 5 at OUR
The lowest DC Power to light up the demo boards was 500mV approximately. This result was obtained by using DC Power Supply.
Thus the testers with these demo boards may use AA batteries from fully charged to 1.0V (normally considered as dead). This is in accordance with the common knowledge of a standard Joule Thief.
However, a DC Power Supply is strongly recommended as it can give a constant voltage for a very long time. The voltage can also be stepped up and down for tuning purposes (or to catch the sweet spot as some like to put it.)
The guarantee on the Demo Board is:
(1) The LED can be lighted via a fully charged AA battery.
(2) The LED will remain ON with same apparent brightness for at least 2 minutes. A 20 second recharge will bring it back to full brightness.
(3) The full lighting time including the blinking will be at least 20 minutes.
I can provide such guarantee on the boards because:
(1) The LED can be lighted even with a 1.0V AA battery.
(2) The same apparent brightness on the boards to be shipped out last over 3 minutes. A 10 second recharge will bring them back to full brightness.
(3) The full lighting time for the 3 boards lasted more than 3 hours in the tests.
If the shipped boards failed to meet the guarantee for any reason (shipping damage?), I can always ship out a replacement. Thus the 3 Forums will always have a Demo board with the above description for demonstration.
From the thread on what is considered OU in OUR
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1675.msg28865#msg28865 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1675.msg28865#msg28865)
@PhysicsProf,
I like your definition. I shall be sending a triple-tested FLEET board to poynt99 in this Forum and to many others (a total of 100 is planned). Hopefully, you have aleady received one in the mail. You should be able to pick it up at your old address.
The triple tested FLEET boards will show that the Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power as measured on a dual Atten Oscilloscope (2 channe) system. Two different models of Atten Oscilloscopes were used. The purpose of sending the FLEET boards out is to have different organizations use different makes of oscilloscopes to confirm the experimental results. They are encouraged to replicate and improve.
The Lead-out Energy suggested in this case is the electron motion energy. As already accepted, electrons orbit around the nucleus. Such electrons have kinetic energy. In addition, a circular motion electron will show magnetic properties (a dipole). There are trillions of electrons associated with any object. In this case, we focus on the electrical circuit and in particular, the toroid with pulsing electrical and magnetic fields. At the right matching of the oscillating LCR and the pulsing transistor circuits, the electrons will be aligned and some of their motion energy can be extracted (lead-out or brought-in).
It is suggested (and to be proven shortly with the FLEET boards) that the energy used to align these electrons can be less than the energy that can be extracted. This is a logical explanation of getting more Average Output Energy than Average Input Energy. Should such a FLEET board be considered as OU now?
Once the mainstream scientific community accepts the above, the floodgate will be open. Many different devices using the electron motion energy will emerge as legitimate. Some are already posted on the Internet.
When you have a chance, please test the oscilloscope-test-ready board already sent to you thoroughly. Hopefully, many of the other 99 organizations will do the same. Then Leading-out electron motion energy will be accepted (from OU to standard scientific understanding).
May the Almighty Guide us to benefit the World.
The configuration if you have two oscilloscopes is attached.
Note that we need to cater for the common ground for both Oscilloscope A and Oscilloscope B. Thus DSO 1 Ch1 -ve, Ch2 -ve and DSO 2 Ch1 -ve and Ch2 -ve need to be at the same point.
The actual Input is not across the battery. It includes the drop across the 1 ohm resistor. We can add that back in with the oscilloscope analysis. In addition, the current measurement for Input (A3 and A4) should be inverted.
With the two scopes, both Input and Output can be captured at the same time (within the finger pushing timeframe (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunityresearch.com%2FSmileys%2FAlive%2Fwink.gif&hash=7a67d6696217e03daac268b58edf5fa3001fc6dc)).
Please compare the two scope configuration diagram on the previous post with the markings on the board 38 to be shipped.
If you have only one 2 channel DSO, do the Input measurement first and then the Output measurement. The test to choose will be steady condition that can still demonstrate OU. These cases will be described in detail in the coming posts.
Okay, many thanks Lawrence.
Looking forward to test your board.
Regards, Stefan.
I have only looked briefly at the latest info here but I'd like to bring up a test I did some time back and am replicating this moment to check my memory of it. It involves a 1 farad capacitor and a 5 mm bright LED. That's it - no other parts. I charge the cap up to about 4 volts by briefly touching it several times for just a couple seconds each across a small 9 volt battery. I then hook up the LED. It shines bright for a few minutes and slowly starts to dim down. I'm retesting now to see how long it stays lit but in a past test some years ago I recall it was still lit after 5 or 6 hours.
In the Joule thief above a 10 Farad cap is being used versus my 1 Farad cap. I'm not saying there is nothing of interest with the JT but my setup has had the LED running steadily for hours. Also my 1 Farad capacitor is very close to the size of the wound 1" toroid used in many JT's. Just some food for thought.
Oscilloscope Analysis results for Board 39 for Energetic Forum.
This board also showed Average Output Power > Average Input Power without the capacitor. These boards were hand-built by the same professional. His comments: "I checked all boards before giving them to you. You do not see the failed ones."
The COP from my test is -1.93. The negative sign came from Input, implying a feedback circuit. To save space on this forum, I do not show the xls file but show the comparison Output Power vs Input Power graph instead. Those interested in the actual xls file can pm me.
Have you thought about a way to loop the output to the input to make it self run continously? It would seem with COP of 1.93 it would be possible once started to keep it running continuously. A DC to DC converter is not hard to find with 85% or better efficiency. It sounds like with one of those you would still have enough to keep it running.
QuoteI have only looked briefly at the latest info here but I'd like to bring up a test I did some time back and am replicating this moment to check my memory of it. It involves a 1 farad capacitor and a 5 mm bright LED. That's it - no other parts. I charge the cap up to about 4 volts by briefly touching it several times for just a couple seconds each across a small 9 volt battery. I then hook up the LED. It shines bright for a few minutes and slowly starts to dim down. I'm retesting now to see how long it stays lit but in a past test some years ago I recall it was still lit after 5 or 6 hours.
In the Joule thief above a 10 Farad cap is being used versus my 1 Farad cap. I'm not saying there is nothing of interest with the JT but my setup has had the LED running steadily for hours. Also my 1 Farad capacitor is very close to the size of the wound 1" toroid used in many JT's. Just some food for thought.
Still glowing after more than an hour although it is fairly dim....
any update in your overunity... I am a power electronics design engineer.
In Emerson Network Power, we only achieved 97% the highest two stage design.
I just can't imagine how does it works and claimed to be more than 100% COP.
I build the circuit using an LED as an output. With 1.5V battery as an input.
It work but efficiency is very less. The resonance will not affect or create more COP.
where is the free energy coming from?
Quote from: e2matrix on February 20, 2013, 08:33:51 PM
Have you thought about a way to loop the output to the input to make it self run continously? It would seem with COP of 1.93 it would be possible once started to keep it running continuously. A DC to DC converter is not hard to find with 85% or better efficiency. It sounds like with one of those you would still have enough to keep it running.
That will come later. The present task is to confirm
OU beyond a shadow of doubt in the case of the existing tuned boards to be shipped to the three Forums.
Quote from: bryanwizard on February 21, 2013, 03:16:35 AM
any update in your overunity... I am a power electronics design engineer.
In Emerson Network Power, we only achieved 97% the highest two stage design.
I just can't imagine how does it works and claimed to be more than 100% COP.
I build the circuit using an LED as an output. With 1.5V battery as an input.
It work but efficiency is very less. The resonance will not affect or create more COP. (conventional thinking)
where is the free energy coming from?
Please wait for the 3 forums to receive and test the
tuned oscilloscope-test-ready boards. Let them verify and confirm OU before you go the next step. Without tuning, few Joule Thief Circuits show OU characteristics.... If you are willing to post your test equipment, procedure and results openly on this forum, I shall consider sending a tuned oscilloscope-test-ready board to you for thorough testing in the next batch. The waiting time for this batch is 6 weeks.
Oscilloscope analysis for Board 33 target for overunityresearch.com
COP=-1.78 Negative sign came from Input.
It looks like for the first test, all three boards 33, 38, 39 showed OU without the capacitor.
Second test - use Atten oscilloscope Model ADS1062CAL instead of ADS1062CA.
Board 33 was used. The COP changed to -2.56. This shows that with the same board and different connections, the COP result can be significantly different. In our case, we are happy with any Average Output Power > Average Input Power results.
Quote from: e2matrix on February 20, 2013, 08:00:14 PM
I have only looked briefly at the latest info here but I'd like to bring up a test I did some time back and am replicating this moment to check my memory of it. It involves a 1 farad capacitor and a 5 mm bright LED. That's it - no other parts. I charge the cap up to about 4 volts by briefly touching it several times for just a couple seconds each across a small 9 volt battery. I then hook up the LED. It shines bright for a few minutes and slowly starts to dim down. I'm retesting now to see how long it stays lit but in a past test some years ago I recall it was still lit after 5 or 6 hours.
In the Joule thief above a 10 Farad cap is being used versus my 1 Farad cap. I'm not saying there is nothing of interest with the JT but my setup has had the LED running steadily for hours. Also my 1 Farad capacitor is very close to the size of the wound 1" toroid used in many JT's. Just some food for thought.
Still glowing although dim - after 6.5 hours. I would have let it run more but needed sleep.... I think I'll try running the JT circuit off this cap to see how the results compare.
I am now running the JT circuit shown here off of my 1 Farad cap. I started the Cap at about the same voltage as the previous test which used only the LED. I am using 1K Ohm TruOhm resistors (high precision), a 2N2222a, a bifilar toroid that has always done better in JT's than any other I have. It's a 4" diameter fairly high perm ferrite toroid. This JT setup started out dimmer than my test with just the Cap and LED. After 15 minutes it was about as dim as my Cap-LED only combo was at 5 hours. It has now been running about 35 minutes and I can barely detect any light at all. It is far dimmer now than my Cap-LED only combo was at 6.5 hours.
So to bring it back to life I have eliminated the 1K Ohm resistor between the Negative and the emitter on the transistor. I'll see how much longer it lasts now but I don't expect it to go nearly as long as the Cap-LED only combo. Well in the amount of time it took me to type the last two sentences here it has gone from medium bright to almost totally gone. Just checked again and I can't see any light at all now. I just disconnected and reconnected the Cap and I see no difference at all so it probably only lasted another minute or two. Total runtime roughly 40 minutes at most. I won't say my test was scientific but I certainly didn't see any OU. Not even close to as good of efficiency as just an LED hooked to this same capacitor.
Quote from: ltseung888 on February 21, 2013, 03:26:41 AM
Please wait for the 3 forums to receive and test the tuned oscilloscope-test-ready boards. Let them verify and confirm OU before you go the next step. Without tuning, few Joule Thief Circuits show OU characteristics.... If you are willing to post your test equipment, procedure and results openly on this forum, I shall consider sending a tuned oscilloscope-test-ready board to you for thorough testing in the next batch. The waiting time for this batch is 6 weeks.
looks very promising bro... resonance circuit - i might think like a conventional electronic design engineer.
if your saying about tuning the resonance circuit... are you doing any simulation on it.
Guys watch this http://youtube.com/watch?v=iN__4c4ipXo a working overunity joule thief circuit.
Heres the schematic diagram.
I took a screen shot from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN__4c4ipXo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN__4c4ipXo) and it shows a very strange wire arrangement. This large tangle of wires hanging down besides the table seems to be part of the circuit but is not explained or referred to.
A lot of RF-noise could be induced into the circuit via this tangle of wires. Near this tangle of wires could be some sort of RF-transmitter (e.g. a Slayer Exciter or a sparking 220 V AC motor) inducing power into the circuit.
The circuit diagram shows a very conventional Joule Thief.
Greetings, Conrad
Second test results for board 38. The Input Voltage was increased to over 1V. The COP changed to -2.47. THe negative sign came from INPUT implying a feedback circuit.
Results on all three boards are consistent on two models of Atten oscilloscopes. It will be interesting to see the results on other oscilloscopes.
Just a little theory after much experiment.
(1) Examine the Output Voltage Waveform. It is pulsed with peak higher than 3V. This is reasonable as more than 3V is required to light the LED.
(2) The Output Current Waveform is mostly positive. This is reasonable as the LED acts as a Diode, allowing current to flow in one direction.
(3) The Input Voltage fluctuates but remains positive. This is reasonable and indicates a Feedback to disturb the steady DC voltage.
(4) The Input Current fluctuates with both positive and negative values. In the above cases, the negative value is greater than the positive. That creates the negative Input Power. The surprising discovery is that the numerical values (Vpp or Vrms or Vavg) are smaller than Output.
With a normal transformer, if we increase the voltage on the secondary, the current must go down. In the case of the above FLEET circuit, the voltage in the secondary increases and the current also increases. Energy must come from the surrounding for this to happen. Are we leading-out or bringing-in the electron motion energy from the toroid and/or surrounding???
Quote from: conradelektro on February 22, 2013, 05:48:54 AM
I took a screen shot from this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN__4c4ipXo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN__4c4ipXo) and it shows a very strange wire arrangement. This large tangle of wires hanging down besides the table seems to be part of the circuit but is not explained or referred to.
A lot of RF-noise could be induced into the circuit via this tangle of wires. Near this tangle of wires could be some sort of RF-transmitter (e.g. a Slayer Exciter or a sparking 220 V AC motor) inducing power into the circuit.
The circuit diagram shows a very conventional Joule Thief.
Greetings, Conrad
Thanks Conrad it gives me an idea that this was really fake or just a mistake. I carefully analyze the circuit and I cant see any way that the source battery could charge itself. In the picture i made a circuit current flow so we can clearly see its opearation.
Second test on Board 39 for Energetic Forum. The COP was -1.99. THe negative sign came from INPUT implying a feedback circuit.
The three test boards do not have a capacitor. The cost of producing such in Shenzhen is low. Material cost is less than USD1.00 and labor cost is less than USD2.00. The whole board cost is less than USD3.00. The box, packaging and instrutions is USD1.00. The shipping cost (normal air mail) to USA from Hong Kong is USD4:00. The total cost even for small quantities is approximately USD11:00. If we include a capacitor so that we can demonstrate the long lighting effect and a battery holder, the cost should be around USD15:00.
If we let the underdeveloped Countries do the winding of the toroid and the soldering, the cost may be even less. Every school or research institute with oscilloscopes in the World should be able to afford USD15 to check out whether electron motion can be led out. We are encouraging replicators and improvers.
One more test (triple test) with AA battery as power source, these three boards for the Forums should be ready for shipment.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World.
My joule thief variation. :)
Quote from: Neo-X on February 23, 2013, 02:40:01 AM
My joule thief variation. :)
@Neo-X: A YouTube user calling himself Xee2, see http://www.youtube.com/user/xee2vids/videos?view=0 , shows a lot of interesting Joule Thief type circuits. And they are nicely documented in his videos.
Instead of the "LED or lamp" one can always put a "diode and a rechargeable battery" to be loaded. The battery might even work better after such a loading (due to desulfation or other chemical reactions, because of the relatively high Voltage spikes tickling the battery), but no OU has ever been proven.
Itseung888 shows scope shots, but most of them are inconclusive, because the resolution is too small. I found a usable scope shot in Itseung888's post #234 in this thread where I can show that there is no OU, see the attached drawing.
One has to look at the area to see that
"on average" the input power is bigger than the output power. Itseung888 seems to look at the hight of the spikes.
"Momentarily" the output might be higher than the input, but
"on average" that is not true.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on February 23, 2013, 04:44:40 AM
@Neo-X: A YouTube user calling himself Xee2, see http://www.youtube.com/user/xee2vids/videos?view=0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/xee2vids/videos?view=0) , shows a lot of interesting Joule Thief type circuits. And they are nicely documented in his videos.
Instead of the "LED or lamp" one can always put a "diode and a rechargeable battery" to be loaded. The battery might even work better after such a loading (due to desulfation or other chemical reactions, because of the relatively high Voltage spikes tickling the battery), but no OU has ever been proven.
Itseung888 shows scope shots, but most of them are inconclusive, because the resolution is too small. I found a usable scope shot in Itseung888's post #234 in this thread where I can show that there is no OU, see the attached drawing.
One has to look at the area to see that "on average" the input power is bigger than the output power. Itseung888 seems to look at the hight of the spikes. "Momentarily" the output might be higher than the input, but "on average" that is not true.
*** PLEASE USE THE .XLS FILES ***
Greetings, Conrad
Please examine the .xls files. Just looking at the waveforms is not conclusive. The .xls files contain 15000 sample points. EXCEL can average these sample points easily. It is much more accurate than your picking
one waveform and making conclusions. Please also note that when you use average area, the sum of the positive and the negative areas will give you a much lower numerical value. In particular, the NET negative area will imply a feedback circuit.
I did not include the .xls file with every post because they take too long and sometimes exceed the 5000KB allowed in this Forum. If you are interested in any particular one for detailed analysis, PM me and I shall email it to you. Meanwhile pick any of the .xls files and do your calculation from there.
I believe the Forum Adminstrators
have or have access to high end oscilloscopes that are better than the Atten Oscilloscopes in my possession. They should be able to provide more conclusive results.
At least 30 of such "triple checked boards" will be sent (or have been sent) to
the top Uniersities worldwide. They all have top end oscilloscopes. It will take them time to come out with "conclusive statements".
Confirming Output Power > Input Power with their reputation at stake is not to be taken likely.
Quote from: conradelektro on February 23, 2013, 04:44:40 AM
@Neo-X: A YouTube user calling himself Xee2, see http://www.youtube.com/user/xee2vids/videos?view=0 (http://www.youtube.com/user/xee2vids/videos?view=0) , shows a lot of interesting Joule Thief type circuits. And they are nicely documented in his videos.
Instead of the "LED or lamp" one can always put a "diode and a rechargeable battery" to be loaded. The battery might even work better after such a loading (due to desulfation or other chemical reactions, because of the relatively high Voltage spikes tickling the battery), but no OU has ever been proven.
Itseung888 shows scope shots, but most of them are inconclusive, because the resolution is too small. I found a usable scope shot in Itseung888's post #234 in this thread where I can show that there is no OU, see the attached drawing.
One has to look at the area to see that "on average" the input power is bigger than the output power. Itseung888 seems to look at the hight of the spikes. "Momentarily" the output might be higher than the input, but "on average" that is not true.
Greetings, Conrad
Please also re-examine your use of the ble area. The correct blue area should be the area enclosed by the curve with the xero axis. Did you make a mistake???
@itsung888
I hate to say this but im also agree with conrad. Im not convinced in your circuit that it was overunity exept you made it self looped.
Imho, magnacoaster has more potential of getting overunity and replicated than joule thief.
If the circuit were truly OU the battery would not be discharging, due to it being recharged by the circuit itself. But, as you know the battery does discharge, so at best it would only be a slightly more efficient circuit. Not a self runner. So, what is the big deal?
There are already many very efficient JT circuits out there. But, no self runners that can be replicated, as yet. One that never needs to have its battery replaced for months, or years.
The solar garden lights are very efficient, lighting not just one but several leds (4 or 5 leds), and recharging their own source battery.
Is what you are showing any better?
Quote from: ltseung888 on February 23, 2013, 07:05:36 AM
I believe the Forum Adminstrators have or have access to high end oscilloscopes that are better than the Atten Oscilloscopes in my possession. They should be able to provide more conclusive results.
At least 30 of such "triple checked boards" will be sent (or have been sent) to the top Universities worldwide. They all have top end oscilloscopes. It will take them time to come out with "conclusive statements". Confirming Output Power > Input Power with their reputation at stake is not to be taken likely.
@Itseung888: It is possible that I make an error. Unfortunately your scope shots do not show enough detail.
Your Atten oscilloscope is good enough, you just have to set a shorter time base. The screen of your scope will then show only 2 or 3 spikes instead of the many in your posted pictures.
You should also indicate the zero line, which will enable me to do a rough average calculation. (Yes, it is important where the measurement is below or above the zero line.)
Greetings, Conrad
@Itseung888: in your Reply #230 on: February 20, 2013, 10:06:35 PM in this thread you show your circuit and in the circuit two 1 Ohm resistors.
It is very important that these 1 Ohm resistors are precision resistors with a tolerance of e.g. 0.1 %. A Joule Thief is very efficient, near 100%, may be 98%. In case you use 1 Ohm resistors with a 5% tolerance or even with only 1% tolerance your measurements will not be right.
I have some ordinary 1 Ohm resistors and they are very imprecise. I had to get better ones with a tolerance of 0.5% (the ones with a tolerance of 0.1% are expensive, about $20.-- ).
Measuring a Joule Thief correctly is not easy and one has to be very precise and careful. I am not criticising your difficulties measuring a Joule Thief correctly (I could not do it either). What I do not like is that you claim OU without very precise and careful measurements.
You say yourself that your Joule Thieves connected to a capacitor (without battery) stop after 30 or 60 minutes. Well, that clearly indicates an efficiency below 100%.
Once you connect a battery to a good Joule Thief (and I assume that your Joule Thieves are good in the sense that their efficiency is near 100%) the run time will be in the months. And it is very difficult to measure the power stored in a battery precisely and over many days you will not see a drop in the Voltage of the battery. So, once you have a battery connected to a Joule Thief you are entering the field of almost impossible measurements. Tests and measurements which have to be conducted over months are almost impossible to do and you will not find many scientist willing to do that for you.
I would say your tests with the capacitors (instead of a battery) are about the best which can be done practically and they clearly rule out OU.
Greetings, Conrad
It looks like many people are not aware of the full DSO analysis. I shall use the file board38.xls in reply 224 to provide a full explanation here.
(1) In the page ads00002out, A1 to C3 gives information about the parameter setting of the oscilloscope. That is useful for information purposes but are not important in our analysis.
(2) Column D provides the time of the sample from -0.0015 to +0.0015 or a total of 0.003 seconds. This snap shot was for a duration of 0.003 seconds.
(3) CH1 measures the Instantaneous Voltage across the LED Plus the 1 ohm resistor. The particular 1 ohm resistor is not precision (+ or – 5%). For our comparison purposes, such a variation is not significant. It is also the Output Voltage across the load (LED + 1 ohm resistor).
(4) CH2 measures the Instantaneous Current. It is the voltage across the 1 ohm resistor. The CH1 and CH2 values are provided by the oscilloscope in the CSV file.
(5) CH1*CH2 provides the Instantaneous Power. This is the most important calculation and curve indication. In the Atten Oscilloscope, we cannot display the Instantaneous Power Curve easily but this EXCEL analysis can provide the full details.
(6) For comparison purposes, the Input Power values were copied into column H.
(7) The average Output Power and the average Input Power can be obtained from the average function in EXCEL. Their ratio provides the COP.
( 8) In examining the actual waveforms, the graph plotting of EXCEL was used. In this case 14 peaks in the voltage curve was seen. This means that we have at least 13 complete waves (or cycles) contained in the 0.003 seconds. The cycles are not perfect waves but the average value is good enough for our comparison purposes.
(9) The same discussion can be applied to the current curve (14 peaks and not perfect waves).
(10)The Output Power curve showed 14 spikes with all area in the positive region.
(11)The Input Power curve on this ads00002out page is for comparison and showed negative areas (below the zero line).
(12)We should then look at the inputadjusted page and confirm that the Input Power Curve indeed contained all negative areas. This is the significant result of this FLEET board. Not all JT circuits exhibit this characteristic.
(13)The BMP files are also shown in the spreadsheet for comparison purposes. They show the same shape as the EXCEL analysis. They did not show 14 peaks because the values displays on the RHS of the screen obstructed some peaks.
There may be minor improvements such as using higher precision resistors, better resolution oscilloscopes, more exact analysis etc. However, the fact that the Atten Oscilloscope can show the waveform of the Instantaneous Power with the EXCEL analysis is undoubted. Once we have these Instantaneous Power sample points, we can do the comparison.
Average Output Power > Average Input Power in this case is clearly shown.
Third and the last triple test on Board 39 for Energetic Forum. In this test, a new AA battery was used.
The COP was -2.21. The negative sign came from INPUT implying a feedback circuit.
This package is ready to be shipped. I shall wait for comments from the Energetic Forum Administer and ship it out with the other Forum Boards. This is the last chance for you all to recommend additional tests before shipment. I included the .xls file to make sure all information is complete.
Third and last of the triple check on Board 38 for overunity.com. The new AA battery used on Board 39 was again used.
For this board, the COP was -2.72. The negative sign came from INPUT implying a Feedback circuit.
Ready to ship...
Here is the third test for Board 33 targeted for overunityresearch.com.
The COP was -2.83 using new AA battery as Input Source.
Your comments and suggestions on additional tests on the above three boards are welcome. Once they are shipped out, the opportunity will be gone.
@Itseung888:
Please set your scope to 50µS (instead of 250µS) time base (the distance between vertical dotted lines on the screen).
Your scope is perfect, just change the time base setting from 250µS to 50µS, then one sees only three spikes on the screen (instead of 15 spikes) and the wave forms will be much better to see.
You do not need a "better oscilloscope", you just have to adjust the settings of your scope.
You have set the "time base control" (the scale of the time axis) of your scope to 250µS per division (distance between vertical dotted lines on your screen), therefore you see 15 spikes on the screen. 15 spikes are too many to see any details, the spikes appear small.
You should set the "time base control" (the scale of the time axis) of your scope to 50µS in order to see fewer spikes on the screen. Once you see fewer spikes the spikes will be enlarged and better visible. With a time base of 50µS you will only see 3 spikes and the spikes will appear bigger and clearer.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on February 24, 2013, 05:52:24 AM
@Itseung888:
Please set your scope to 50µS (instead of 250µS) time base (the distance between vertical dotted lines on the screen).
Your scope is perfect, just change the time base setting from 250µS to 50µS, then one sees only three spikes on the screen (instead of 15 spikes) and the wave forms will be much better to see.
You do not need a "better oscilloscope", you just have to adjust the settings of your scope.
You have set the "time base control" (the scale of the time axis) of your scope to 250µS per division (distance between vertical dotted lines on your screen), therefore you see 15 spikes on the screen. 15 spikes are too many to see any details, the spikes appear small.
You should set the "time base control" (the scale of the time axis) of your scope to 50µS in order to see fewer spikes on the screen. Once you see fewer spikes the spikes will be enlarged and better visible. With a time base of 50µS you will only see 3 spikes and the spikes will appear bigger and clearer.
Greetings, Conrad
@Conrad,
Here are the results you asked: COP = -2.93 on Board 33 for overunityresearch.com using a New AA battery.
Boards ready for shipment
I shall wait for one or two more days before mailing. Any last minute suggestions on additional tests???
Quote from: ltseung888 on February 24, 2013, 07:08:39 PM
@Conrad,
Here are the results you asked: COP = -2.93 on Board 33 for overunityresearch.com using a New AA battery.
@Itseung888: Thank you very much for doing the measurements with a 50µS time base.
I also looked at your data file DSO_analysisc.xls. The measurements look o.k. but I am not a real expert. I would check the resistors (shunts) over which you measured, but you have done that I guess.
It also astonishes me that you measure a COP of almost 3. That should destroy your capacitor on the "demo board with capacitor", because the Voltage would rise and rise. I do not understand how your measurements can show this result, but there are very many things which I do not understand, so I do not want to give a verdict.
It is very important that you send your boards 38, 39 and 33 to the forums. This will give people a chance to do their own independent measurements. This is always a good idea. You will only be believed once other people can repeat your measurements. (And I admit that I would also like to see third party verification.) I am looking forward to the results.
I have done many measurements on my Joule Thieves and some of them look like your Joule Thieves (as far as the schematics are concerned, but I might have different components, e.g. the Toroids). I did not see OU, but that does not mean much. So, hopefully the "third party measurements" by the people to whom you send your boards will clarify everything.
Greetings, Conrad
Hello all,
before someone claims overunity in hf-circuits one should understand the technical note here and perform the necessary measurements before:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.free.fr%2Frvproject%2Fhtml%2Fugentest22.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjnaudin.free.fr%2Frvproject%2Fhtml%2Fugentest22.htm)
Regards
Kator01
10 other Boards will be prepared for confirmation as the next task.
One of them will be for Patrick Kelly. Others will go to India, England, Australia, USA and China.
The professional who soldered these boards and did the initial tests for me (Mr. Zhou in Shenzhen) is feeling confident that he and his team may be able to produce hundreds or thousands of these boards with confirmed Average Output Power > Average Input Power characteristics. He and Mr. TS Lau will team together to supply these boards to the World. The plan is to allow people to order on-line via eBay or similar. The details will be posted when ready.
This may be the first "guaranteed OU device" available for purchase.... Replicators and improvers are expected and welcome.
Once the flood gate is open, there will be products pouring out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ
Lawrence, your circuit is not overunity.
Your _measurements_ might indicate to you that it is overunity. So what? I am eight feet tall -- when measured in a certain way. However, I still need to stand on a stool to reach the top shelf, for some reason. How can that be?
Your circuit, when measured in your chosen manner, is giving you readings on your oscilloscopes and spreadsheets that you are interpreting as OU. Is there ANY OTHER WAY, besides your measurements, to see OU performance? There is not. You cannot run one JT from the output of another, daisy chaining them and collecting excess at every step. Your capacitors do not fail from buildup of excess voltage. Your lights don't even run as long with the JT as they do with only the capacitor. You can't wind up with a battery that is more charged than when you started. In short, your measurements fail what is known as "concurrent validity"-- other objective measures of OU performance fail to see OU in your JT circuit.
Since the batch of boards from Shenzhen already showed Average Output Power > Average Input Power without the capacitor, I can simplify the demo package.
The capacitor will be an add-on.
In some of of the old boards, I need to add the capacitor to show OU. In some cases, I need to have the capacitor alone running for some minutes before detecting OU. Mr. Zhou, as a professional electronics engineer, can do much better soldering work and board arranging. For the many newbies out there, Your first JT may not show OU. That is normal. My first ones did not. Even now, two thirds of my attempts failed. If you cannot do it, it does not mean someone else cannot do it.
@TK
Be patient. Let the Forum Administrators receive and test the boards with their oscilloscopes. Make sure they have confirmed OU boards in their hands. Then other tests can happen. As you already know, not all JT are the same.....
Imagine you go to the gym and you find an old-style exercise bicycle. The type with a seat and pedals and a chain link to a big flywheel, like a regular bicycle. There is a friction belt that goes around the circumference of the flywheel. You set the tension on the friction belt to adjust the difficulty level.
Imagine the belt is completely loose. You pedal for a few seconds and get the flywheel spinning and then you stop pedaling. Then you add tension to the belt and the flywheel spins down and stops. Then you loosen the belt and repeat the whole process all over again.
Even when you are completely exhausted, it's still possible for you to pedal and get the flywheel spinning if you pedal slowly and take your time to build up the speed. Don't forget that the friction strap is loose when you pedal.
That's a Joule Thief. You are the battery. The flywheel is the coil. The friction belt is the LED.
The torque that you put on the flywheel from pedaling is the battery voltage. The torque that the flywheel puts on the belt during the braking is the coil voltage when it's de-energizing. The rotational speed of the flywheel is the current through the coil.
I have never heard of any claims of over unity exercise bicycles and by the same token, a Joule Thief - an energizing and de-energizing inductor - is not over unity.
Sending those circuits to be tested is a good idea.
But, I have been asking for one simple test... for years now.
How long will that circuit light a single led using a new 1.5 volt battery?
Is this too simple a task. I've mentioned this several times. I don't care if it takes days, weeks, or even months.
In any case that will be answered sometime soon, I hope, by the testers that will have those units to work with. That is the only proof I need, or will accept.
It is too simple a task and seeing how long a Joule Thief can light an LED is not a legitimate test.
You are trying to measure the energy output of the Joule Thief and compare it to the available battery energy. Alternatively you could take a snapshot of the average battery power consumption and compare that to the average output power to the LED. The second method could be achieved with the careful and expert use of a modern digital storage oscilloscope.
I am sure that there are other ways to do it also. But the LED test is not one of them.
@Kator01 and TinselKoala:
Thank you for showing the issues (stray and non accounted for capacitance) when measuring a HF circuit, I learned a lot.
As NickZ and many others have said over the years, the real test is some sort of self runner. Measurements are of little help in an OU device (in case it really existed) because the OU device would not function according to standard theory and measurements.
Greetings, Conrad
Condradelektro,
welcome.. thank you for listening and understanding. The time for misleading people with unproved claims is over. There has been time enough to learn the basics.
@tinselkoala: thank you, very well presented. The loop of the clip including the wire from the resistor add up at least to 20 nH. And yes, it is known by some electronic specialists that in high speed switching the ground-wire ( eg. source-connection of a mosfet to ground) poses the problem of high frequnecy ringing. I am searching for a document of a friend of mine who did a lecture on this topic
Regards
Kator01
Now , here we are
these neagtive ringing even reflects back and causes an additional voltage-peak in a drain-inductor !
This was the reason, this investigation was presented
Regards
Kator01
Battery voltage increase does not prove that battery is charging. Put a capacitor in parallel with battery and then disconnect the battery. If circuit is over unity it will charge the capacitor. If the circuit is under unity the capacitor will discharge. The rate of discharge shows how close the circuit is to unity. See for expample: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU)
QuotePut a capacitor in parallel with battery and then disconnect the battery. If circuit is over unity it will charge the capacitor. If the circuit is under unity the capacitor will discharge. The rate of discharge shows how close the circuit is to unity.
This does not apply to a Joule Thief. Be very careful about making generalized statements. A Joule Thief does not return any power to the supply battery at all. Like I already posted, the measurement for any possible over unity in the case of a Joule Thief circuit is typically done by comparing the average power drain from the supply battery with the average power output to the LED.
in my joule ringer circuit,
the wire from the collector is looped to a ring magnet thru an output ( open circuit winding) of the transformer then to a diode back to the supply battery positive.... As I decrease the load current the input battery voltage increase... so with no load, the extra charge from the coil increased the input battery but for a certain time until it lowers back by 0.2 highere than without the bypass.... so in my case just an increase of 0.2 volts
thanks xee2 for the simple test set up for ou at least we have some benchmark to see .....
totoalas
Toto:
An increase of 0.2 volts, may not indicate what the actual battery current levels that may have been lost, in the process of raising this voltage.
The LS cross-over circuit that I built will drain the battery in time, then will recharge it to its starting voltage, then, drain the battery to 1/10 the starting voltage, and recharge it back. After two weeks running time like this, the regular old 1.5v D cell alcaline battery gave out. The problem was that as the circuit reaches its lower point of battery charge, the led is not very bright. Still an unusual circuit, but not real useable to lighting, due to those oscillations of voltage and current levels.
Possibly more experiments are needed, as Lasersaber was able to light a bulb, without his solar array connected in his shed, or batteries, if I'm not mistaken.
In a later update from him, he is showing that the capacitor bounce back effect is what is responsible for the recharging of the cap. So long as the led bulbs are not being drawn too heavily from.
I'm now using the LS 3.0 circuit, along with the "Slayer Transistor Booster" circuit together, with its additional transistor, diode and resistor added. So now there are two 2 TIP 3055, sharing the load, so see if I can lower the draw on the input, as you've shown.
So, far the transistors are running a bit cooler, with a possible slight increase in lumins.
I can't read the current draws, as my amp meter is not working properly.
I know that this may not have much to do with the FLEET devices, but I thought to also add it here, as capacitors can bounce back and recharge themselves if given the chance, along with batteries.
Nick_Z
Five more triple-checked boards ready to ship. They all showed Average Output Power > Average Input Power.
This batch is slightly different. There is no demo board but has a capacitor and a connecting wire as shown instead. The battery is not included. To demonstrate the long lighting effect: hand connect the positive of the battery to a red clip and the negative to a black clip. The first time is to charge for 2 minutes. Then disconnect the battery for 2 minutes and reconnect for 10 seconds and repeat. The LED will show full brightness throughout.
One can obviously use a timer to do the job. Ask the question: will such a set-up save electricity.
Then take the board for a full oscilloscope analysis. The Average Output Power will be greater than the Average Input Power. Is there Lead-out energy from the surrounding?
The Divine Wine is flowing.....
One feedback from Internet:
Dear Mr. Tseung
Our company, Chava Energy has high expertise in testing of electronic and magnetic circuitry for gain.
www.chavaenergy.com/ (http://www.chavaenergy.com/)
We will be willing to thoroughly test and report back to you on the performance of this device. If you such a board ready for testing and wish to avail yourself of our expertise: Please forward the device to xxxxxxx
Thank you in advance.
*** One more independent tester, replicator and improver?
*** One comment: Why provide the capacitor if it is not essential to OU confirmation?
Because, when the capacitor dies out, it will prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is no overunity in your version of the JT. The AA battery will also do the same, but will take much longer, too long for impatient people to deal with, it seams.
As mentioned previously by others, the cap will discharge in much less time, regardless of the scope readings, so it's best to include it in your test shipments so there won't be any more excuses.
We await the replies from the testers... hopefully it won't take too long.
The reason for my negativity is due to you never showing a self-runner that has been replicated and can further be replicated, even after all these years.
I do hope that you do have some luck with this, this time around.
Letter to the Testers:
Dear tester,
I am enclosing the oscilloscope test-ready board for you to test, replicate and improve. This particular board has been triple checked on my Atten Oscilloscopes and found that the Average Output Power was greater than the Average Input Power.
Please read the posts related to such boards at:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/225/ (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/225/)
Three similar boards have been sent to the three Forums:
Board 33 to overunityresearch.com
Board 38 to overunity.com
Board 39 to Energetic forum.
You have been chosen as a tester because you expressed interest in Lead-out Energy Research and have access to Digital Oscilloscopes. If you have a 4 channel oscilloscope, you will be able to measure the Input Voltage, Input Current, Output Voltage and Output Current directly. If your oscilloscope has the capability to display the Average Input and Average Output Power directly, you can check whether the Average Output Power is greater than the Input Power immediately.
If you have a two channel oscilloscope such as the Atten, you can first measure the Input Waveforms and save the CSV files and do the EXCEL analysis to get the Average Input Power. Then repeat to measure the Output. The markings on the board and the attached circuit diagram will help you to make the right connections. The many BMP and XLS files on the above thread provide you with a good idea of what to look for. The goal is to check whether your oscilloscope detects Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power. Other modifications and tests can come later.
Please email your results to me or post them on the above forums directly. You are welcome to replicate and improve such boards to benefit the World.
Lawrence Tseung
Feedback from a tester:
"Just send me the board. I have oscilloscope and DC Power Supply. Do not confuse the issue with unnecessary components."
Quote from: ltseung888 on February 27, 2013, 10:22:02 PM
Feedback from a tester:
"Just send me the board. I have oscilloscope and DC Power Supply. Do not confuse the issue with unnecessary components."
Hi itsung888 can u try to seek the resonance of ferrite? I have a feeling that ferrite has series and parallel resonance characteristic like piezo where its vibrates at less current. See the graph below.
Hi Neo-X,
Mechanical resonance for toroidal cores does exist, and there is a formula to approximately calculate the frequency from the sizes of a particular ferrite toroidal core. See this link to the data sheet for a Ferroxube toroid core and just read the 'Remark' under Fig. 4, PDF file Page 3: http://www.ferroxcube.com/prod/assets/3r1.pdf
for instance for sizes of OD=25mm ID=12mm you get about 98.1 kHz
This would mean that for cores of that size the Joule thief operating frequency should be tuned to near 98.1 kHz or so. Subharmonics like 49 kHz or 24.5 kHz may also be good.
I am not aware of dedicated series or parallel mechanical resonance for ferrite toroids, only a 'normal' mechanical resonance like most structures, bodies etc have.
Piezo devices as you wrote and quartz crystals do have both a series and a parallel resonance frequency and when such a device is excited with any of those frequencies then the mechanical mass starts vibrating. It is important where the body of such piece of piezo or quartz is supported i.e. fixed mechanically because you can easily attenuate vibrations by holding it at a strongly vibrating place (manufacturers of such devices know this). This may be also valid for the toroidal cores so experimentation is needed of course, maybe hanging down a core by its coil wires is the simplest precaution to make.
Gyula
Out of the 20 boards from Mr. Zhou, 18 showed Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power as measured on the Atten Oscilloscope. This is a very good acceptance rate for the elusive "magical overunity device".
Mailed 5 boards out today and will prepare 5 more. With 100 "guaranteed OU" boards circulating around the World, suppression of such technology is virtually impossible.
Hi Gyula
Thanks for posting those link. Now i know why a ferrite should not operate in its mechanical resonance frequency cause it may break apart the ferrite due to exessive vibration. Now my question is what would be the effect of magnetostriction or mechanical resonance of the ferrite to the current and voltage coil?
Hi Neo-X,
It surely depends on the excitation current flowing in the coil but I do not know by heart what relationship governs the vibration amplitude to the current strength when the AC or pulsed current is at the core's mechanical resonant frequency. It needs some studying of the technical literature of the 50s and 60s when ferrites were extensively researched.
Gyula
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 01, 2013, 02:33:21 AM
Out of the 20 boards from Mr. Zhou, 18 showed Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power as measured on the Atten Oscilloscope.
ltseung888 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/ltseung888.3463/)
How is average output power being measured? The scope probably assumes that load is resistive. If the output measurement includes the LED then the scope will not compute the output power correctly (LED does not obey ohms law).
Quote from: xee2 on March 01, 2013, 07:56:11 PM
ltseung888 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/ltseung888.3463/)
How is average output power being measured? The scope probably assumes that load is resistive. If the output measurement includes the LED then the scope will not compute the output power correctly (LED does not obey ohms law).
The Output Power Computation is based on:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current.
It does not matter whether the power is DC, AC or pulsed. The Output Voltage Measurement is across the load. The load can be LED, small motor or resistor. It also includes the 1 ohm resistor. The Output Current Measurement is across the 1 ohm resistor. The Output Voltage Waveform can be seen from the top curve. The Output Current Waveform can be seen from the bottom curve. The Output power Waveform comes from the analysis of the CSV file. The Average Output Power value comes from the CSV file.
Thus with the captured CSV file, we do not need to worry about whether the load is non-resistive. Hope that answers your question. That is why all the testers have digital oscilloscopes so that they can do such analysis.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 01, 2013, 09:20:12 PM
The Output Power Computation is based on:
Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current.
ltseung888
This is only true for a resistive load. When there are diodes in the load the voltage is increased by the diode junctions as well as the current. The power consumed by a diode is current squared times the forward resistance of the junction, not current times voltage across diode.
Just received another 20 oscilloscope test-ready boards. Will do the double and triple checks in Hong Kong. The boards for the three forums are already in the mail. According to the Hong Kong post Office - arrive within 10 working days. Thus independent testers with their oscilloscopes can do the detailed analysis.
Let the experts do their job and post their findings.
ltseung888 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/ltseung888.3463/)
Perhaps this is a better explaination of the problem:
When you are measuring volts times amps you are measuring both real and reactive power combined. A battery delivers real power. Therefore, to measure efficiency of a circuit, the output power measured must also be real power. Real power is measured using a resistive load. Thus the output power must be measured using a resistor.
Quote from: xee2 on March 02, 2013, 08:43:59 PM
Real power is measured using a resistive load. Thus the output power must be measured using a resistor.
Real power measured in a load (PL) of
any kind can be performed by taking the average of the instantaneous voltage across the load times the current through that load. It is critical however to ensure that the current measurement is across a pure resistance such as a high quality CSR resistor.
PL(AVG) = AVG[v(t) x i(t)], where i(t) might be obtained from the instantaneous voltage across a known pure current-measuring resistance; i(t)=v(t)/Rcsr.
Hi poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
Thanks for the explaination. To measure the real component of power, as I recall, the voltage vector and the current vector need to be in phase with each other. If the voltage vector is measured across a reactive load I do not see how averaging the values will produce the correct answer. I will have to think about that for a while. However, this is certainly true when both voltage and current are measured across the same resistor.
Quote from: xee2 on March 03, 2013, 12:38:34 AM
To measure the real component of power, as I recall, the voltage vector and the current vector need to be in phase with each other.
To be precise, allow me to rephrase the above;
In order for real power to manifest and be measured as real power, the current and voltage vectors must be in phase.
Quote
If the voltage vector is measured across a reactive load I do not see how averaging the values will produce the correct answer.
Keeping in mind that the stated method is to acquire instantaneous samples of current and voltage, what happens to the product of v(t) x i(t) if they are 90º out of phase? Is the p(t) for these samples not 0W?
This method inherently compensates for the samples where the phase is skewed. In other words, it takes care of the fact that the current and voltage may not always be in-phase. Only those samples that are in phase, or partially in phase will result in a real power product, and if the wave forms are periodic (in 99% of the cases they are), then taking the average of this product will yield an accurate measurement of the over-all average power.
xee2 and .99:
We in the JT topic discussed long ago that if there was any more power in than out, a self-runner was the proof. Especially using a supercap, which I believe Lawrence is, would this not be the best proof of even a tiny bit of more P in than out? It would continue to run right?
Once that is achieved, then he, or someone, can attempt to place values on how much extra is there.
I do not think that his circuits are any where near 100% and certainly not above. Looping one to a supercap would prove this very quickly.
Just my thoughts.
Bill
Hi Bill.
Yes, a self-looped arrangement should prove if the device is OU or not.
I've not seen any proposals on how to do it exactly though, have you?
Quote from: poynt99 on March 03, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
To be precise, allow me to rephrase the above;
In order for real power to manifest and be measured as real power, the current and voltage vectors must be in phase.
Keeping in mind that the stated method is to acquire instantaneous samples of current and voltage, what happens to the product of v(t) x i(t) if they are 90º out of phase? Is the p(t) for these samples not 0W?
This method inherently compensates for the samples where the phase is skewed. In other words, it takes care of the fact that the current and voltage may not always be in-phase. Only those samples that are in phase, or partially in phase will result in a real power product, and if the wave forms are periodic (in 99% of the cases they are), then taking the average of this product will yield an accurate measurement of the over-all average power.
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
If 90 degrees out of phase the real power will be 0 watts. No problem. However when not in phase and not 90 degrees out of phase, the power will be part real and part reactive. Would not the correct method be to compute the dot product between the two complex number values for voltage and current? That way only the in-phase parts of the vectors would be used. I am not real good at math, so I may have this wrong, but I think that would be correct.
In any case, I am not trying to re-design the experiment. I am just trying to understand how the output power is being measured. Thanks for your help.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 03, 2013, 01:05:11 PM
Hi Bill.
Yes, a self-looped arrangement should prove if the device is OU or not.
I've not seen any proposals on how to do it exactly though, have you?
I have been using the germanium diode method in my most recent efforts. It is not easy to get the energy flowing in the direction that you want, and to keep it going that way. In other words, it is being powered initially by the supercap but when you feed back to the cap, you need to keep the power from flowing in the reverse direction. I came up with this method not knowing any other way to do this without using some electronic switching mechanism which uses more energy. So far so good but, I need more time to play with it.
Bill
xee2,
Try to read what I wrote several more times until it makes sense. I think you are missing some salient points.
The beauty of the method is that it computes only the real power, no matter what the wave forms are nor what the phase relationships are.
Picture two wave forms, one above the other, synchronized in time. One is the voltage, and one is the current. Pick a number of points along the horizontal time axis and multiply the voltage and current values together at each of those points.
Now, with our method, the oscilloscope is doing precisely this but at a fixed sample rate. With the math function in the scope you multiply these two values together, then apply a running average to the result. What you end up with is a real time display of the average power.
Bill and All:
I've been asking for this one simple proof of concept, using an AA, or cap, to test the discharge rate, so that it can also be further verified by us here as well as on other forums. Even by those of us that don't have any test instruments. Just a cap or battery on the circuit. I've never ever heard of any reply back, only scope shots, after scope shots, after even more scope shots. With no self runner (still presently running), to show for it all though, as yet. Hopefully this will all be verified, some time soon.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 03, 2013, 02:21:28 PM
I have been using the germanium diode method in my most recent efforts. It is not easy to get the energy flowing in the direction that you want, and to keep it going that way. In other words, it is being powered initially by the supercap but when you feed back to the cap, you need to keep the power from flowing in the reverse direction. I came up with this method not knowing any other way to do this without using some electronic switching mechanism which uses more energy. So far so good but, I need more time to play with it.
Bill
@Bill: Why do you want to use a supercap, it has much more leakage current than a Tantalum capacitor (Tantalum 0.5 µA, supercap 0.32 mA)?
If the circuit is OU, a large capacitor is not needed, 0.1 µF should be enough to provide a reserve for little fluctuations.
I do not know how fast a supercap accepts a charge, but the Tantalum capacitor would react in the GigaHz range.
In a Joule Thief circuit which is a little bit OU the LED would shine a bit brighter than expected when it is looped back to a capacitor. The Voltage would self adjust to about 3.2 Volt (in case of a white LED). Of course this is only speculation, because nobody ever showed a OU Joule Thief.
0.1 µF Tantalum Capacitor 50 V, Leakage Current 0.5 µA
http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/AVX/TAP104K050SCS/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtZ1n0r9vR22X84dCiTW0Oj4kJEQkHEXDQ%3d (http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/AVX/TAP104K050SCS/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtZ1n0r9vR22X84dCiTW0Oj4kJEQkHEXDQ%3d)
Supercapacitors / Ultracapacitors 350F 2.7V , Leakage Current 0.32 mA
http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Cornell-Dubilier/CDLC351E2R7T11/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtKtLvoHD9hC99dCDgohi7U (http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Cornell-Dubilier/CDLC351E2R7T11/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtKtLvoHD9hC99dCDgohi7U)
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: poynt99 on March 03, 2013, 02:44:29 PM
What you end up with is a real time display of the average power.
poynt99
Yes. But unless the measurements are across a pure resistive load I think the average power will be of both real and reactive power combined since the scope measures total voltage and total current from what every power is there (real and reactive). I may be missing something, but I do not see how to remove the reactive power except by using a resistive load or computing the dot product. I am not saying you are wrong, I have not spent a lot of time studying this. So this is just a first impression opinion.
Xee2:
The scope will measure positive power when the supply source is supplying power to the load. If the load is reactive, it will store some of that power and then push it back to the supply source. That will be measured as negative power.
Assuming the DSO that can do mathematical operations then the net measured average power will simply be the positive power minus the negative power averaged over multiple cycles.
So the measuring DSO does not care at all what the load looks like. The load is just a black box that can do anything.
MileHigh
Quote from: xee2 on March 03, 2013, 04:18:40 PM
poynt99
Yes. But unless the measurements are across a pure resistive load I think the average power will be of both real and reactive power combined since the scope measures total voltage and total current from what every power is there (real and reactive). I may be missing something, [snip]
The scope does not measure TOTAL voltage or current, it measures on a sample by sample basis.
The scope measures only what is there, agreed? Forget about phase and real vs. reactive power. It does not matter what kind of load is being measured, by default the scope only computes REAL power when we use this method.
The picture is a wave form (not 1 full cycle) in which we will look at only 6 samples.
Sample1 = -100V x +10.5A = -1050W
Sample2 = -323V x -0.73A = +235.8W
Sample3 = +20.9V x +0.35A = +7.3W
Sample4 = +15V x +0.21A = +3.15W
Sample5 = -12.6V x -0.121A = +1.52W
Sample6 = +17.9V x -0.050A = -0.9W
Next we would take the average of all 6 measurements: -803.13W/6 = -133.85W
Of course the scope is going to sample at a much higher rate than this, so it will get a more accurate measurement of the average power over all.
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
Supose at a given instant of time the reacitve power is 10 volts and 0 amps while the real power is 1 volt and 1 amp. I think the scope will read 11 volts and 1 amp (11 watts) while the real power is actually only 1 watt. Am I doing this wrong?
Quote from: xee2 on March 03, 2013, 05:43:37 PM
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
Supose at a given instant of time the reacitve power is 10 volts and 0 amps while the real power is 1 volt and 1 amp. I think the scope will read 11 volts and 1 amp (11 watts) while the real power is actually only 1 watt. Am I doing this wrong?
Yes you are doing this wrong.
Look at the scope traces in my above post. How can you have more than one value for voltage or current at any particular instant of time?
You can't. There is only one voltage and one current. Their product is the power at that instant of time.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 03, 2013, 06:01:57 PM
How can you have more than one value for voltage or current at any particular instant of time?
poynt99
In the example there is only one value of current (1 amp) and one value of voltage (11 volts) on the scope. Those values are the total current and total voltage the scope sees across the non-resistive load. For AC circuits, when the load is not a pure resistance the reactive components can add voltage without adding real power. Like I said, I have not thought this all through. But this is one of the things that I think needs more thought.
Quote from: xee2 on March 03, 2013, 06:37:55 PM
poynt99
In the example there is only one value of current (1 amp) and one value of voltage (11 volts) on the scope. Those values are the total current and total voltage the scope sees across the non-resistive load. For AC circuits, when the load is not a pure resistance the reactive components can add voltage without adding real power. Like I said, I have not thought this all through. But this is one of the things that I think needs more thought.
In your example your total voltage and current consisted of two values added together. I am trying to tell you that there is no such thing. The values are simply what they are, nothing more nothing less.
Regardless if the voltage across a load is increased due to its reactance, when that voltage is multiplied against the current at that instant, the p(t) might be quite small, even though the voltage is higher.
Anyway, I have provided all the information you need, in a clear manner. It is up to you to study and try to understand it.
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
Thanks for your help. You seem to be on top of this. I was always taught to measure real power using a resistor, so I am always suspicious when that is not done. I am sure that if there are any problems you will spot them.
Some pleasaant surprise first. This new batch from Shenzhen used toroids that are machine wire-wounded. The COP on board 70 jumped to -27.32. I shall check on other boards. With more boards at my disposal, I can try the two or more stage JT. (Output of one becomes Input to another) Preliminary tests were encouraging. More on that later.
Now see the new scope shots - not all JTs are equal even though they all light up the LED!!!
Not all JTs can demonstrate OU - once they can, I call them FLEET... That is why JT research is interesting...
Quote from: NickZ on March 03, 2013, 03:06:53 PM
Bill and All:
I've been asking for this one simple proof of concept, using an AA, or cap, to test the discharge rate, so that it can also be further verified by us here as well as on other forums. Even by those of us that don't have any test instruments. Just a cap or battery on the circuit. I've never ever heard of any reply back, only scope shots, after scope shots, after even more scope shots. With no self runner (still presently running), to show for it all though, as yet. Hopefully this will all be verified, some time soon.
Are you looking for something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5G0PyJsoyo
It's relatively easy to know just how much energy you are _actually_ supplying to the circuit by looking at the time it takes for a capacitor to discharge by a known amount.
Here are the last two scopeshots representing "output" that Lawrence posted up above, in posts 292 and 314. Notice anything interesting?
This is the first attempt to use the boards in a two stage fashion. The Output of Board 71 is used as Input to Board 72. However, not all the Output was used as Input. The Output was parallel to the LED (connecting B1 and B3).
The encouraging sign is that COP was -1.70 but the actual Input and Output Power values were very low. This means the board will have to be redesigned to test the loopback feature. More work and more challenge. Any suggestions???
The Input waveform in this case is pulsed as expected.
TK:
QuoteHere are the last two scopeshots representing "output" that Lawrence posted up above, in posts 292 and 314. Notice anything interesting?
I am stumped. I see that in the lower capture the scope probe on the voltage waveform must have been on 10X attenuation but that's not interesting. There is a lot of noise on the current waveform but chances are that's normal at that gain setting.
Those waveforms relate back to my posting #271:
QuoteThe torque that you put on the flywheel from pedaling is the battery voltage. The torque that the flywheel puts on the belt during the braking is the coil voltage [or the LED voltage] when it's de-energizing. The rotational speed of the flywheel is the current through the coil.
So the output waveforms represent the "belt applying braking to the rotating flywheel."
Beyond that, I am not sure what you are suggesting. Duh.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 03, 2013, 10:08:24 PM
Are you looking for something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5G0PyJsoyo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5G0PyJsoyo)
It's relatively easy to know just how much energy you are _actually_ supplying to the circuit by looking at the time it takes for a capacitor to discharge by a known amount.
It is great to see the many experts are focusing on this thread. The oscilloscope test-ready boards should be in the hands of many such experts within the next few days. The point I would like the experts to focus on is the
negative power on the Input. What does that really mean??? I can wait until the experts see the same thing on their own oscilloscopes.
This is the second attempt to do the 2 stage JT. To my surprise, the Input Vpp was higher than the Output Vpp. The COP was -1.24. It appears that the 2 stage JT circuit has a much more complex feedback mechanism than simple addition.
MORE RESEARCH NEEDED.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 03, 2013, 10:24:31 PM
Here are the last two scopeshots representing "output" that Lawrence posted up above, in posts 292 and 314. Notice anything interesting?
In 314 it appears the voltage has increased by a factor of 10, and the current by a factor of 2. The frequency has also dropped quite a bit.
Opening the floodgate
Three oscilloscope test-ready boards were given to a Venture Capitalist Group who already funded "Free Energy Research".
In their words: "Your board is the simplest to demonstrate and test. It will take our experts a few minutes to hook up and test. If your board is not overunity, that will be the end of the game. If it shows overunity, the game begins."
The thing that impressed them most is the Average Output Power vs Average Input Power graph. In particular, they were amazed at the negative input power. The two stage JT with the very sharp negative Input power peaks was particularly striking. With the three boards, they will be able to reproduce that curve on their own oscilloscopes.
*** Thank you to all those who suggested the loopback or two stage JT experiment. I did not expect that it would show the negative Input Power so strikingly. ***
They seemed to appreciate the significance of negative input power without my detailed explanations. Probably, they have already heard something similar from their existing ventures. Average Negative Input Power implies more power is being feedback to the source than supplied by the source. How is that possible? There must be additional energy coming in. It is a clear confirmation of Lead-out energy.
The Floodgate is now open. There is no more mystery to the lasersaber devices, the bedini generator, the steven mark TPU etc. It is a matter of who will supply the first commercial product. Any organization or individual with oscilloscopes can enter this race. The many testers will confirm the results within the next few weeks.
Divine wine will pour out to benefit the World.
Conversation with Mr. Zhou, the professional who supplied the oscilloscope test-ready boards.
Tseung; "Do you perform a full oscilloscope analysis on every board before you send it to me?"
Zhou: "No. That will take too long. If you want a full analysis report on every board, you have to pay extra. It will more than triple your cost."
Tseung: "What sort of tests do you perform? You have a 90% success rate on the elusive overunity board without the capacitor. I never have that success rate even though my JTs all light up the LEDs."
Zhou: "I used the oscilloscope. But I only observe the Waveforms. The most important waveform is the Input Current (bottom curve of Input). If it fluctuates around the zero axis with significant negative values, I know that the board will pass."
I checked my other JT boards such as that in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg26471#msg26471)
Focus on Nov12a.xls. That JT did not show overunity without the capacitor. Even with the capacitor and constant DC power supply, it did not show overunity . It showed overunity when the DC power supply was removed. Not all JT will show overunity or in the same way...
Mr. Zhou is clever. He focused on the most important element of his boards – Negative Input Power.
Lawrence,
How does Zhou "tune" the boards to pass?
Quote from: poynt99 on March 05, 2013, 07:50:27 PM
Lawrence,
How does Zhou "tune" the boards to pass?
At present, Mr. Zhou just passes the "failed boards" to his team/friends to play with and debug - they still light up the LEDs. Some turned out to be bad toroid windings or just bad soldering/connections. He found that to be cheaper and faster than spending his own time. At the same time, he is training up his team. I am passing the failed and the exceptional boards back to him so that he can re-examine them at his convenience. At the beginning, he had to reject many boards. Now, he seemed to have hit on a good board arrangement and using consistent machine wound toroids. There are few rejections. He is working with a factory to try to mass-produce consistent quality boards.
Please check Board 33 carefully. You should get it within the next few days. If you also find that the
Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power on your scope, I shall ask Mr. Zhou to standardize on similar boards for this product. He is also working on the
2n3055 with much higher actual Average Output Power. He is a qualified electronics engineer with proper license.
The waveform Mr. Zhou focused on.
It is the Input Waveform. The bottom curve is the current. If that has significant negative value (such as on Board 33), the board will show OU. The Voltage is all positive. Any negative current will mean negative power. More negative current = more negative power.
This batch of boards from him all have such characteristics. So do not worry if you cannot build an OU JT yourself. Order from him and continue your research.....
@all testers: Please look for and display this "Input Current" graph when you receive your boards. It will give much information even before the full oscilloscope analysis...
It seems to me like you've got a little problem, Lawrence. After all, the boards that show this strong "negative input power" reading still manage to deplete their batteries or capacitors in an ordinary time period. Don't they.
@.99: Yes, that's right-- what is the explanation for this difference in the two graphs?
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 06, 2013, 12:22:53 AM
It seems to me like you've got a little problem, Lawrence. After all, the boards that show this strong "negative input power" reading still manage to deplete their batteries or capacitors in an ordinary time period. Don't they.
@TK,
You are right. You are one of the most
respected researchers on this Forum. I learned much from you – even the correct setting on the oscilloscope.
We are lucky this time to have a batch (
approximately 100) of boards all showing strong "negative input power" and on further analysis; many also showed
Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power. We are excited but also realize that there is much more to do before a commercial product can be produced to benefit the World.
Instead of trying to do all the work ourselves, we decided to share this good fortune (or
Divine Revelation) with the World. Some giants such as Lasersaber, PhysicsProf, yourself etc. are already ahead of us in such research.
I shall be delighted to send you one or two of these "negative input power" boards to you for testing, replication or improvement. It will do the World much more good than us stockpiling them. The
strong negative input power (in a 2 stage set up) is already intellectually and experimentally challenging. We need more top brains to crack the problem.
God Bless.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 06, 2013, 12:22:53 AM
@.99: Yes, that's right-- what is the explanation for this difference in the two graphs?
The frequency difference is most likely a result of component and/or component arrangement changes.
I suspect that the lower frequency version with the higher output voltage is due to the inductor charging with more energy (it has a higher inductance).
Therefore, I would also expect the battery or capacitor to deplete that much quicker as well in that particular build compared to the other.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 04, 2013, 04:21:45 AM
This is the second attempt to do the 2 stage JT. To my surprise, the Input Vpp was higher than the Output Vpp. The COP was -1.24. It appears that the 2 stage JT circuit has a much more complex feedback mechanism than simple addition.
MORE RESEARCH NEEDED.
Comparing a peak power doesn't give you the total energy for a cycle (say one second for example).
You need to make integration (computing the area of the power of your signal in your graph).
If the area of the output power is superior then you have OU, I say that because you can have a huge peak power during a brief time and not having OU ! With a peak power you can't see OU.
I never understood why you concentrate so much on peak power but in reality energy is also linked to time: How many Joule I have consumed during a definite time and how many I have produced during that same period !
Although I'm not a specialist but why not try that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezium_rule
Cordially, SRM.
What can you do with Board 71 (and Board 33, 38, 39 etc.)?
Apparently, Board 70 was an exception. The Output Voltage, Current and Power were many times higher than all other boards from Shenzhen. It will be sent back for detailed examination.
Since I already twisted out the LED on Board 71 so that all Output goes to the connected LOAD at B1 and B3, I decided to test its limites.
(1) It can light up the 12 LED strips that normally will require 12V DC to light. That is not surprising as I had demonstrated that before.
(2) It can light up many such strips. I used up all the strips available in my bedroom. A phone call to a tester in Hong Kong also lighted up many thousands of LEDs in such arrangement. The joke at the moment is that we may be able to light up the millions of 3V LEDs in the whole retail shops in Shenzhen. We shall see.
(3) The Input is from the DC Power Supply at 2V and too small a current to be indicated. The reason of keeping the voltage at 2V is not to burn out the 2n2222. I shall be more daring with the 2n3055.
I shall double and triple check my oscilloscope analysis before posting it. It is too unbelievable..... Is it possible that such a simple board can light up millions of 3V LEDs? Can it be compared to the match that light up (burn up) the entire forest???
@poynt99 and other testers: the Board is going to be much more interesting than simple OU or showing negative average input power. Have fun....
Now the oscilloscope analysis on Board 71 after double and triple checking. There is little chance of experimental or equipment error.
(1) The New COP is -6.47. The negative sign comes from INPUT. This is a large increase in COP.
(2) There are sharp Negative Output Current peaks. The more LEDs I put on, the sharper the peaks. No such negative current peaks were observed with just 1 LED. It looks like when the board needs more energy, it automatically goes out and gets more - showing that fact from the negative current peaks.
(3) The Average Input Power is still negative and the numerical value changed little. We are NOT drawing more energy from the DC Power Supply to light many more LEDs. Is the source of this extra energy - lead-out energy?
With the 2n2222, the LEDs did not reach the full brightness. Will use the 2n3055 next. Can the 2n3055 board be the more powerful match giving more brightness? We are not restricted to the 2n3055 or transistors. Other rapid pulsing mechanism may also be fine....
deleted (http://www.overunity.com/profile/ltseung888.3463/) by xee2
Another tester from Canada.
Dear XXX,
Two 2n2222 oscilloscope test ready boards are on their way to you. Make sure you read the thread in overunity.com to know how to test them. The two boards can be put into a 2 stage fashion to clearly demonstrate OU and negative input power. Get help if needed. Email me your results or post them on the forums.
The result will convince any venture group or research organizations. Follow the overunity.com thread.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World.
Lawrence
Mr. Zhou is getting ready to sell Lead-out Energy products to the Market.
See Photo and pdf file.
Instead of my giving gifts to different organizations, any one can order the guaranteed OU products from him.
Mr. Zhou used more than one make of oscilloscope to test Board 58. Both UNI-T and Atten oscilloscopes showed COP > 1.
Product should be ready within weeks.
What, exactly, is your definition of "OU" here, Lawrence?
It certainly cannot mean "overunity" in the way that we normally understand it, because your boards aren't making any excess energy and are in fact less efficient in lighting their lights with the battery or cap stored energy than some other circuits we've seen in the JT threads.
Your boards are demonstrating several things: poor layout and construction, measurement errors, over-reliance on digital "numbers in boxes", bad experimental design and procedure, and the gullibility of uneducated masses, along with more than a little greed and cynicism. They are NOT demonstrating any kind of overunity performance. Your _only_ evidence that supports your claim is to be found in your scope measurements.... the actual performance of your circuit belies your claims, since your batteries/capacitors DO run down and do so in normal time intervals for the light output seen. This failure is technically called a lack of "concurrent validity"... that is, other measures and tests do not agree with the interpretation of the spreadsheeted scope data.
Please show a photo or video of your 2n2222a circuit lighting "thousands of LEDs" for a significant time on a AA battery or similar power source.
The oscilloscope analysis results for board 58 done by Mr. Zhou at his Office.
The COP was -31.94. However, the Average Input Power = -0.00075watts
The Average Output Power =0.02388watts
The good thing about the experiment was that both the UNI-T and Atten Oscilloscopes gave same results. The possibility of equipment error was zero.
@TK
Let the other testers with their oscilloscopes display the results of the "guaranteed OU boards" first. When we have absolutely confirmed results from multiple sources, we can then show the next prototypes. There is no need to jump now. Many testers, replicators, improvers will show the very impressive results you hope for. Just be patient. I am a poor experimenter - bad eye sight, bad hearing, shaky hands and pressing wrong buttons etc. The testers are very different. Let them do their job.....
Many top guns such as lasersaber have already demonstrated "OU" devices. I just use the "guaranteed OU board" and the Lead-out energy theory to back them up (or sit on their shoulders).
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 14, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
What, exactly, is your definition of "OU" here, Lawrence?
My definition of "OU" is that - a scientific instrument such as the oscilloscope can detect that the
Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power. The Average Input Power can be from a battery or a DC Power supply over many seconds, minutes, hours or days.
The Average Output Power is pulsed (not DC or AC) and must be measured by the averaging of the product of the Instantaneous Voltage and Instantaneous Current over many sample points. The
only tool that can show the waveforms and capture the Instantaneous values for analysis is the
Oscilloscope (my limited knowledge).
Another important indication of "OU" is the occurance of
Negative Power. For example, Negative Input Power indicates that more Power flows back to the battery than supplied by the battery. Energy must be flowing from some external source other than the battery. That is the essence of
Lead-out Energy.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 14, 2013, 08:14:54 PM
snip...
For example, Negative Input Power indicates that more Power flows back to the battery than supplied by the battery.
snip...
If there really was more power flowing back to the battery than being supplied by the battery, then an oscillascope would not even be required to read and analyze the complex waveforms.
The battery would never discharge. In fact, even with the leds as loads, if the power back into the battery were more than it was supplying to the circuit, then eventually if would either explode, or fail catastrophically some other way, due to prolonged over charging and over voltage.
In the meantime a simple analogue voltmeter would suffice for average readings, which would show the supply voltage either rising or falling, over the duration of a long test run.
If the battery is eventually discharging, however long it takes, then the power back into the battery must be less than the power it supplies to the circuit.
This doesn't rule out the possibilty that the resultant power consumed by the whole circuit (supplied power minus reactive power), might be less than the lumen output power of the leds. But proving that possibility requires another, different, set of measurements for power consumption versus power output comparisons.
Cheers
Quote from: hoptoad on March 15, 2013, 02:09:42 AM
If there really was more power flowing back to the battery than being supplied by the battery, then an oscillascope would not even be required to read and analyze the complex waveforms.
The battery would never discharge. In fact, even with the leds as loads, if the power back into the battery were more than it was supplying to the circuit, then eventually if would either explode, or fail catastrophically some other way, due to prolonged over charging and over voltage.
In the meantime a simple analogue voltmeter would suffice for average readings, which would show the supply voltage either rising or falling, over the duration of a long test run.
If the battery is eventually discharging, however long it takes, then the power back into the battery must be less than the power it supplies to the circuit.
This doesn't rule out the possibilty that the resultant power (supplied power minus reactive power) consumed by the whole circuit might be less than the lumen output power of the leds. But proving that possibility requires another, different, set of measurements for power consumption versus power output comparisons.
Cheers
Please look at the
Input waveform from the oscilloscope. The voltage changed very little around the 1.xx V mark. Such a small change is usually
not enough to recharge a battery. The AA battery used normally is NOT rechargeable. In other words, in all the tests shown, we did not use the feedback power for recharging. Thus slow draining of the battery is not a surprise.
We (or someone else, Bedini, G-LED?) shall soon announce a 12V
car battery recharger using Lead-out Energy. The car battery is rechargeable. There will be
smoothing, rectifying and protection circuits to recharge
one or more 12V car batteries on the Output. The Output may also have Secondary circuits. Such a circuit was found to work (with problems) by us in 2010 and was described in
Chapter 5 of Patrick Kelly's Book. The problems are likely to be resolved totally soon.....
*** one new technology worth watching is from MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html (http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html)
Since I already leaked out the 12V car battery recharger information, I shall try to benefit the World more with the use of one or more capacitors. They are a great help in the car battery recharger.
Board 55 has a 2.3V 10F capacitor connected in parallel with the battery or DC Power Supply. Board 55 happened to be the one that could light up the LED for 9 hours (blinking and dimming towards the end).
The COP was -3.43. The Input Power was -0.01075 Watts. The Output Power was 0.03684 Watts. (with DC Power Supply ON).
The COP was still negative and increasing. The Output Voltage Frequency also increased from 4KHz to over 30KHz. (With DC Power Supply turned off). Adding a capacitor at the appropriate place did have value. (See the many videos from TK).
Significance of Board 55:
(1) Board 55 has a Capacitor connected in parallel with the battery or DC power supply..
(2) When Battery is disconnected, the Capacitor continues to act as INPUT to circuit.
(3) The COP was still negative with the numerical value greater than 1. The negative sign came from average INPUT power.
(4) This conclusively showed that much of the energy lighting the LEDs came from Lead-out Energy.
(5) Thanks to the Atten Oscilloscope. The 12V battery charger using Lead-out Energy is a FACT.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 15, 2013, 03:35:11 AM
Board 55 has a 2.3V 10F capacitor connected in parallel with the battery or DC Power Supply. Board 55 happened to be the one that could light up the LED for 9 hours (blinking and dimming towards the end).
The fact that the capacitor voltage decreased over time proves that the board is consuming more power than it is returning to the power source (capacitor). Thus your "OU" is due to measurement errors. A capacitor is rechargeable. Any current flowing back into it will recharge it.
Quote from: xee2 on March 15, 2013, 01:47:56 PM
The fact that the capacitor voltage decreased over time proves that the board is consuming more power than it is returning to the power source (capacitor). Thus your "OU" is due to measurement errors. A capacitor is rechargeable. Any current flowing back into it will recharge it.
Please check your Physics before making such bold statements..... In particular, check pulsing current into a super capacitor.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 15, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
Please check your Physics before making such bold statements..... In particular, check pulsing current into a super capacitor.....
If you think that this does not apply to your capacitor, then test with a normal capacitor. I have a degree in physics and, if you will check, you will find that pulsing current into capacitors will charge them up. I am only trying to be helpful. You are not making your measurements correctly.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg29450#msg29450 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg29450#msg29450)
Some of you may say that the Output Power with the 2n2222 board is low (in the 0.0x range). The noise may be a factor. The measurements cannot be trusted.
The above link shows the result of the 2n3055. The Average Output Power is in the range of 0.5W. That should be way above the noise level.
@xee2
There are at least 10 other testers receiving the oscilloscope test-ready boards. Is it likely that they all make errors??? Let us wait for their results.
*** One tester in Canada just picked up the FLEET package with the oscilloscope test-ready board. Let us see when the other nine get theirs.
@ ltseung888
The main problem with your measurements is that you are not computing the power going into the LED correctly. For a resistor the power used is amps through the resistor times voltage across the resistor. However, the LED is not a a resistor so this will not give the correct amount of power. If you do not believe this, then substiture a resistor for the LED in your circuit and you will find that your measurements no longer produce OU. I made the following video to try to explain this. I hope it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcQxC46pyw
Xee2:
Sorry you made a valiant attempt to cover the issue of the power dissipated in an LED including making a YouTube clip but you made a mistake.
You model the LED as a voltage source in series with a resistor. You state that the power associated with the voltage source is zero because there is no resistance. In fact that voltage source represents more power being dissipated in the LED. Your model for the LED voltage source represents a voltage drop and any voltage drop times current flow means power is being dissipated. So the voltage drop times the current through that voltage drop is what is also dissipated in the LED.
Total watts used by the LED = (Vled x i ) + (i x R)
If you use a DSO like Lawrence is doing then you can measure the power dissipated in the LED. It's simply the current measurement that you get from measuring the voltage across a current sensing resistor times the voltage across the LED. So there is no real difference in measuring the power dissipated in a resistor or an LED, you can use essentially the same technique.
However, there are limitations in what you can do with a DSO because of the sampling rate. If you are trying to measure narrow spikes that could be a problem. The DSO because of its sampling rate "sees" narrow spikes as a series of thin rectangles one stacked next to the other. I don't know if this issue applies to Lawrence's case or not, but one should be aware that a DSO may have serious problems making measurements on very narrow spikes, whether they be voltage spikes or current spikes.
MileHigh
Quote from: xee2 on March 17, 2013, 12:28:06 AM
@ ltseung888
The main problem with your measurements is that you are not computing the power going into the LED correctly. For a resistor the power used is amps through the resistor times voltage across the resistor. However, the LED is not a a resistor so this will not give the correct amount of power. If you do not believe this, then substiture a resistor for the LED in your circuit and you will find that your measurements no longer produce OU. I made the following video to try to explain this. I hope it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcQxC46pyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcQxC46pyw)
I shall let poynt99 answer your posts. He already received one of the oscilloscope test ready boards and he has a 4 channel high end oscilloscope.
Result from tester for Board 88. Two Atten 1052CA oscilloscopes were used. One for Input and one for Output.
COP = -4.29
Average Input Power =-0.02133 watts
Average Output Power = 0.091479 watts
One experimental error was seen on the Input BMP file. The CH2 (current) Invert function should have been turned ON. The power of the Oscilloscope Analysis is - such error can be caught....
Quote from: xee2 on March 17, 2013, 12:28:06 AM
@ ltseung888
The main problem with your measurements is that you are not computing the power going into the LED correctly. For a resistor the power used is amps through the resistor times voltage across the resistor. However, the LED is not a a resistor so this will not give the correct amount of power. If you do not believe this, then substiture a resistor for the LED in your circuit and you will find that your measurements no longer produce OU. I made the following video to try to explain this. I hope it helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcQxC46pyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcQxC46pyw)
Go back and re-read the posts I made explaining to you how power is computed by these scope measurements.
It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE what type of component is being measured, the computed power will be correct, in a perfect world that is. There are various subtle factors that will skew the measurement making it erroneous, if one is not aware of them and corrects for them.
red LED says: 2013/02/24 at 09:17 (http://rustybolt.info/wordpress/?attachment_id=1239#comment-2614)What is the purpose of the 0 ohm resistor? Wouldn't a direct connection be the same?Reply (http://rustybolt.info/wordpress/?attachment_id=1239&replytocom=2614#respond)
- (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2F705894f1aadebb363edefef69e00a5bc%3Fs%3D32%26amp%3Bd%3Dretro%26amp%3Br%3DPG&hash=1c1839c13ddf2db52e681fecdd6e59de500d5c86)admin says: 2013/02/24 at 09:45 (http://rustybolt.info/wordpress/?attachment_id=1239#comment-2615)Yes, for measuring the lux, I shorted the 1 ohm resistor so that the LED output would be the actual light output. For measuring the LED current, I removed the jumper from the 1 ohm resistor. For each millivolt I measured across the 1 ohm with the DMM, it was the same as 1 milliamp LED current. After the measurement, the short can be used for full light output or the 1 ohm resistor can be removed and the 0 ohm jumper put in its place. THIS IS A QUOTE FROM RED LED
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
The equation "watts = amps x volts" is only valid for resistors in DC circuits. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepow.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepow.html)
This is the calculation the scopes are making. It is only valid when measuring power across resistors. If you doubt this, replace the LED with a resistor and you will see that there is no OU.
Quote from: xee2 on March 17, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
poynt99 (http://www.overunity.com/profile/poynt99.10970/)
The equation "watts = amps x volts" is only valid for resistors in DC circuits. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepow.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elepow.html)
When measuring DC, the amps and volts measurements can be "average", "rms" (they are the same for DC) or an "averaged-instantaneous" measurement. The result will be the same.
Quote
This is the calculation the scopes are making.
No, you are mistaken. The scope is making an "averaged-instantaneous" measurement only.
The scope is taking many simultaneous instantaneous measurements of current and voltage. Then the scope is set up to multiply each simultaneous current and voltage measurement to produce an instantaneous power p(t). When an averaging function is applied to p(t) (either internal to the scope, or via spreadsheet computation), the average power is the result.
Now, please study what I have posted until you actually understand it, or do your own research if you do not believe me (Attached is a good place to start). Until then, please refrain from posting misleading information as to how to make power measurements with an oscilloscope.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 17, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
When measuring DC, the amps and volts measurements can be "average", "rms" (they are the same for DC) or an "averaged-instantaneous" measurement. The result will be the same.
This is true, but it does not solve the problem. The problem is that the equation being used to compute power is not valid for an LED. It is only valid for resistors (and resistances that can be modeled as a resistor).
@ ltseung888
I have spent over a day trying to help you understand what is wrong with the measurements. It seems I have not succeeded. Perhaps it will eventually sink in. Now I have other things to do. Have fun with your "OU" circuit. Eventually you will realize that it is not OU. Then perhaps you will find my comments helpful.
Another tester in USA?
I would be glad to cooperate with this effort to show the world how well ZPE works.
I am in the U.S.
Chris XXXXXX
Thank you for the work you are doing.
XXX
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Lawrence Tseung <ltseung@hotmail.com> wrote:
Please give me your mailing address.
If you are willing to post your test results on the Internet - in overunity.com (http://overunity.com/) for example, I shall be happy to send you a prototype board FREE for testing and confirmation.
Let us try to benefit the World together.
Lawrence
@poynt99
Thank you for your explanations to xee2. I shall focus on training the many interested groups in Hong Kong and China. Hong Kong can lead the World in Lead-out Energy research. Since I am also an US Citizen, an oscilloscope test ready board will be sent to President Obama via proper channels - US Consulate in Hong Kong, United Nations in New York???
Thank you also for providing the bench for me to dump my preliminary work and thoughts (some are now known to be mistaken) at OUR for these years.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 17, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
an oscilloscope test ready board will be sent to President Obama
The real problem here is that Mr ltseung888 has what is referred to ask 'Sunk Cost Syndrome'. Often referenced in finacaial matters, but in this case, I beleive this to be correct diagnosis of Itseung888 and his refusal to see the truth. He is barking up the wrong tree, there is no OU in joule theifs, end of story.
"Sunk cost syndrome is where you are so attached to your existing work, products and methods that you refuse to abandon them even if they become outdated.The Fortune article talks about Seymour Cray as an example. Cray built sailboats and supercomputers. "But in computing Cray knew, there is no such thing as timeless perfection, only obsolescence. To drive the point home, legend goes, he'd build a beautiful sailboat each spring, then burn it in the fall."
I think this applies to your Big Ticket Marketing in two main ways.
The first way is the obvious one. Don't fall so completely in love with a product or way of marketing that you stop trying to improve it. In some ways you should be working to make your own products obsolete before someone else does it for you! Try to constantly think of ways to improve your products and to improve your marketing. Try another traffic generation technique, another list building process, another tracking tool, EVEN if the ones you are using today work great. They could stop working sometime in the future.
The second way that Sunk-cost syndrome applies to your marketing business is what Robert Allen calls multiple streams of income. Even if you have a product that you love and is selling really well, you should still go out and create additional products and sell them as well. Or have multiple big ticket backend products for an existing product. Then if sales bottom out for a particular product because a killer competitive product is introduced in the market or even if the market for the product slowly dries up. You still have the safety net of other products and their revenue streams to rely on."
http://www.likemagicmarketing.com/blogs/bigticket/2005_07_01_archive.htm
Dear Potential Tester,
Due to the large number of private requests for the oscilloscope test ready boards, I am introducing the following qualifying procedure.
(1) The tester must have Digital Oscilloscopes of the necessary features (2 cchannel, capable of saving the data for EXCEL analysis)
(2) The tester must read the attached file and the link to overunity.com first.
(3) The tester must disclose his information (name/organization) and his commitment to post in the above overunity.com thread.
(4) The tester must post his equipment setup, the oscilloscope screens and the full oscilloscope analysis on the above overunity.com thread after the test - within two weeks of receiving the Board.
(5) The tester must be willing to show the Board and test procedure to qualified organizations in his locality.
If you still feel that you would like to participate in the test, please do the above. I shall keep your mailing address confidential.
May the Almighty help us to benefit the World.
Lawrence Tseung
This is always the big problem, we get a claim of OU and then there is pages and pages of argument and debate about how to measure properly.
Lawrence should know better by now he's been claiming OU for too many years, and yet he never comes up with a self-runner for most people here that is the only test that counts, can your device runner itself, and in Lawrence's case the answer has always been No >:(
Quote from: xee2 on March 17, 2013, 02:52:48 PM
This is true, but it does not solve the problem. The problem is that the equation being used to compute power is not valid for an LED. It is only valid for resistors (and resistances that can be modeled as a resistor).
You are mistaken. The
problem is your lack of understanding of how to make power measurements with an oscilloscope.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 18, 2013, 05:30:59 AM
Dear Potential Tester,
Due to the large number of private requests for the oscilloscope test ready boards, I am introducing the following qualifying procedure.
(1) The tester must have Digital Oscilloscopes of the necessary features (2 cchannel, capable of saving the data for EXCEL analysis)
(2) The tester must read the attached file and the link to overunity.com first.
(3) The tester must disclose his information (name/organization) and his commitment to post in the above overunity.com thread.
(4) The tester must post his equipment setup, the oscilloscope screens and the full oscilloscope analysis on the above overunity.com thread after the test - within two weeks of receiving the Board.
(5) The tester must be willing to show the Board and test procedure to qualified organizations in his locality.
If you still feel that you would like to participate in the test, please do the above. I shall keep your mailing address confidential.
May the Almighty help us to benefit the World.
Lawrence Tseung
Dear Lawrence:
If your boards are overunity, they should be overunity _no matter how they are measured_ as long as the measurement method itself is valid. You have just admitted that your boards must be measured in one certain way in order to show your results.
How about making your measurements using an actual, qualified laboratory power analyzer, that can measure input and output power simultaneously at high bandwidth and display results in real-time, like the Clarke-Hess 2330? This method is clearly superior to spreadsheeting results obtained _asynchronously_ from two low-end DSOs -- and it will show you the true state of affairs: your circuitboards aren't OU at all, only your _measurements_, or rather the computations made using them, are OU.
May the Almighty allow you to shed the scales from your eyes and perceive the true nature of affairs.
--TK
@xeee, .99: I think there is a "failure to communicate" here. The input and output powers are each being measured here as the instantaneous product of current and voltage, and the current values are obtained from an Ohm's Law computation performed on the voltage drop across a known resistor. The "power dissipation" of a resistor or an LED when subjected to a given current isn't the issue at all and the ultimate load on the system being measured also doesn't matter.
A _true_ computation of synchronously obtained, instantaneous samples of current and voltage yields the correct instantaneous power, no matter what the "power factor" or phase angle or complexity of the waveforms concerned.
But... major problems are encountered when the samples aren't truly synchronous -- like when they are obtained with two different, low-end, sampling DSOs -- and when the sampling or computation intervals aren't "instantaneous", as when a sequence of samples taken with an instrument with finite, and low, bandwidth is put into a spreadsheet for further computation on an interval-by-interval basis.
Problems such as improper signal coupling, improper setting of the "trace invert" control, excessive wire lengths and poor routing, and low sample rates wrt the signal frequency all contribute to the illusion of overunity performance in the measurements. I stress that _concurrent validity_ is lacking here: there are no indications of any OU behaviour in this system, other than LTseung's computations.
ETA: Unless I am greatly mistaken, the scopes LTseung are using sample their channels consecutively. One channel is sampled and recorded, then the other channel is sampled and recorded. Hence, the samples aren't truly simultaneous but are separated in time by an interval determined by the scope's bandwidth settings.
QuoteHi Lawrence:
Thank you for the 2 boards 85 & 86. We will have the engineers verify the COP of the boards.
Thanks again. regards Tom
@all
The results from this tester will be posted here as soon as they are ready. Results from many other testers are expected within weeks. Be patient. Many packages have been sent out. You can order from Mr. Zhou directly. His email is zhouwei.1052@163.com. Price will
vary with quantity and shipping costs.
@TK
Thank you for the detailed technical comments. My posted oscilloscope analysis results came from using
two Oscilloscopes - one to measure Input and one to measure Output. Both of them are
two channel Atten Oscilloscopes. Some results are done sequentially - take the Input first and then take the Output. Some results are done "simultaneously". The
stop button on both oscilloscopes were pressed at the same time. Both methods yield
similar results. The Average Input and Output Power as computed did not change much. No capacitors were in the circuit.
@poynt99
Please use your
4 channel oscilloscope to do the tests on Broad 33. It will be true simultaneous measurement. After repeating my tests, you are welcome to do
other tests on the board.
Reproduce more. Using the 2n3055 instead of the 2n2222 will give you much higher Output Power.
@Tom
You have two boards - 85 and 86. You can use the Output of 85 as Input to 86. The resulting waveforms will
convince all that the "lead-out mechanism" is much more complex than a
simple superimposition. Simple
loopback or daisy-chain will not work. The best arrangement is the
Battery Charger for 12V car batteries using 2n3055. You can try to develop that as a
product and see if you can be the
first on the Market... Meanwhile, I shall refer to your group as
tester for Board 85.
Hi Lawrence,
many thanbks for sending the 2 boards labeled "38".
They have come in and both are working on a fresh 1.5 Volts alkaline battery.
But I have not yet hooked up a scope,
cause I first need to finish my tax reports, that are already overdue..
So it will be a few days ahead when I will have time to test the boards.
But stay tuned.
Many thanks again.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote
Good for you, for introducing this qualifying procedure. However, that is not WHY I contacted you.
I was reading on your website about your progress as of 2007, 2009. I have an RFP from Xcel Energy, a very large energy company in the US which pays grants for research and for development-level (or any level) new machines or equipment that generates electricity cheaper and better than the current methods (currently the company does a lot of nuclear energy plants - one is 30 miles from my home - and some small amount of wind energy. The Governor of my state, the state of Minnesota, has a platform positive on alternative energy. Solar is very big this year. Wall street likes it. So there will be many projects from solar companies applying for grants this year. The total amount of grants will be about $30 million. Not a lot for what we are talking about but T H Moray and Nikola Tesla could have done a lot with that amount of money. I am letting people know whose work looks promising, about the existence of this money and encouraging them to look at the RFP and apply if they can.
The first file attached is the RFP for energy production research, that is work at either the developmental stage, the research stage or the commercial stage of a machine such as I saw described on your website.
The second file attached is the RFP for higher ed research programs applied to projects either in the theoretical stage or the application of research to overcome milestones in the developmental or commercial stages
Do you see now where I'm coming from? I was trying to gain a basis for discussing your projects on whatever terms you find poignant at this time, in order to explain how this money could help you and what is involved. A request for proposal (RFP) is something you are probably already familiar with....it opens at a certain time for those with proposals to consider it and then closes so the next phase can start (April 1,2013) the proposals that are considered are chosen by that date and thereafter qualified as to peer review available etc and documentation. Then contracts are negotiated with milestones for payment (they give you the money when you complete the phase of the project previously funded...see how that works? Like a construction contract.) the funding comes through after all contracts are negotiated and signed, early next year 2014. But the proposals have to be in to them in a week.
All the information you need to apply for this money is attached. I've read the proposals and talked to the RFP manager of the fund where the money comes from which is approved by our state legislature. There is an election year in 2014. If great strides were to be made in ZPE research and development it would help my state, it would trend the industry away from nuclear power (which may be killing people through weird cancers all over the world as well as polluting Mother Earth) and it would help our pro-alternative-energy-Governor get re-elected so that MORE money can come out for this work in the following years. As far as I know our state gives out the most money for this
I do not believe this is one state's or one country's job, to produce ZPE...I think it is every country's job to come up with whatever innocations they can....but some countries cannot do it for competition with oil and nuclear industries. My theory is if everyone does what they can, there will be too much innovation for the old industries to fight off and they will finally allow themselves to fade not being able to fight on so many fronts.
I saw the electrical/magnetic generator on your website and I believe magnetics is one of the adaptations of the principles of ZPE that can be developed. I am in touch with a number of engineers working on this, but most of them need money. So as a retired attorney in Minnesota with a love for this industry and the work of TH Moray and Nikola Tesla, I do what I can to find sources of money. Someday if/when I win the lottery or come up with some other largesse of my own I will fund this research and development, but today this is what I have to offer.
Now you do not need me anymore unless you want to ask questions about the RFP or sources in the area for peer review, etc. You have what you need if you want to pursue this.
Thanks for your offers, if I can find someone who can do this testing work it will likely be in the universities in St Cloud or Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota. If I find someone I will send them your way.
Good luck in your good work to help the planet. I hope you succeed.
Peace and Light
Chris Harbron
Another tester in USA. I shall send a package to him. Also one individual tester in California has received the package. It looks like most of the packages arrived safely. PhysicsProf is the exception - probably lost due to his moving.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 18, 2013, 12:02:50 PM
I stress that _concurrent validity_ is lacking here: .....
It is good that TK accepts that the oscilloscope method in measuring Input and Output Power is a
scientific and valid way. He is concerned about the experimental details and the accuracy of the Atten Oscilloscopes. These are signs of good researcher.
There will be multiple testers with different (and better) oscilloscopes - especially those at
top Universities.
My focus is on having
ONE scientific approach to demonstrating OU with the particular boards. Fortunately, I have many of these boards and can share them. As far as "concurrent validity" is concerned, I leave it to the
many testers or
TK to suggest additional tests. The ones that are likely to come out from my
bedroom are:
(1) The
2n3055 oscilloscope test-ready board which can provide 10 times the Output Power.
(2) The 2n2222 boards driving toy
motors instead of (or in addition to) simple LEDs.
(3) The Oscilloscope analysis on FLEET
Battery Chargers.
I prefer to
sow seeds. It is likely that others will come out with the above much
faster than I can. Many will be able to produce commercial Lead-out Energy products. My job is to open the floodgate. It is essentially done in Hong Kong and China..... The chance of Big Oil stopping the water is zero. It may be a good idea to have a
slower transition than sudden death of Big Oil.
*** Patrick Kelly also received the package in UK.....
Quote from: hartiberlin on March 18, 2013, 04:59:36 PM
Hi Lawrence,
So it will be a few days ahead when I will have time to test the boards.
But stay tuned.
Many thanks again.
Regards, Stefan.
@Stefan: I hope the men in black will not get to you before you can test the mysterious boards.
May be the men in black control the German tax office and they will collect an enormous tax from you in order to prohibit a test? ;)
I really hope that we see some intelligent tests of these boards.
Greetings, Conrad
I am sorry to say that, with all of my experience, the JT circuit is NOT overunity. As I have said in the past, it MIGHT just be a part of an overunity circuit but, not O.U. by itself.
I have to hand it to Lawrence for his efforts.
We shall see.
Bill
Is the joule thief would acts as a reducing consumption?
I have noticed that with the primary plus a secondary in the toroid, when I short circuits the secondary the intensity of the primary decreases.
This may also depend on the non-inductive resistance of the secondary.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 19, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
I am sorry to say that, with all of my experience, the JT circuit is NOT overunity. As I have said in the past, it MIGHT just be a part of an overunity circuit but, not O.U. by itself.
I have to hand it to Lawrence for his efforts.
We shall see.
Bill
@Bill,
Can you tell us the oscilloscope you use and the circuit diagram you use to measure Input and Output Power? I know that you have built many JT with impressive performance. But have you used the oscilloscope to check them for OU?
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 20, 2013, 07:33:41 AM
@Bill,
Can you tell us the oscilloscope you use and the circuit diagram you use to measure Input and Output Power? I know that you have built many JT with impressive performance. But have you used the oscilloscope to check them for OU?
I have a tektronics o'scope circa 1980's (2213 dual channel) but the real proof is that I have not been able to make a self-runner. That, to me, is the real proof. It would eliminate any arguments on measuring p in and p out, etc. If it self runs...then we can look at the cop values. If not, why waste time with measurements? Folks will only argue that they were done wrong anyway.
If it self-runs, then look to putting a value on it.
Bill
PS
Also it is good to note as Xee2 has said, that LEDs do not follow Ohm's law:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scphys/courses/15b/2008/15b_2.pdf (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scphys/courses/15b/2008/15b_2.pdf)
Bill,
The fact that an LED is a nonlinear load, and a resistor is a linear load is irrelevant to the measurement. ANY load can be properly measured as is being discussed here, and the results will be correct. For some reason Xee can not get his mind around this and is hung up by this method.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 20, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
Bill,
The fact that an LED is a nonlinear load, and a resistor is a linear load is irrelevant to the measurement. ANY load can be properly measured as is being discussed here, and the results will be correct. For some reason Xee can not get his mind around this and is hung up by this method.
I will have to take your word for that. I was surprised to learn that Ohm's law does not apply in all cases. In my mind that does not make it much of a "law".
Do you not agree that if there is even .000001% O.U. than a self-runner would prove this? If it were an even 0 then maybe nothing but, even the slightest output more than in would make it run itself....no? Anyway, this is what I believe is the first, most basic, test.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 20, 2013, 11:03:16 PM
I will have to take your word for that. I was surprised to learn that Ohm's law does not apply in all cases. In my mind that does not make it much of a "law".
Do you not agree that if there is even .000001% O.U. than a self-runner would prove this? If it were an even 0 then maybe nothing but, even the slightest output more than in would make it run itself....no? Anyway, this is what I believe is the first, most basic, test.
Bill
@Bill,
If you look at reply 317 and 320 of this thread, you will see the waveforms when the Output of one JT is used as Input to another. The result is much more complex than a simple superimposition.
The good news is - one group informed me that their battery charger can light up many LEDs and the batteries can recharge each other. I shall do an oscilloscope analysis of a simpler battery charger circuit and see whether external energy (lead-out energy) is responsible. I hope that you do not mine that the "self-runner" turns out to be a battery charger!
If I am not mistaken, your 1980 oscilloscope is not able to capture the data from the two channels as CSV files for analysis.
The forever lighted lamp plus the battery charger?
Two rechargeable AA batteries were used. Both were slightly run down. The Input Voltage Vrms was 1.24V at start. After 1 hour, the Input Voltage Vrms increased to 1.26V. After swapping, the Input Voltage Vrms continued to be 1.26V with either battery. The LED remained at the same brightness throughout.
A similar set up lighted the LED for three weeks with full brightness until the cleaning lady "touched" it. This time, no one is allowed to enter my bedroom. One group told me that they had such a set up running for > 3 months already. So far the oscilloscope pictures indicate that they may be right. There is much energy coming in from the outside - lead-out energy? Focus on the Negative Input Current (lower part of Input waveform; same technique as Mr. Zhou).
Attached is the circuit diagram for the rechargeable AA batteries + LED on March 21, 2013.
At the moment, the two batteries are swapped when the Input Channel 1 Vrms drops to 1.24V. It happens every 4-5 hours. Once swapped, the Vrms rises to 1.28Vfor a few minutes and settles back to 1.26V for some hours. If this pattern continues for days or weeks, we shall be confident of the experimental results and the technical procedures to replicate and improve...
The Board used is 71 - already confirmed to have Average Output Power > Average Input Power.
With FLEET, the circuit diagram is a guideline. Not all build according to the circuit diagram will hehave in the same way. Lighting the LED does not guarantee that the Board is OU. The oscilloscope confirmation is the absolute MUST.
*** I am only sowing seeds. Others are already fertilizing, watering, weeding etc. In scientific terms, they are:
(1) Using 2n3055 or higher end transistors.
(2) Using different pulsing methods.
(3) Using different connections (e.g. seondary coils or Joule RInger)
(4) Using 12V car batteries.
(5) Using other sources to Pulse and Maintain the Lead-out Energy conditions. (e.g. solar or mains power).
The floodgate is open.... God Bless.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 20, 2013, 11:03:16 PM
I will have to take your word for that. I was surprised to learn that Ohm's law does not apply in all cases. In my mind that does not make it much of a "law".
Do you not agree that if there is even .000001% O.U. than a self-runner would prove this? If it were an even 0 then maybe nothing but, even the slightest output more than in would make it run itself....no? Anyway, this is what I believe is the first, most basic, test.
Bill
I agree with Bill, and a self-runner does not have batteries that go flat or need swapping over that is completely ridiculous, anyone with any experience here has seen it all before with the Bedini motors, a proper self-runner does not need a battery, possibly a small capacitor.
Once we determined that there is Lead-out Energy, the next task is to find out HOW MUCH?
Can the amount lead-out or brought-in be large enough to light up the LED and discipate through the resistors etc? There were bursts of current from time to time. What is the significance???
How to tune to get the largest amount of Lead-out Energy?
Does the above go beyond sowing seeds???
The reading at 2:30am. The Input battery Vrms dropped to 1.24V. Swap. Goes back to 1.26V. It appears that 1.26V is the "steady" state for this circuit.
One stupid way is keep getting up 4-5 hours and do the battery swap to maintain the "steady" state. Do it for a few days, weeks, months or years to convince the skeptics. Another way is to go for an automatic swapping mechanism.
I would choose the clever and lazy way. The oscilloscope waveforms are so convincing that I can stop and let others replicate, improve and take this further. My job is to sow seeds.
The reading at 7:30 am on Nov 22, 2013.
The LED was ON at full brightness all this time.
More research (by the farmers) on
(1) increasing the Load.
(2) 2n3055 or better.
(3) Different capacitor, resistor, toroid.
(4) Multiple batteries to recharge.
(5) Leading out more energy.
(6) Automatic Swapping mechanism.
(7) Best batteries for recharging, etc.
Enjoy the Divine Wine.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 21, 2013, 07:54:31 PM
The reading at 7:30 am on Nov 22, 2013.
The LED was ON at full brightness all this time.
Hi,
I am amazed you can forecast now on March 22 2013 what is going to happen this November 22, 2013. Or you really have that date?
Quote from: gyulasun on March 21, 2013, 08:09:32 PM
Hi,
I am amazed you can forecast now on March 22 2013 what is going to happen this November 22, 2013. Or you really have that date?
LOL, Maybe he is slipping in and out of different time lines due to the action of the toroidal vortices. ;)
Quote from: gyulasun on March 21, 2013, 08:09:32 PM
Hi,
I am amazed you can forecast now on March 22 2013 what is going to happen this November 22, 2013. Or you really have that date?
@gyulasun,
Thanks for pointing the error of the date. Hopefully, when that day comes, the above result will still hold. I shall keep the setup running in the background - may need to add the auto-swap mechanism. I hate swapping every 4-5 hours for 7 months! ;)
The latest scope shot again showed no run down of batteries.
Here are the oscilloscope analysis files for the AA battery charger done on March 22, 2013.
The Average Input Power = -0.00714 watts
The Average Output Power = 0.029213 watts
The COP = -4.09
The oscilloscope analysis results clearly show that there is much lead-out energy coming into the system. The energy used to charge the batteries are external.....
The forever lighted LED in this case is possible because of such lead-out energy. Amen.
Some testers were confused by the many connections on the oscilloscope test-ready boards. The following should help.
You are the one who is confused, Lawrence.
Your LED does not shine "forever", your boards are not "overunity", your batteries and capacitors do discharge, and your measurements and calculations are in error.
Further... a NEGATIVE COP is nonsensical.
If your input battery or capacitor is draining _at all_, then you have a positive input power. If you are getting any output at all, you have a positive output power. How, then, can you possibly combine these two POSITIVE numbers and arrive at a NEGATIVE ratio? Your claim of a "negative" COP from a system with any net real power output implies that it is also putting net power OUT of its input leads..... and so a battery or cap connected here could never discharge and would, as others have told you, fail from being overcharged. Since you do have output: your LEDs do light, and you do have positive input: your input batteries/capacitors do discharge, your "negative COP" spurious result indicates only that you are continuing to make your series of errors, and also that you still don't understand what your circuit is doing, nor how to measure it properly.
蒋先生:真有你的!很历害!向你祝贺!王沈河
Tramslation:
Mr. Tseung: You do have something. It is wonderful. Congratulations! Wang Shen He
@TK
The AA Battery Charger can get two rechargeable AA batteries at 1.24V to recharge themselves back to 1.26V and light up the LED at full brightness. The Oscilloscope pictures showed clearly that the net Input Current was negative. That would yield Negative Input Power. It was sensible if there were external energy lead-out or brought-in from the environment. You can always order some "guaranteed OU" boards from Mr. Zhou and do the experiments yourself. Yelling that someone made errors at a few thousand miles is not very convincing.... Look at the evidence or experimental results. We already have confirmed results from Hong Kong and China. Just wait for more from Europe or US.
Lawrence.... how can you read a positive VOLTAGE if the current is NEGATIVE? A positive voltage means that "conventional" current will flow from positive terminal to negative terminal. Call the pointy end of the battery A and the flat end B. A positive voltage reading means that A is at higher potential than B and that current (conventional) will flow from A to B. A NEGATIVE current reading means that the current is flowing in the other direction... which would require B to be MORE POSITIVE than A. And this is NOT what your scope shows. Your scope readings are not indicating what you think and claim that they are.
(ETA: More strictly the negative current in the input side current-viewing resistor would require that the potential at the circuit end of this resistor be lower than the potential at the negative pole of the battery, since the resistor is installed on the negative rail of the circuit. At least, it was the last time I saw a schematic, and that's how it is in my testbed. This is equivalent to making the negative pole of the battery, positive wrt the circuit.)
Your "AA battery charger" can slightly raise an indicated voltage on depleted batteries.... but it cannot improve the total runtime available from those batteries. Plot the _average voltage_ of both batteries (VB1+VB2)/2 versus time, samples every ten minutes, and include an instrumental reading of the light output of the LED. If the LED truly retains full brightness, and the average of the two batteries _does not decrease_ over a reasonable time interval-- say 24 hours -- then PERHAPS this would indicate some enhanced performance. But you have not shown any data from such a test.
Yelling seems to be necessary, since you apparently are deaf to reason.
ETA: I have clearly shown in videos what the simple addition of a couple of inches of wire can do to instrumental readings of a JT circuit, and I showed it using more sophisticated equipment, including both a current-viewing resistor and a non-contact current probe. You have so much stray and random wiring that you cannot rely on your instrumental readings of high-frequency signals to be correct at all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 22, 2013, 03:31:28 PM
Lawrence.... how can you read a positive VOLTAGE if the current is NEGATIVE? A positive voltage means that "conventional" current will flow from positive terminal to negative terminal.....
@TK,
What we are observing is not
conventional. The Input Current is fluctuating around the zero axis. There is both positive and negative values as
detected by the oscilloscope. If you believe that the result is from wires etc, wait for results from
other testers. Unfortunately, you refuse to accept the "guaranteed OU" boards and do the test yourself. If you ever change your mind, the offer of sending you a FREE board stands.
@testers,
Please use a
rechargeable AA battery as Input on the Board. Hook a voltmeter or the oscilloscope to check the change in voltage for a few days. Report the results. My results for one night (8 hours) appeared
too good to be true! I now use 2 boards to redo the experiment.
*** testers: You can use the rechargeable AA Battery to power
something else first. Get its voltage to drop down to around
1.26V. Then use it as Input on the Board. Make sure that the LED is ON brightly. See what happens 8 hours later.
The Almighty always provides unexpected,
pleasant surprises to those who
try.
Understanding Negative Input Current?
I set Ch1 to AC coupling. This essentially took away the steady DC voltage from the display. See the resulting oscilloscope screen. The circuit caused a "ripple" with components across the zero axis. This ripple is responsible for the "unconventional" voltage or current flow across the current sensing 1 ohm resistor. Can it be explained by the Back EMF? More research is needed.
This area of research is extremely important as implies the existence of the "impossible" negative power in TK's terms...
The Lead-out Energy theory suggests that external energy comes in. It is like an additional voltage source coming in periodically. Such an additional voltage source can easily provide additional energy to the circuit. Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power due to this additional energy (power) is NO longer a mystery.
In fact ltseung888, the + of the battery become - and the - of the battery become + but does not fall to 0, that's it ?
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 22, 2013, 06:58:42 PM
@testers,
Please use a rechargeable AA battery as Input on the Board. Hook a voltmeter or the oscilloscope to check the change in voltage for a few days. Report the results. My results for one night (8 hours) appeared too good to be true! I now use 2 boards to redo the experiment.
*** testers: You can use the rechargeable AA Battery to power something else first. Get its voltage to drop down to around 1.26V. Then use it as Input on the Board. Make sure that the LED is ON brightly. See what happens 8 hours later.
The Almighty always provides unexpected, pleasant surprises to those who try.
Can anyone get a tester board? ;D
I see where this is going a bit. You might have something, but I have been in this routine before myself. Hopefully you have something.
What I have gone through, a while back, was with a pulse motor(with recharge) and rechargeable batteries when they are in the range of voltage 1.2v to 1.25 which seems to be an area where the NIMH batteries tend to hang there for a good bit of time while being 'used'. When in this voltage range, the pulse motor was set up for very minimal voltage drop from the battery while running, around 50mv drop. During long runs in this voltage range, you will see for some time a voltage rise in the battery. I was very excited.
But I found that with more complete testing, that this had something to do with how the battery operates internally rather than the battery being charged by the motor, because eventually after the voltage rise while running, it did drop and continue to do so. Repeatedly.
It seems to be that 1.2-1.25v for rechargeable batts is like a plateau or very balanced area of discharge, something like that. Like if you have a fully charged NIMH, its voltage once removed from a fresh charge will drop significantly over time on its own as it is well above 1.25v. Its wasted if you dont use it immediately. But I would let them 'cool' and settle before any testing of supposed recharging devices.
So I see where you are going with the use of these batteries and bringing them down to this voltage range. Here is a better way of going about bringing the battery to the working voltage that you describe to avoid false readings....
Once you drain the battery to the required voltage level, you should then monitor the battery for a bit of time, say 8 hours. The battey will recover some voltage potential after sitting at rest over some time, without being put into the test circuit. This is something that all experimenters should know so that they dont get fooled by their circuits. So dont immediately put the battery in the circuit until it settles back up to a resting voltage. If your test circuit is only pulling a very very small amount from the battery, you will see the battery voltage recover while your circuit is in use, if the battery was just pulled from a fresh drain to get to the required voltage level of the battery. ;)
In fact, someone could easily do a quick voltage test of a battery after being drained some just before hand, then connect it to a 'very' efficient device and show the battery gaining voltage and make a claim that the circuit is causing the rise, when really the battery is just slowly revering from strong drain just before the testing. :o ;)
So I suggest you keep these points in mind and on the bench in any further testing. ;)
Mags
Referring to:
Attached is the circuit diagram for the rechargeable AA batteries + LED on March 21, 2013, Posts: 2381
Is there a specific value for resistor(s) "1" in the diagram ?
What coil configuration is recommended in this set up to start with ?
Sean
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2013, 03:11:49 PM
Can anyone get a tester board? ;D
*** Order as many boards as you like from Mr. Zhou. Email = zhouwei.1052@153.com (zhouwei.1052@153.com)
I see where this is going a bit. You might have something, but I have been in this routine before myself. Hopefully you have something.....
Mags
It looks like some
Physics is needed here. All the observed experimental behavior can be explained by the existence of Lead-out Energy. We can treat this as a pulsing source. We shall simplify the explanation with the following diagram.
Once we accept the existence of the
"hidden pulsing source", the experimental observations make sense. Energy does come from the environment. The
research can then focus on:
(1) How much energy can be lead-out?
(2) What are the various mechanisms to lead-out such energy?
(3) Can the mechanisms be expanded and improved to yield commercial products?
There is no need to
speculate on experimental errors or battery behavior etc. any more.
The secret of the
Divine Wine is here (do not need to wait for patent disclosure in Oct. 2013)
@testers
Hope that you have a chance to use slightly rundown rechargeable AA batteries as Input Power Supply to the Board. I have tried 4 boards. The attached are the results. One thing to watch out for is: you can take out the battery to "rest" before taking readings. Rest time not important.
Now with four different boards all showing Forever Lighted Lamp plus Battery Recharging characteristics, I have done the sowing. It is up to you and others interested to water, fertilize,weed etc. Grow the Fruits to benefit the World. Amen.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 23, 2013, 01:49:48 PM
Understanding Negative Input Current?
I set Ch1 to AC coupling.
Why?
Quote
This essentially took away the steady DC voltage from the display.
Yes, would that be the correct thing to do to make a proper measurement?
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 23, 2013, 08:13:45 PM
@testers
Hope that you have a chance to use slightly rundown rechargeable AA batteries as Input Power Supply to the Board. I have tried 4 boards. The attached are the results. One thing to watch out for is: you can take out the battery to "rest" before taking readings. Rest time not important.
Now with four different boards all showing Forever Lighted Lamp plus Battery Recharging characteristics, I have done the sowing. It is up to you and other interested to water, fertilize,weed etc. Grow the Fruits to benefit the World. Amen.
Oh. these are high charge voltages your pics are showing. Which board do we get as there are different ones shown in the pics.
Thanks
Mags
*** Order as many boards as you like from Mr. Zhou. Email = zhouwei.1052@153.com (zhouwei.1052@153.com)
And 'as many as I like' are free?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 23, 2013, 08:52:52 PM
*** Order as many boards as you like from Mr. Zhou. Email = zhouwei.1052@153.com (zhouwei.1052@153.com)
And 'as many as I like' are free?
Mags
See slide 3 on reply 398: Price depend on quantity and shipping method. Email him.
zhouwei.1052@163.com
*** The standard board is similar to Board 70. You may have custom tailored versions.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 23, 2013, 08:18:50 PM
Why?
Yes, would that be the correct thing to do to make a proper measurement?
TK will be the best person to answer that. He was my teacher in this aspect.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 23, 2013, 09:19:23 PM
TK will be the best person to answer that. He was my teacher in this aspect.
With reference to your setting AC coupling .... I'm with .99 here. Why did you do that, and is it proper to make your power measurements using ANY AC-coupled signal?
Why do you not perform and publish proper rundown testing, as I and others have suggested? The average voltage of your two batteries in your system will decline over a reasonable time period and your "forever light" will go out. I am also still waiting for your evidence that you can light _thousands_ of LEDs using your JT, as you apparently have claimed.
Meanwhile.... it seems that you have attracted the attention and support of Rosemary Ainslie.
Note how her continuing disregard for accuracy, facts and simple Truth is displayed. She continues in her paranoid delusion that I am someone she calls Brian (or Bryan) Little.... without a shred of evidence or support. Who is this Bryan Little, anyway? Does anyone know? I'd like to correspond with him about the libels Ainslie has committed towards him.
And this is her standard pattern: she makes her wild claims, her idiotic and wrong assertions, without support or evidence, and then later when she's incontrovertibly proven wrong, as has happened _many times_... she just continues apace.
If it weren't so awfully sad... it would be funny. Actually.... Ainslie IS pretty funny. Pitiful, rather than sad, and hilarious at the same time.
That is very funny. Rose not only thinks Tk is Brian Little, but she thinks I have many aliases. lol. And she points me out as if I am saying something against Lawrence here.
Do you feel that I am working against you Lawrence? ;D Rose apparently thinks so. She is a strange bird. I only offered some knowledge from my experience with nimh batteries. AND Im ordering a test board, because I saw the results presented and I need to see it for myself. ;)
Rose claims to have found proof of the Higgs Boson before it was 'really' seen, or identified, just the other day.
I suppose she uses the same method to 'imply' that TK and I are many people. :o ;)
Rose, Just who else do you think I am here, just for giggles?
Jimmy da Higg, from Boson? lol
Isnt it ironic that she herself has used many names? Even here to get by being banned so she can post. Almost criminal. Heck, I was banned from OUR and for the most part I was defending Rose at the time. I am no longer banned as I came to terms with Poynt, and I was wrong. And I not once used a fictitious name to log into OUR during the time I was banned like she did here, many times with many names.
Jimmy da Higg, from Boson ;)
@TK:
See http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg24855#msg24855 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg24855#msg24855)
Reply 2 on 2012-8-22.
See Slides 4, 6, 8 of the pdf file. Slide 4 showed 300 LEDs in my bedroom. Slide 6 showed the team first achieved OU in 2010. Slide 8 showed 1,000 LEDS at G-LED USA.
@Testers
I focused on the BSI demo board built on Aug 21, 2012 (as BSI Hong Kong can produce thousands in its China factory per month.) I used two rechargeable AA batteries (energizer) slightly drained down to 1.26V on March 24, 2013. The batteries were swapped in from time to time. Sometimes, there were no batteries and the capacitor would continue to light the 38 LEDS making up the BSI logo.
From the oscilloscope screens, I could see the fluctuations in charging. Sometimes there was charging. Sometimes there was NO charging. When there was NO charging, I did the swapping. Thus the two batteries had much "rest" time.
Those two 1.26V batteries were recharged back to over 1.4V which is close to FULL charge for such rechargeable batteries. The 38 LEDs were ON with full brightness for these entire 2 days. Please repeat this particular experiment with your boards. You may just use a voltmeter to check the battery voltage. This experiment will be repeated by me in the next few days with the now fully charged AA batteries and see if I can achieve the Forever Lighted Lamp.
@Bill
I believe some of the impressive results of your JTs are due to similar mechanisms. Please use a good DSO to do the full analysis. You might have achieved OU without knowing it. Without the DSO, one cannot "see".
This single experiment will silence all naysayers. The demo board may be improved to become an automatic swapped Forever Lighted Lamp. Such a Board will convince all Politicians and Academics to pour resources in Lead-out energy research. They do not need to be physicists to understand the complex waveforms and oscilloscope analysis.
The Divine Wine is here.....
Lawrence:
Thank you. I know I will have achieved O.U. when I have a self-runner. Unless and until then, I do not need a new scope to tell me. Your researchers should try this. It would settle any and all measurement discussions.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2013, 01:46:33 AM
Lawrence:
Thank you. I know I will have achieved O.U. when I have a self-runner. Unless and until then, I do not need a new scope to tell me. Your researchers should try this. It would settle any and all measurement discussions.
Thanks,
Bill
@Bill,
A self runner can be very
elusive. For example, the BSI board lighting 38 LEDs could recharge two
1.26V rechargeable AA batteries (energizer) back to
over 1.4V and lighting the 38 LEDs for
3 days now. I did the swapping of batteries when the charging changed to draining. With luck or God's Blessing, the charging would come back again.
The bad news is: Sometimes, the battery would keep on
dropping in voltage (draining). This now occurred in one of the four rechargeable batteries. Such happening was detected by my team
over 3 years ago. It was also reported by many other researchers. I do not know the solution myself yet. Some of those I introduced the technology to said that they
solved this problem. Since my job is to
sow seeds, I shall just post my observations. Let other "farmers" solve the problem and sell products.
Let us see whether my two fully charged batteries now will keep their charge and light the LEDs at the same time. My last similar experiment lasted 3 weeks. The oscilloscope screens (or the voltmeter) can tell me when the charging stopped but it cannot tell me why. The
"farmers" will have to do much more research.
I use the oscilloscopes to "see" what is going on.....
God Bless
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 24, 2013, 02:10:56 PM
@TK:
See http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg24855#msg24855 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg24855#msg24855)
Reply 2 on 2012-8-22.
See Slides 4, 6, 8 of the pdf file. Slide 4 showed 300 LEDs in my bedroom. Slide 6 showed the team first achieved OU in 2010. Slide 8 showed 1,000 LEDS at G-LED USA.
Ah... you are using a 2n3055 and much more than a single AA battery to light your "thousands" of LEDs.
When you first mentioned this number, I thought we were talking about your 2n2222 circuit and low input power. I am not interested in using higher input power.
Please take a look at this 2n3055 JT which lights up six NE-2 neons in series, which require 90 volts each. My power source is a single, depleted AAA battery. Your oscilloscope measuring technique and tools would find an amazing COP for this little puppy.
@Lawrence: Thank you for reporting your results, including your recent "bad news". You have encountered the typical problem that happens when batteries are "pulse-charged" by spiky, relatively high voltage pulses. This imparts a "fluffy charge" which reads as a raised voltage, but does NOT in fact indicate an increased energy storage in the battery. It's as if some of the "back rank" reserve soldiers have been brought to the front line to add to voltage, but some of them go home instead -- never to return. So you wind up with fewer total "soldiers" even though you have more on the front line at your voltmeter.
Further, the spiky charging eventually damages even the most robust lead acid battery types and causes loss of overall performance. There may be a solution to this latter problem, by avoiding spikes and using known, low voltage, current-limited charging regimes. But then you don't get your fluffy charge, either.
Quote from: Magluvin on March 24, 2013, 11:39:41 AM
That is very funny. Rose not only thinks Tk is Brian Little, but she thinks I have many aliases. lol. And she points me out as if I am saying something against Lawrence here.
Do you feel that I am working against you Lawrence? ;D Rose apparently thinks so. She is a strange bird. I only offered some knowledge from my experience with nimh batteries. AND Im ordering a test board, because I saw the results presented and I need to see it for myself. ;)
Rose claims to have found proof of the Higgs Boson before it was 'really' seen, or identified, just the other day.
I suppose she uses the same method to 'imply' that TK and I are many people. :o ;)
Rose, Just who else do you think I am here, just for giggles?
Jimmy da Higg, from Boson? lol
Isnt it ironic that she herself has used many names? Even here to get by being banned so she can post. Almost criminal. Heck, I was banned from OUR and for the most part I was defending Rose at the time. I am no longer banned as I came to terms with Poynt, and I was wrong. And I not once used a fictitious name to log into OUR during the time I was banned like she did here, many times with many names.
Jimmy da Higg, from Boson ;)
Now the idiot loon thinks she's closing in on the elusive "Brian (or Bryan) Little". And she can't seem to make up her mind whether I am you, you are me, or we are all together (goo goo g'joob).
She's accusing Brian Little of THEFT ! I sure hope her imaginary lawyers are paying attention... and I sure hope she actually does contact this Bryan Little person she thinks she's identified.
ETA: As it happens (I just checked) the University of Texas has NINE campuses and SIX medical research health centers and hospitals scattered all across the state. And I haven't set foot in any one of them in twenty years.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2013, 10:35:40 PM
Ah... you are using a 2n3055 and much more than a single AA battery to light your "thousands" of LEDs.
When you first mentioned this number, I thought we were talking about your 2n2222 circuit and low input power. I am not interested in using higher input power.
Please take a look at this 2n3055 JT which lights up six NE-2 neons in series, which require 90 volts each. My power source is a single, depleted AAA battery. Your oscilloscope measuring technique and tools would find an amazing COP for this little puppy.
@TK
If you are willing, I can arrange one or more testers to test your "puppy" and post the resulting COP (together with the full oscilloscope analysis). I believe you, Bill and many others already have OU greater than 1 (as measured by my technique) circuits with Net Average
Negative Input Power.
@testers
Tester J suggested that I recharge the "bad" battery using conventional means (supplied battery charger) and repeat. It worked. The battery could be "recharged" again by my boards. But this means providing energy from known sources. I prefer to keep using the two "good and still working" rechargeable AA batteries and see their voltages in the next few days - while lighting the 38 LEDs to full brightness at the same time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2013, 10:45:40 PM
Now the idiot loon thinks she's closing in on the elusive "Brian (or Bryan) Little". And she can't seem to make up her mind whether I am you, you are me, or we are all together (goo goo g'joob).
She's accusing Brian Little of THEFT ! I sure hope her imaginary lawyers are paying attention... and I sure hope she actually does contact this Bryan Little person she thinks she's identified.
ETA: As it happens (I just checked) the University of Texas has NINE campuses and SIX medical research health centers and hospitals scattered all across the state. And I haven't set foot in any one of them in twenty years.
Im Jimmy see, myeah. Jimmy da Higg, myeah see. She tinks she put da lock on me see, myeah. Willy n da boys sez dey are wit me on diss, see. Myeah. She tinks she found da Higgs wit da choppa see. Aint no choppa gunna get me see, myeah.
Jimmy da Higg from Boson ;)
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 25, 2013, 11:35:32 PM
@TK
If you are willing, I can arrange one or more testers to test your "puppy" and post the resulting COP (together with the full oscilloscope analysis). I believe you, Bill and many others already have OU greater than 1 (as measured by my technique) circuits with Net Average Negative Input Power.
@testers
Tester J suggested that I recharge the "bad" battery using conventional means (supplied battery charger) and repeat. It worked. The battery could be "recharged" again by my boards. But this means providing energy from known sources. I prefer to keep using the two "good and still working" rechargeable AA batteries and see their voltages in the next few days - while lighting the 38 LEDs to full brightness at the same time.
Lawrence:
With all due respect, while I appreciate your reference to my work, I do not have, nor have ever had, nor claimed, O.U. for any of my JT circuits. Many of my circuits were but replications of others. As I have said years ago, the JT circuit is NOT O.U. BUT, it may be a vital component of a future O.U. circuit. I still stand by this.
Thanks,
Bill
Tester J asked to calculate the COP for my theoretical circuit and compare it to the observed oscilloscope results.
Here it is. The two figures should be simple and clear Physics. Once we assume the existence of a "hidden pulsing energy source", experimental data becomes clear.
I believe the two figures are the essense of my contribution to this field of research - Lead-out energy.
Quote
Dear Lawrence,
Thank you for your email titled Hong Kong will be able to lead the World in Energy research
to the Central Policy Unit dated 18.3.2013. Your suggestions have been conveyed to relevant policy bureau for consideration.
Regards,
Samantha Tang Tel: 2810 2362
(for Head, Central Policy Unit)
I am getting
Board 80 ready for the Hong Kong Government. The results will be posted here soon.
*** Board 81 was a reject.
Quote
Dear Lawrence,
Thank-you for your email and your kind proposal. We would be very
interested in receiving a test-ready board.
I enclose our contact info and mailing address below.
Contact:
Lasse Johansson
Address:
Institute of Ecological Technology
Krokegatan 4
S-413 18 Göteborg
Sweden
Kindly,
Lasse Johansson
Institute of Ecological Technology
Another tester in Sweden.
Any estimate of what one test board would cost shipped to U.S. ?
Pinpointing the Problem:
Tester J: "I am not worried about the theory of Lead-out Energy. I am worried about the loss of battery life. There will be no commerical value if the expensive rechargeable batteries die suddenly or have much shorter life."
Tseung: "So long as the oscilloscope analysis results are correct and that we have confirmed cases showing increase in voltage of the battery while lighting the LEDs, there should be no problem. It is a matter of finding the right battery, the right rest time, the right control mechanism, etc. It is like the electric light bulb in its early stage development."
Tester J: "I have some success with a combination of conventional charging and pulse charging using 12V car batteries. But such experiments take too long (months). I am thinking along the lines of leasing rather than selling products. At present the "lead-out energy" devices are unreliable even though they can bring-in much energy. They are more useful in the hands of experts such as wind and solar farm companies."
Tseung: "I am sowing seeds. Much more research is needed. It is like the first demonstration of the 10 second light bulb. Needing to change the light bulb every 10 seconds had no commerical value but improvements will bring the technology to commercial value."
Tester J: "When many testers, including top universities, show that your boards generate more Average Output Power than Supplied Average Input Power, much more resources will pour in. Relying on Bedroom or Garage Labs to solve the Energy Crisis of the World is just too optimistic."
Tseung: "I hope so. I believe this is the 'Divine Direction'. The Divine Wine will be served by many, to many."
The attached file is being sent out for review.
Quote
I shall meet some influential people in the Industry, some academics and some politicians in the coming weeks. One request was to provide some simple physics explanation to the observed oscilloscope analysis. The explanation should be reasonably technical but not scary to the layman. I am sending this out for your review and comments.
The first 2n3055 OU board from Mr. Zhou.
Mr. Zhou built 3 Boards. One turned out to be OU as seen from the oscilloscope. He will use proper magnet wires and retry. Not bad on the first attempt.
Board 80 for the Hong Kong Government. This will be one of the most important Boards. This Board will be shown to the Hong Kong Government. The top academics, business leaders, politicians, etc will make their decisions based on this Board.
Its final destiny is likely to be the Hong Kong Science Museum.
The Average Input Power = -0.01675 watt
The Average Output Power = 0.030477 watt
The COP = -1.82.
Second check on Board 80 for the Hong Kong GOvernment. The Input Voltage was set low and a capacitor was added. The Input was adjusted such that the LED was just brightly ON.
Average Input Power = -0.00426 watt
Average Output Power = 0.010404 watt
COP = -2.44
Third Check on Board 80 for the Hong Kong Government.
Average Input Power = -0.047051
Average Output Power = 1.43838
COP =-30.57
It appears that the COP is higher with higher Input Voltage. Will try to increase the Load and see the result.
Lawrence.
Are you still using AC coupling on your oscilloscope measurements?
If so, why?
Have you been using AC coupling all along?
@.99:
All the scopeshots on this page appear to have been taken using DC coupling. The coupling symbol is right next to the CH1 (or CH2) vertical gain setting. It's the standard dotted-over-solid international symbol for "DC". When the channel coupling is set to AC, this is replaced by a little "sine wave" symbol. Hopefully this DC coupling setting was also used when the spreadsheeted data were taken.
But don't you find it odd that Lawrence compares input data taken at one frequency, with output data taken at an entirely different frequency, at least according to the last set of scopeshots?
Quote from: poynt99 on March 28, 2013, 05:52:47 PM
Lawrence.
Are you still using AC coupling on your oscilloscope measurements?
If so, why?
Have you been using AC coupling all along?
@poynt99
No, All results shown in this thread used DC coupling as pointed out by TK.
AC Coupling was used to show the fluctuation in Input Voltage even though the probes were connected across the battery. The ripple on the battery voltage correspond closely to the voltage variation across the 1 ohm csr. Please use DC Coupling in your measurements.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2013, 06:59:32 PM
@.99:
All the scopeshots on this page appear to have been taken using DC coupling. The coupling symbol is right next to the CH1 (or CH2) vertical gain setting. It's the standard dotted-over-solid international symbol for "DC". When the channel coupling is set to AC, this is replaced by a little "sine wave" symbol. Hopefully this DC coupling setting was also used when the spreadsheeted data were taken.
But don't you find it odd that Lawrence compares input data taken at one frequency, with output data taken at an entirely different frequency, at least according to the last set of scopeshots?
@TK,
Thank you for bringing up the frequency issue. I just checked. In the last case, the DC Power supply was set to 2V (close to the 2.3V 10F capacitor specification). The frequency kept increasing even though the other readings remained more or less the same. This particular happening did not occur at the lower Input Voltage setting. The high limit for tests on other Boards were at 1.5V.
I shall redo the test at 1.5V and investigate this particular result later. Thank you for pointing this out.
@poynt99,
Your 4 channel scope will be able to display Input Voltage, Input Current, Output Voltage, Output Current waveforms at the same time. There will be no errors due to measurement at different frequencies. Your data will add to our understanding of what is going on. Thank you in advance.
Board 80 test with Input Power set to 1.6V.
Average Input Power = -0.13563
Average Output Power = 0.208143
COP =-1.54
*** The Input and Output frequency remained steady at 3.04 KHz.
Lawrence, can you please display a set of traces from your scope's probe calibrator output? I'd like to see what the probe response looks like, to a known square wave input, without any compensation adjustment.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 28, 2013, 06:59:32 PM
@.99:
All the scopeshots on this page appear to have been taken using DC coupling. The coupling symbol is right next to the CH1 (or CH2) vertical gain setting. It's the standard dotted-over-solid international symbol for "DC". When the channel coupling is set to AC, this is replaced by a little "sine wave" symbol. Hopefully this DC coupling setting was also used when the spreadsheeted data were taken.
Right, thanks. I had not noticed where the symbol was.
Dear Lawrence and any other folk interested in the progress of lead out energy research.
I hope you are all having a lovely Easter!
I have received and tested 2 oscilloscope ready lead out energy research boards.
Some anecdotal results:
The LED for the first board remains brightly lit for 5 minutes after a 15 second connection to an AA battery.
The LED for the second board remains brightly lit for 3 minutes after a 15 second connection to an AA battery.
I will let you know the results from further testing and the oscilloscope analysis.
All the best,
Leadoutenergy, a server of divine wine!
Board 83 and Board 84 for Prof. Steven Jones (PhysicsProf).
The initial package appeared to be lost. A new package will be sent. This new package will have two oscilloscopet test ready boards (83 and 84). Prof. Jones has the Atten Oscilloscope and is in the position of verifying the analysis directly.
I am usng the Zhou technique - just test using the oscilloscope on Input Waveform and see if the current has net negative value.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World together.
I shall go to the funeral service of my secondary school science teacher, Mr. Tam, on April 2, 2013. I still remember the first question at his first science lesson.
"What is the shortest distance between two points?" I thought that I had the answer. I felt that I had the answer. It was obvious. But I could not give the answer at that time. The answer was – "a straight line". Even though I embarrassed myself in front of the Class for not providing the answer, I felt in love with Science ever since.
He also raised some non-obvious scientific phenomena. Does a heavier object fall faster than a lighter one? My initial reaction was YES. That was wrong but many wise people in the early centuries also believed the wrong answer.
The classic one is – is the Earth round or flat? My untrained answer is that it must be round because the sun and the moon are round. Then I learned the story of Galileo. He was forced by the Church to say that the Earth was flat even though he knew from all his observation that the Earth was round.
The most important lesson I learned from Mr. Tam was – in science, one needs to make careful observations and experiments. One can make assumptions or hypothesis. However, the hypothesis must be backed up by experiments. Even if one of the experiments contradicts the hypothesis, the hypothesis cannot be turned into a Physical Law. The hypothesis must be modified or dropped all together.
We are facing the same situation in FLEET. We have many confirmed prototypes that show Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy. Some members in the Forum yelled that the Experiments must be wrong. They refuse to look into the possibility of energy coming from the environment or Lead-out Energy. Who will turn out to be the true scientists?
I do hope that Mr. Tam will rest in peace knowing that at least one of his students is willing to fight for Scientific Truth. Amen.
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 29, 2013, 09:03:21 PM
Board 83 and Board 84 for Prof. Steven Jones (PhysicsProf).
The initial package appeared to be lost. A new package will be sent. This new package will have two oscilloscopet test ready boards (83 and 84). Prof. Jones has the Atten Oscilloscope and is in the position of verifying the analysis directly.
I am usng the Zhou technique - just test using the oscilloscope on Input Waveform and see if the current has net negative value.
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World together.
Why are the frequencies of the two boards 83 and 84 so different? One is almost three times faster than the other one. Is this an experimental error?
Your REAL current does not have "net negative value", because if it did, your input batteries/capacitors would charge up, and keep charging up, and keep charging up....... The fact that they do not, indicates that your "net negative current value" is an artefact of some kind.
As I said before.... your only evidence for any COP other than unity is from your particular spreadsheet analyses of your instrumental measurements. You have absolutely no concurrent validity demonstrating that your measurements are correct. It is possible to construct manifestly NON-overunity devices that show the same negative input current artefact that you are showing. But it is not possible for you to provide any other, concurrent, demonstration that your devices are OU in any way. Your OU is only in your measurements and calculations, nowhere else.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 31, 2013, 12:48:15 AM
Why are the frequencies of the two boards 83 and 84 so different? One is almost three times faster than the other one. Is this an experimental error?
@TK
There were no experimental errors. Every board was hand-built and possibly by different individuals.
Variations in toroid winding, soldering technique and component positioning would give rise to different
results. Some boards did not show OU at all. Such boards were rejected. The passing criteria by Mr. Zhou was examination of the
Negative Current waveform.
*** I have stated many times before - not
all JTs show OU even though they all light up the LEDs. The oscilloscope must be used to select - especially when the Boards are produced in the garage fashion.
It does not matter about
concurrent validity checks at this point. I am only interested in other testers producing
same results with their oscilloscopes. That will elminiate any
experimental or equipment errors. One step at a time.
@poynt99
When will you be able to hook up Board 33 to your 4 channel oscilloscope? Thank you in advance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on March 31, 2013, 12:48:15 AM
Your REAL current does not have "net negative value", because if it did, your input batteries/capacitors would charge up, and keep charging up, and keep charging up....... The fact that they do not, indicates that your "net negative current value" is an artefact of some kind.
http://youtu.be/zBR9lO2ISGs (http://youtu.be/zBR9lO2ISGs)
@TK
The pulse charging mechanism is more
complicated than you thought. The Battery Voltage fluctuates and the trend can go
UP or DOWN. At present, if the trend is UP, I let the recharging continue. If the trend is DOWN, I disconnect the battery. I may insert another battery or just let the battery "rest". With such monitoring, I managed to get a 1.26V rechargeable battery (energizer) to recharge back to over 1.4V.
However, when I was not monitoring, the
rundown trend might continue. The Battery Voltage could drop to
<1V and no amount of Pulse Charging can bring it up again. If I use normal recharging (from the commercial recharger), the Battery can be recharged again. Many researchers reported that such a process would shorten the life of the Battery. Similar behavior on the 12V car battery recharger was reported by teams trained by me. They claimed that they might have solved the problem. How???
*** A
better video showing the BSI Demo Board recharging the Input Rechargeable AA Battery and lighting 38 LEDs at the same time. This 3 minute video clearly shows that the battery voltage increased from
0.809V to
0.870V in around 3 minutes while lighting 38 LEDs. What is the source of this energy?
Lead-out Energy! http://youtu.be/FRUBuuh8whQ (http://youtu.be/FRUBuuh8whQ)
Quote from: ltseung888 on March 31, 2013, 01:29:01 AM
@poynt99
When will you be able to hook up Board 33 to your 4 channel oscilloscope? Thank you in advance.
I am hoping to work on it Monday, as I am off that day.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 31, 2013, 12:21:19 PM
I am hoping to work on it Monday, as I am off that day.
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
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 31, 2013, 03:53:13 PM
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
@Bill
TK is
NOT testing one of these boards. If he had one or more of these boards, he would have used
the high end oscilloscopes to check the results. At present, he is trying to help by
scrutinizing for possible experimental errors. I appreciate that as it prepares me for the
inevitable meetings with the Top Universities.
That brings up the point –
why are the well known JT researchers not using the oscilloscopes to check their circuits? My present circuit is just the plain JT. Admittedly, I rejected many – probably more than half. Now I rely on Mr. Zhou and team who are much more skilled. Previously, I relied on G-LED and BSI Hong Kong. They are
commercial entities and their primary goal is to make money.
They used oscilloscopes and got OU results. Without the oscilloscopes, the research is like
shooting birds in the dark. My contributions are to propose the Lead-out Energy
Theory and use
two relatively cheap oscilloscopes. But the floodgate is now open. Any individual or organization with
USD2,000 to spare can jump on the bandwagon and benefit the World.
*** Bill, you are so confident in predicting the COP is from 0.6 to 0.69. What is the
method you normally use to measure the COP of your JTs?
At the funeral service of my Secondary School Science Teacher, Mr. Tam
I had a chance to meet many old schoolmates. Most of them either lost most of their hair or their hair turned white. The organizer of the planned 50th meeting of the Old Boys that graduated in 1963 was there. He said that at least 30 pasted away. Another 10 might be too sick to come. Some lost contact altogether.
One of them said: "If you have something you still want to accomplish, do it now. At our age, there is not much time left. "
I got an Easter gift that carried a similar message. So I am preparing the mass email to sow the seed. The Boards for USA will be hand-delivered to Prof. Julian Tree in Shenzhen on April 5, 2013. Another 100 oscilloscope test-ready Boards are being produced.
May the Almighty guide us on the right path to benefit the World.
Waveforms of Board 77,78 and 79.
The last three Boards in my Bedroom are 77, 78 and 79. Another 100 has been ordered. Many of the Boards have gone to Churches, Schools, Friends, Charitable Organizations. When I sow seeds, some will fall on rock, some will be eaten by the birds etc. The good thing is that I got donations to help me buy more seeds.
Hong Kong and China will become the leader in Lead-out Energy Research not because of me. The generous and risk taking donors deserve much credit too.
Board 78 is different from the rest. I shall look at it in more detail.
Board 78 waveforms and oscilloscope analysis.
Average Input Power = -0.05546 watt
Average Output Power = -0.01164 watt
COP =0.21 (two negatives make one positive)
Since both Average Input Power and Average Output Power are negative, this board is giving energy out to both the DC Power Supply and the Load. Energy must come from the surrounding environment. This Board 78 will be kept for further research.
God reveal the secrets to those who try, try and try.....
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 31, 2013, 03:53:13 PM
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.
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
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.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 02, 2013, 08:04:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 03, 2013, 03:30:12 AM
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.
@TK
Is this what you are looking for?
Quote
Mr. Tseung,
I have enjoyed your posts, not only for the promise they contain regarding the Joule Theif, and its future devleopments, but also because you give God credit where credit is due. You mentioned you had tried to be a farmer, and wound up doing this research. I can relate in my own way, and your message was a helpful reminder that God's grace is leading us all to where He can best use us. May your work continue to flourish and accomplish all He has chosen for you to do.
Bob
PS
By way of interest, there is a fellow named Janost on the Donald Smith Devices - Too Good To Be True thread in the Energetic Forum, who claims that a version of the JT he built has been recharging batteries as it runs.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-299.html#post226633 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-299.html#post226633)
Janost's Self-oscillating Air-cored JT
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-300.html#post227244 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-300.html#post227244)
Janost Schematic JT Charging 2 Batteries:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-302.html#post227922 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-302.html#post227922)
Janost's JT run on caps:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-304.html#post228243 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-304.html#post228243)
It looks like FLEET is not the only way to achieve OU.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 02, 2013, 09:59:56 PM
@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.
1)
a. Actually, it is at least 15 minutes.
c. How would this process possibly save energy?
2) I'll try my best to do these tests.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 03, 2013, 07:02:11 PM
1)
a. Actually, it is at least 15 minutes.
c. How would this process possibly save energy?
2) I'll try my best to do these tests.
@poynt99
a. Actually, it is at least 15 minutes.
Excellent. This is the expected result.
c. How would this process possibly save energy? This
concept and technique was implemented with different set up to a vertical farm. Details are commercial secrets. Claimed savings in electricity bill > 50%.
*** One common
misconception when a super capacitor is in the circuit - Energy is just stored in the capacitor and then released slowly. The oscilloscope waveforms and analysis show a
different story - Energy is Lead-out or brought-in.
2) I'll try my best to do these tests. You can just
show the waveforms first. The most interesting will be the
Input Current Waveform. If the negatve portion appears to be more than the positive portion, you have negative Average Input Power. That is a good sign of OU - technique used by Mr. Zhou.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 03, 2013, 08:31:30 PM
c. How would this process possibly save energy? This concept and technique was implemented with different set up to a vertical farm. Details are commercial secrets. Claimed savings in electricity bill > 50%.
*** One common misconception when a super capacitor is in the circuit - Energy is just stored in the capacitor and then released slowly. The oscilloscope waveforms and analysis show a different story - Energy is Lead-out or brought-in.
Let's say for example, that the total amount of energy drained from the charged capacitor is 30J. How do you know Lawrence that you did not transfer that much energy (actually double) from the battery?
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 03, 2013, 08:31:30 PM
c. How would this process possibly save energy? This concept and technique was implemented with different set up to a vertical farm. Details are commercial secrets. Claimed savings in electricity bill > 50%.
Did that involve a change over from incandescent or CFL lighting to LED lighting?
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 03, 2013, 07:32:55 AM
@TK
Is this what you are looking for?
Yes, Lawrence, thank you.
Please note several things. The very most important is that the waveform is not "square" in 3 of the shots. Only one of your probes is properly compensated. Another important issue is that the calibrator output is generally at around 3 volts for the Atten scope. I refer to your Manual, section 1.3.3. where probe compensation checking is described.
Your scope traces show three badly out-of-compensation probes and also some problem with voltages. Every probe should show the same voltage and the same _square_ waveform.
Only Scope 2, Channel 2 is showing the correct, 3 v p-p square waveform that the calibrator is putting out.
Clearly, a waveform that dips below the zero baseline due to improper probe compensation will affect your calculations.
Also, in the matter of your presentation: Once again, please insure that the channel baselines are _exactly_ on a screen horizontal graticule line, and that your _trigger_ is actually triggering on the channel you are displaying or discussing, unless other considerations apply. I would have expected all four traces to be presented with the baselines at the center graticule line of the respective screens, at the same vertical attenuation settings, and properly triggered on the channel that is displayed.
Bottom line: all your data so far is invalid because your probe compensation is incorrectly adjusted. Sorry. Next time.... RTFM.
We are being criticised by certain amateurs for relying solely on oscilloscope measurements in order to "debunk" claims of overunity ..... but as you may recall, I am critical of you for relying solely on oscilloscope measurements in _positive_ claim of overunity and I have told you that you need concurrent validity... agreement with other means of showing energy output. This of course destroys the amateur's false argument completely.
Let me discuss the calibrator shots in detail. According to the Atten manual the calibrator output is at "about" 3 V p-p, a square wave, at 1 kHz frequency. Each probe should read the same: 3 v P-P, square wave, 1 kHz frequency.
Scope1, Probe 1: The vertical attenuator is set to 2 volts per division, The probe is reading almost 4 volts p-p. The most negative indication is below the zero baseline. The waveform isn't square. The trigger is set on a non-displayed channel and is not within the span of the waveform of interest. The scope is reporting a frequency of 49.9 Hertz.
Scope 1, Probe 2: The vertical attenuator is set to 5 volts per division and the probe is reading almost 20 volts p-p. Again, the most negative indication is below the zero baseline and the waveform isn't square. The trigger is set at the zero baseline of the channel -- OK but it should be a bit above so the "T" doesn't obscure the "2" baseline indicator, and so that you get a positive trigger on a signal, not noise. But... at least the frequency is reading correctly at 1.0000 kHz.
Scope 2, Probe 1: The vertical attenuator is set to 1 volt per division. The probe is reading about 3 V p-p, which is good, but again, the most negative indication is below the zero baseline and the waveform isn't square. The trigger is incorrectly set, again on the other channel and out of range. And the scope is reporting a frequency of "under 10 Hertz", clearly wrong.
Scope 2, Probe 2: Almost Correct! The vertical attenuation is set to 1 volt per division, and the voltage and waveforms are correct. The trigger is improperly set (see Scope 1, Probe 2 above) and the scope is again WAAYYY off in the frequency: it is reporting under 10 Hz again.
So... a pretty poor performance. There is something "fatally" wrong with each of the calibrator displays, besides "stylistic" factors. Incorrect voltage readings from two probes, three probes out of compensation, and wrong frequencies from three probe-scope combos.
YOUR DATA IS GARBAGE. Every trace should look like the last one in voltage and waveform, and every frequency display should read 1.00000 kHz. If the scope calibrator screens are wrong, you can be quite certain that the experimental data also suffers from these flaws.
Sorry.
I note that probe compensation adjustment is very rarely mentioned, but can cause severe problems in situations like these. I don't recall anyone ever asking that rank amateur scoposcopist Ainslie to check or adjust her probe compensation, for example. We don't often discuss using the "ON" button to turn a scope on, either..... the matter of probe compensation is just that basic.
A further probe issue that greatly affects power computations is skew. This is a lack of synchronous readings caused by propagation delays and the sequential nature of DSO channel sampling. Clearly, if you are taking a voltage measurement at one time and a current measurement at a different time, these cannot be legitimately multiplied together to give a power value. Yet people do it all the time, by not compensating for probe skew in their measurements. DSOs generally have the ability to compensate for probe skew; there may be a setup screen in the Atten scopes to handle it, and there certainly is such facility in the LeCroy that RA used for her bogus "experiments"-- and of course she never made use of probe skew correction. (This issue becomes even more important when active differential voltage probes or true Current probes are used, as they will have a different time constant than ordinary passive probes.)
The correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration diagrams.
@TK,
I read the Manual and found the correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration Procedure. The correct photos are shown here. Thank you for all your comments - they refer to incorrect photos. All my posted data are correct as the calibration was done right for me when I bought the Scopes.
@testers and All researchers.
False Alarm from TK..... I did not give him the correct calibration diagrams..... The pictures on reply 450 are definitely not calibration pictures. Should not blame TK for not recognizing them as oscilloscope manufacturers have different displays.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 04, 2013, 01:36:28 AM
The correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration diagrams.
@TK,
I read the Manual and found the correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration Procedure. The correct photos are shown here. Thank you for all your comments - they refer to incorrect photos. All my posted data are correct as the calibration was done right for me when I brought the Scopes.
@testers and All researchers.
False Alarm from TK..... I did not give him the correct calibration diagrams..... The pictures on reply 450 are definitely not calibration pictures. Should not blame TK for not recognizing them as oscilloscope manufacturers have different displays.
Lawrence,
I would hardly consider the post 450 scope shots a "False Alarm".
Irregardless of any channel's vertical sensitivity settings, the displayed waveform of the signal at your scope's calibrator post should always indicate approximately 3 volts pk-pk. Additionally, the displayed waveform should appear square with little undershoot or overshoot, indicating a flat frequency response. All but one of your scope shots indicated a frequency response that rises with frequency.
The wierdest display is scope 1 channel 2 wherein 15volts pk-pk (at low frequency) is indicated from the approximately 3 volt pk-pk signal at the calibrator post.
You should investigate and/or explain why that channel on scope 1 is not indicating the proper amplitude. Even with the probe and channel attenuation settings mismatched, it is difficult to understand how scope 1 channel 2 is indicating high by a factor of 5.
Are you using all probes switched to their X10 setting and with the scope channels also set for X10 probes?
The post 450 scope shots do not lend much credence to the accuracy of your previous data.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 04, 2013, 03:07:13 AM
Lawrence,
I would hardly consider the post 450 scope shots a "False Alarm".
Irregardless of any channel's vertical sensitivity settings, the displayed waveform of the signal at your scope's calibrator post should always indicate approximately 3 volts pk-pk. Additionally, the displayed waveform should appear square with little undershoot or overshoot, indicating a flat frequency response. All but one of your scope shots indicated a frequency response that rises with frequency.
The wierdest display is scope 1 channel 2 wherein 15volts pk-pk (at low frequency) is indicated from the approximately 3 volt pk-pk signal at the calibrator post.
You should investigate and/or explain why that channel on scope 1 is not indicating the proper amplitude. Even with the probe and channel attenuation settings mismatched, it is difficult to understand how scope 1 channel 2 is indicating high by a factor of 5.
Are you using all probes switched to their X10 setting and with the scope channels also set for X10 probes?
The post 450 scope shots do not lend much credence to the accuracy of your previous data.
PW
IGNORE ALL PICTURES FROM REPLY 450!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY WERE WRONG.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 04, 2013, 07:12:08 AM
IGNORE ALL PICTURES FROM REPLY 450!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY WERE WRONG.
That is the point!
The question is why are they wrong?
As you have relied heavily on the use of these scopes to prove your technology and present your data, surely you must see that a better explanation of the 450 captures is required than just "ignore them".
Oh well...
PW
Ok, fine.. ill be the one that will point at the elephant in the room!
THERE IS NO OU HERE FOLKS!!
Quote from: picowatt on April 04, 2013, 11:34:14 AM
That is the point!
The question is why are they wrong?
As you have relied heavily on the use of these scopes to prove your technology and present your data, surely you must see that a better explanation of the 450 captures is required than just "ignore them".
Oh well...
PW
@picowatt
The pictures on reply 450 were wrong because I did not
press the
"default setup" button first before doing the calibration. The Atten Oscilloscopes have many options and settings. For normal operations, I had to use specific settings depending on what I wanted to display. For example, I displayed Ch1 Vpp, Vrms and Ch2 Vpp, Vrms, etc. To do the calibration of the probes correctly, very
specific setting was required. The Atten Scope has the "default setup" or "factory setup" to help to achieve that.
I did not press that button first and thus the "calibration pictures" were wrong. A simple error.
*** This is actually a good experience. When I bring my Atten Scopes (or use new ones) at one of the Top Universities, I shall do the full
calibration procedure in front of the Academics. The results will be more
convincing. It also points out the difficulty if I rely on "their oscilloscopes". There is no possibility that I will be able to master the operations of all different models of oscilloscopes. Bringing one or two Atten Scopes for demonstration is a
MUST. (Bringing a laptop computer is NOT.)
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 04, 2013, 06:22:56 PM
@picowatt
The pictures on reply 450 were wrong because I did not press the "default setup" button first before doing the calibration. The Atten Oscilloscopes have many options and settings. For normal operations, I had to use specific settings depending on what I wanted to display. For example, I displayed Ch1 Vpp, Vrms and Ch2 Vpp, Vrms, etc. To do the calibration of the probes correctly, very specific setting was required. The Atten Scope has the "default setup" or "factory setup" to help to achieve that.
I did not press that button first and thus the "calibration pictures" were wrong. A simple error.
*** This is actually a good experience. When I bring my Atten Scopes (or use new ones) at one of the Top Universities, I shall do the full calibration procedure in front of the Academics. The results will be more convincing. It also points out the difficulty if I rely on "their oscilloscopes". There is no possibility that I will be able to master the operations of all different models of oscilloscopes. Bringing one or two Atten Scopes for demonstration is a MUST. (Bringing a laptop computer is NOT.)
The signal at the calibration post is a 1 K square wave of approximately 3Vpp. It doesn't matter what the scope's timebase or vertical sensitivity is set to, your scope should always indicate approximately 3Vpp when the calibrator is probed (assuming the probe and channel probe factor settings are correct).
If at anytime you when you are using your scope, you probe the calibration terminal with any probe connected to any channel at any vertical sensitivity or timebase setting, and the display is anything other than approximately 3Vpp, something is wrong. You should not have to be in "default setup" to make the scope read correctly.
Besides incorrect probe compensation, your post 450 scope 1 channel 2 shows the 3Vpp cal signal as being 15Vpp. Does this mean that all of your input current measurements made with scope 1 channel 2 were being indicated as 5 times higher than they actually were? How did you have the scope set so that channel 2 reads higher than it should by a factor of 5?
I suggest you recheck all probes and channels using the calibrator post to ensure that all channels are indicating approximately 3Vpp, adjust your probe compensation for minimal under/overshoot and then repeat a few of your tests.
To lend validity to any further scope shots of your JT circuit, I suggest you also provide scope shots of the probes connected to the cal terminals as you have the scope set to make your JT measurements (adjust only the vertical sesitivity if needed to prevent display clipping).
The very fact that you would post the scope shots of 450 in response to TK's request to see your probe compensation without realizing the errors contained in those captures is in itself quite telling.
PW
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 04, 2013, 01:36:28 AM
The correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration diagrams.
@TK,
I read the Manual and found the correct Oscilloscope Probe Calibration Procedure. The correct photos are shown here. Thank you for all your comments - they refer to incorrect photos. All my posted data are correct as the calibration was done right for me when I bought the Scopes.
@testers and All researchers.
False Alarm from TK..... I did not give him the correct calibration diagrams..... The pictures on reply 450 are definitely not calibration pictures. Should not blame TK for not recognizing them as oscilloscope manufacturers have different displays.
Lawrence, your protest here is simply wrong. You are grasping at straws in an attempt to get yourself out of this major error. False alarm from me? No, dear Sir..... the story is somewhat different.
You provided what I asked you for, which was the traces from the scope's calibrator output without making any adjustments to your probes. This means that the traces you showed in post 450
ARE INDEED traces which reflect the conditions of your probe/channel combinations
as you have been using them. Is this, or is this not, the case?
The fact that you have NOW calibrated your probes according to the first chapter of your owner's manual... or at least one of them... after all this time.... is rather "telling", as Picowatt might say. How long have you had your manual?
Your owner's manual instruction is garbled somewhat though: Your probe/channel combo must be calibrated together. Not just "channel 1 factory settings". You manually set your channel vertical atten to 1 volt/div. You assure that your probe switch is at 10x and that the channel setting is also at 10x internally. You manually set your timebase to read conveniently for a 1 kHz signal. You assure that you are triggering on the channel of interest and at the correct voltage level and rising or falling slope. Then you probe the scope's calibrator output with the probe/channel combo you are calibrating. You carefully adjust the probe's compensating capacitor until you get the nicest looking square wave, and on analog scopes you adjust the channel attenuator knob's "cal" portion to make the displayed waveform show exactly three divisions (three volts), or whatever its calibrator output is supposed to be. You repeat this process for each channel/probe combination. Generally, the channels themselves will be "equal" in input capacitance, and once the probes are set properly they should not require resetting much and it shouldn't matter which probe you have in which channel, on a given scope/probe set. But just in case, for my own two in-use scopes, I use only one probe set for one scope and the other for the other scope, and I have them all marked 1,2, and A,B, so they always go in the same channels in the same scopes.
Since the traces you showed in post 450 seem to reflect the conditions under which your data were gathered.... you need to calibrate, fix the voltage problem, and redo your experiments and calculations. You may still find your OU results.... I don't think this is the only error.... but this much, at least, must be done.
I pointed out the discrepancy in voltage on one of your traces some time ago, or rather I "asked" if anyone noticed anything peculiar, and .99 came back with the abnormally high voltage, but nobody made any further comment about it.
QuoteAll my posted data are correct as the calibration was done right for me when I bought the Scopes.
And that is probably why ONE of your probes has correct compensation. Whoever did it, used the instructions in the manual, which only cover one probe in one channel. SO all your posted data FROM THAT ONE SINGLE PROBE/CHANNEL COMBO may indeed be correct. Or it may not. Only redoing the experiment will allow you, or us, to tell.
QuoteShould not blame TK for not recognizing them as oscilloscope manufacturers have different displays.
Further.... you, Lawrence, should not
presume to attempt to teach me about oscilloscope displays or the usage of oscilloscopes in general. I asked you for something specific and you supplied it. Now, you are weaseling, because your ignorance and your misuse of the scopes is made plain for all to see. Your only possible "out" is to prove that the scope shots in 450 were not taken recently but were taken before your experiments, and the problems shown were corrected before you began taking data. But that's not the case, is it.
Board 80 results after all probes were recalibrated. Same characteristics. can wait for poynt99 and Physicsprof to post their results with their oscilloscopes.
Now your "Board 80 input" looks like you have the current sensing probe hooked up backwards. The voltage drops indicated on the top trace reflect the times when the oscillator is drawing the most current from the battery, so these instants should be reflected by +peaks+ not drops in the current trace. Your trace doesn't represent "negative input power", more likely it represents a probe hooked up backwards or a channel not properly inverted for the measurement hookup your board requires.
And it's clear from your "Board 80 output" that you will no longer have any negatives in your output result, as all your measured values in both traces are now positive.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone who can read a scope trace that your results are now going to be considerably different.... now that you have properly calibrated ALL your probes. Yes, you do need to retract and redo your previous results, because THEY WERE DONE INCORRECTLY. This is an issue of scientific integrity here, Lawrence. You took data with uncalibrated probes with substantial artefactual errors, and you recorded and reported that data as correct, when it was not. A retraction is indeed absolutely in order. If a redo still supports your claims, that's fine, at least you did the right thing. If the redo doesn't still support your claims, then we have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble trying to replicate your errors that you published as correct.
Now.... the input current trace in your recent example Board 80 shots. You are here measuring a very small signal at the scope's high gain setting. I asked you before: Do your scope traces change AT ALL as you move cabling around to different locations? I don't mean moving the probe points, just the way the cables themselves are routed from the board under test, over to the oscilloscope. Often, at high gain settings reading weak signals, the system can be very sensitive to how wires are routed, and even the length of the probe's ground cliplead can affect readings greatly, especially for signals like yours with substantial high-frequency components (the spikes).
So please, set up as normal, look at the current trace as in the post above, and move the probe wires around while measuring. Does the waveform change at all?
Lawrence, do the two slides below show your input current and voltage measurement positions that you have been using for your recent data? Why do they not agree with the circuit diagram?
Just to be clear: The circuit diagram has the common ground for all four channels on one side of the input current viewing resistor, away from the battery, as is correct. It shows the probe tip (incorrectly called "+ve" in the caption) of the current channel connected to the battery-resistor connection, as is correct to make this measurement, and the reference or ground lead (incorrectly called "-ve" in the caption) connected to the common ground.
But the photograph shows this probe reversed, with its TIP connected to the circuit common ground and the reference lead connected to the battery-resistor junction. This of course inverts the signal -- shows it going backwards -- as well as introducing a magnitude error into the current reading, especially if you have another probe hooked up _correctly_ to read the input voltage.
Please explain this discrepancy, which to my mind would fully account for your anomalous "negative" input power computations that you have recently been reporting.
Furthermore.... it is important to realize that a bench power supply very often has its NEG output lead connected to the chassis ground, which is connected to the line cord ground, which is connected to the line cord grounds of other instruments like the scopes, which is connected to their chassis grounds, which are connected to the scope probe "grounds" or reference leads. This means that if you are using a bench power supply, your scope probe grounds may be altering the power input to the circuit if they are connected anywhere else other than the exact same place the power supply negative lead is connected.
This means that in the circuit as diagrammed above you CANNOT use a ground-connected power supply as a substitute for the battery, because its negative is connected back to the grounds of the scope probes which are connected in a different place--- on the other side of the input CVR, bypassing it.
Hey Lawrence, why are you SO stubborn?
Why you keep pushing your 'guaranteed OU' results base only on oscilloscope readings, when in post 450 it was clear that you don't even know how to calibrate the probes/scope nor how a square wave should look like on the scope's screen?
Welcome everybody!
I am Robert from Hungary.
Mr. Ltseung888!
Why dont you try this effect on toroid with higher voltage(48V or higher, 200V)? Higher voltage, lower amp-> better efficiency.
2V 10 winding, 48V 240winding.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 06, 2013, 01:18:25 AM
Now your "Board 80 input" looks like you have the current sensing probe hooked up backwards. The voltage drops indicated on the top trace reflect the times when the oscillator is drawing the most current from the battery, so these instants should be reflected by +peaks+ not drops in the current trace. Your trace doesn't represent "negative input power", more likely it represents a probe hooked up backwards or a channel not properly inverted for the measurement hookup your board requires.
@TK
You raised
too many points. I shall try to answer them one at a time.
If you look at all the
Input Waveforms starting from reply 240 on page 17, you will see mostly voltage
drops and not peaks.
For example, check:
Reply 240, 241, 247, 250, 262, 264, 314, 323, 326, 332, 351, 378, 382, 386, 387, 390, 423, 434, 443, 467.
In reply 393,
I deliberately set CH1 to AC and compared that to Ch2. It is clear that a Voltage drop below the 0 axis corresponds to a current drop. I attribute this to the
"back emf" feedback by the circuit. Thus there were
NO experimental measurement errors.
When I added the capacitor (reply 424, 430), the drop was no longer that pronounced. This is expected as the capacitor will
smooth out the voltage.
In reply 260, 261, the DC voltage was wet to
1.56V. The drop changed to peak. The same applies to reply 425 when I used the 2n3055 with the voltage at
2.04V. Hope that will help in your thinking.....
The Almighty will help us all to learn tegether and
overcome the personal attackes or insults...
TK,
Actually, according to the latest scope shot and the circuit diagram of the probe locations, the power polarities seem correct.
The output power will be a positive result, and the input power a negative result. This is exactly what one would expect from a circuit where the battery is supplying a net power, IF the scope probes are NOT reversed polarity with reference to the battery and battery CSR.
In such a case, the supply always results in a negative power, and any load results in a positive power. I've gone over this issue several times in the past.
The voltage drop across the battery CSR will be inverted wrt the polarity of the voltage drop across the battery, and in Lawrence's case, since the scope probes across these two points are NOT reversed, this will result in a negative power product, as it should.
However, this does NOT indicate the battery is being charged, quite the contrary; it clearly indicates that it is supplying a net power to the circuit, and it is depleting normally.
One other important issue to be keenly aware of Lawrence, is that your CH1 (A1-A2) probe is NOT giving you an accurate measurement of the true battery voltage for making the input power computation. You are in fact measuring across both the battery and the battery CSR resistor.
In order to obtain the true battery voltage measurement from the A1-A2 difference, you must subtract the voltage drop across the battery CSR (A4-A3) from the A1-A2 measurement.
Since A1-A2 is positive, and A4-A3 is negative, subtracting the two is equivalent to adding the two. So in fact your battery voltage is actually higher than what your A1-A2 probe is capturing, and as such, your input power result will be higher (in the negative direction) as well.
Of course you would need to do this computation in the spread sheet.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 06, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
One other important issue to be keenly aware of Lawrence, is that your CH1 (A1-A2) probe is NOT giving you an accurate measurement of the true battery voltage for making the input power computation. You are in fact measuring across both the battery and the battery CSR resistor.
In order to obtain the true battery voltage measurement from the A1-A2 difference, you must subtract the voltage drop across the battery CSR (A4-A3) from the A1-A2 measurement.
Since A1-A2 is positive, and A4-A3 is negative, subtracting the two is equivalent to adding the two. So in fact your battery voltage is actually higher than what your A1-A2 probe is capturing, and as such, your input power result will be higher (in the negative direction) as well.
Of course you would need to do this computation in the spread sheet.
@poynt99:
Thank you for the reminder. All my spreadsheets have the
above mentioned computation. You have Board 33 and can easily do the actual experiments. I am showing the details of
Board 80 for those who want to replicate and improve. Please show the results of Board 33 on your 4 channel Scope. There will be more to discussions as far as the theory is concerned. For now, we just need to ensure that there are
NO experimental or equipment errors.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 06, 2013, 12:25:41 PM
TK,
Actually, according to the latest scope shot and the circuit diagram of the probe locations, the power polarities seem correct.
The output power will be a positive result, and the input power a negative result. This is exactly what one would expect from a circuit where the battery is supplying a net power, IF the scope probes are NOT reversed polarity with reference to the battery and battery CSR.
In such a case, the supply always results in a negative power, and any load results in a positive power. I've gone over this issue several times in the past.
The voltage drop across the battery CSR will be inverted wrt the polarity of the voltage drop across the battery, and in Lawrence's case, since the scope probes across these two points are NOT reversed, this will result in a negative power product, as it should.
However, this does NOT indicate the battery is being charged, quite the contrary; it clearly indicates that it is supplying a net power to the circuit, and it is depleting normally.
I think you are missing my main "poynt". If you look carefully at the circuit diagram, and look carefully at the photo that goes with it, you will see that the probe in the example photo is reversed from the hookup given in the circuit diagram. The photo shows the probe _TIP_ connected to the common circuit ground. How is it possible to make simultaneous input voltage and current measurements if the probe is hooked up as the _photo_ shows?
Replicate and improve? How about this. You've seen this before but you obviously didn't get the message. Ease of manufacture, elimination of circuit errors, consistency between individual units, cost reduction, complexity reduction.....
Of course, since my test points are directly at the respective current monitoring resistors and my current paths are in general shorter and more direct than yours... I am likely to see less artefactual waveform distortions than you are.
Proudly displaying my construction "improvements" in my "replication" of a circuit that I actually built well before you started using it:
(It's hard for me to believe that after all this time, someone hasn't spent ten minutes with a circuit CAD program and generated a nice template for Lawrence, that he could send off and get made into boards professionally for minimal cost. I put this together completely manually in an afternoon as a sort of a joke.)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 06, 2013, 12:25:41 PM
TK,
Actually, according to the latest scope shot and the circuit diagram of the probe locations, the power polarities seem correct.
The output power will be a positive result, and the input power a negative result. This is exactly what one would expect from a circuit where the battery is supplying a net power, IF the scope probes are NOT reversed polarity with reference to the battery and battery CSR.
In such a case, the supply always results in a negative power, and any load results in a positive power. I've gone over this issue several times in the past.
The voltage drop across the battery CSR will be inverted wrt the polarity of the voltage drop across the battery, and in Lawrence's case, since the scope probes across these two points are NOT reversed, this will result in a negative power product, as it should.
However, this does NOT indicate the battery is being charged, quite the contrary; it clearly indicates that it is supplying a net power to the circuit, and it is depleting normally.
Perhaps the following attached pix will help clear up the issue.
In the first simple diagram below I have shown a battery, a voltmeter (separate and isolated), a current-viewing resistor , the connecting wire and two test points A and B. A would usually be considered the "common circuit ground".... except when also monitoring output in Lawrence's circuit too, "B" must be used as the common reference point for all 4 scope probes.
"Conventional" electric current flows from positive to negative and this would indicate normal battery discharging as it dissipates energy in the circuit. The isolated voltmeter reads the battery voltage and at the correct polarity. Now hook a scope to points A and B. Clearly, point B will be at a higher positive voltage than point A when current is flowing conventionally. So if you hook your scope TIP to point B and your reference "ground" lead to point A, you will see a _positive_ voltage indicated on the scope when current is flowing conventionally and the battery is discharging. This positive voltage is the "drop" across the resistor and gives the current thru the resistor by Ohm's law.
But the circuit Lawrence uses requires that the common ground actually be at point B. So the current must be monitored with probe TIP at point A-- where the voltage is _lower_ than at the probe's reference lead at point "B". This means the scope will indicate a NEGATIVE voltage when current is flowing conventionally and the battery is discharging. This negative voltage _reading_ when multiplied by the voltmeter's positive reading will yield a "negative" power value. To avoid confusion, many people (like me) would simply press the trace invert button to make the reading agree with the _conventional_ definition of current flow.
Now, look at the schematic of Lawrence's circuit. He correctly has the common circuit ground at the point corresponding to my point "B", and the input current probe TIP at the battery negative, my point "A". This means that,
without using the trace invert function, the computed power _should_ be "negative" when the current is flowing
normally, just as Poynt99 has explained many times.
However.... the PHOTOGRAPH that Lawrence has recently provided shows the probe TIP at the common circuit ground ( my point "B") and the probe ground at the battery negative (my point "A"). This will invert the current reading, and also create a ground path through any other instrument grounds that might be connected to the correct common circuit ground.
So I have asked about this. What's the explanation for the discrepancy between the PHOTO showing how Lawrence has recently been measuring, apparently incorrectly, and the SCHEMATIC which shows what I would consider to be correct probe hookups, but which will give an _apparent_ negative power unless the channel trace invert function is used?
Lawrence, now that you have calibrated -- or rather adjusted the compensation of -- all your probes..... you still haven't said anything about the large voltage discrepancy that one of your probes showed. Was this fixed, what was the cause, and how did you fix it? This would not normally be caused by poor compensation and would not normally be addressed by correcting the compensation. Rather, it sounds to me like perhaps there is something wrong with the voltage divider inside the probe.
(I recently had to repair one of my probes, the initial 100R resistor was open entirely to small voltages but would conduct for higher ones, wreaking utter havoc with my ability to interpret readings from it. It was evidently damaged by a surge or something, or maybe mechanical strain. But on replacement with a new resistor all is now copacetic again.)
Could you please provide _new_ images of your calibrator output traces from each probe? This is just so we all can be quite sure that you have indeed compensated them correctly and that the voltage problem is fixed.
Please set the scope up as follows (Do NOT use any "auto" or "default" or "factory settings" buttons, please do this manually): time base at 250 microseconds per division. Vertical attenuation 1 volt/division, and assure channel is not inverted. Channel set for 10x attenuated probe, and the switch on the probe itself set to 10x. Channel baseline trace set _exactly_ on the center horizontal graticule line, and trigger set for the channel displayed and at one division above the baseline (+ 1.0 volt) and rising edge. Parameters displayed as "numbers in boxes" to the right of the traces should include the frequency _of the displayed channel_ and its P-P voltage.
ETA: I notice that you often display "RMS" values in the parameters boxes. Are you using these RMS values in your spreadsheet power computations in any way?
@TK
You posted too much information for me to digest at present. Poynt99 has Board 33 and is in a position to answer most of your questions. PhysicsProf should have two Boards within a few days. PhysicsProf also has the Atten and he can help me to answer your questions.
In addition, Mr. Zhou and I met Prof. Julian Tree over the weekend. Prof. Julian Tree actually built an oscilloscope test-ready board himself and presented it in Europe and at Dartmouth University, USA. His Board has a COP of -4.9 and he used the oscilloscopes in the Physics Teaching Laboratory of Dartmouth. I gave him 5 Boards (101-105) to take back to Europe and USA. These Boards were tested at our meeting in Shenzhen. He will further test them before comments.
To make sure that the Atten Oscilloscopes were calibrated and set up properly, I asked for the help of Mr. Zhou. Mr. Zhou sells the Atten Oscilloscopes, calibrates and demonstrates the features for his customers. In addition, Dr. Raymond Ting, who checks out new invention claims for the Chinese Government also has two Boards. He has two Atten Oscilloscopes. I shall post their certified results when ready.
I sow seeds. I follow the Atten User Manuals for Calibration. I do not claim to be an oscilloscope expert. (I never mastered all the features on my mobile phone .) Now the seeds are in the hands of experts. We can wait for their test results.
My offer to send you a test-ready board still stands. In that way, You can do all tests correctly yourself. I shall not make mistakes and waste the time of the top experts especially now - many influential individuals are involved.
God Bless
Lawrence, when will you get it through your silly head that I have six or seven JTs here that vastly outperform yours? When will you realize that the circuit I showed above on the printed circuit board is EXACTLY THE SAME circuit that your boards are using? Does overunity really depend on using a pad-per-hole board sloppily assembled with cold solder joints and stray wiring? Please do not talk about sending me one of your boards. Instead, address the problems in your own presentation, analysis, data gathering, and interpretations.
Why do you not respond specifically to my specific questions?
1. I have asked you several times if your waveforms depend at all on probe cable routing. It would take you five minutes to perform the appropriate tests and report your results.
2. I have asked you to provide your calibrator output traces again, to show that your probes are now properly compensated and that the voltage discrepancy has been corrected. None of the big names you drop or the references you make are helping you to perform this simple task, which might take ten minutes of your precious time.
3. I have asked you how you resolved the huge voltage error of one of your probes. This is not a compensation issue, and since the error is about a factor of 5, it is probably not simply a 10x atten setting improperly configured. What caused it, how did you correct it, and let's see the trace from your calibrator proving it has been corrected. Please.
Do you recall your difficulty with the concept of AC versus DC coupling? Perhaps you will acknowledge that there may be one or two things about oscilloscopes and measurements that you do not understand fully, that your manual does not help you with, and that your various named experts are also seemingly not aware of. However, if you pay careful attention to what people like Poynt99, Picowatt, and... yes.... yours truly are telling you, you just might improve your skills and knowledge.
QuotePoynt99 has Board 33 and is in a position to answer most of your questions.
How can Poynt99 possibly answer my questions? You are the one with the test probe that indicates the wrong voltage, you are the one who posted the photograph that conflicts with the schematic you posted, you are the only one who can move your test leads around .... how can .99 possibly answer these questions? Only YOU can answer my questions, Lawrence.
ETA: I notice that you often display "RMS" values in the parameters boxes. Are you using these RMS values in your spreadsheet power computations in any way? Is
Poynt99 in a position to answer this question?
Cable position effects. Not noticeable in the case shown.
Although the photo is for board #71 and the scope shots are for board #80, yes Lawrence you need to respond to the question of how the probe was connected for board #80's input current measurement, because the probe configuration shown in #71 is not in accordance with your diagram.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 07, 2013, 10:09:17 AM
Although the photo is for board #71 and the scope shots are for board #80, yes Lawrence you need to respond to the question of how the probe was connected for board #80's input current measurement, because the probe configuration shown in #71 is not in accordance with your diagram.
@poynt99 and TK
Thank you for spending so much energy and time on this thread. I shall try to do a
full "thinking" review on why I started with Vrms and then the "unconventional incorrect" probe setting
later. Meanwhile, I redid the Board 80 Input measurements with the
correct probe setting. I also set the CH2 invert to "ON" and then to "OFF" and captured the CSV files. Apparently the CSV values were the
same with either setting. The
invert setting affected the display but not the captured values. The CSV file results in both cases showed that the
Average Input Power was negative. Please
confirm with Board 33 and Tk's own boards.
May the Almighty grant us wisdom and revelation so that we can benefit the World together.
OK, thanks Lawrence for doing the cable test. But I don't see any batteries in the setup.... are you running on an external, bench power supply?
Because of the discrepancy between that photo I linked above and your circuit diagram, it's important that we confirm that your new measurements are taken with the probes positioned correctly (as in the schematic, not the photo), that the scope's probe compensation and probe attenuation are properly set, that the channel input couplings are properly set to DC, that the math correction that .99 has mentioned is done, and that the Channel Invert function is properly used, or not used, for the input current measurement channel as appropriate _and documented_.
Referring to your Manual, part 2.6.1.5, I see where the channel invert function is set, but not how it is indicated on the live scope screen during trace acquisition. Many scopes have an indicator that shows channel inversion. Is there one on the Atten scope? I can't see it if there is. If there isn't one on the live acquisition screen it is possible that a channel is inadvertently set to invert, or not invert, incorrectly and you might not notice it unless you took the trouble to check and document the invert/non invert setting along with each measurement session. It would not be the first time in history that a claimed overunity result was tracked down to an improperly inverted scope signal.
Could you do another test for me, please? With your equipment turned OFF and not hooked to any board in any way, but plugged into the mains as your test session requires... please take your handheld DMM and check for continuity between all of your equipment grounds. Look for continuity especially from your Power Supply's Negative output lead, to your scope probe "grounds" and the scope chassis. Be sure your equipment is OFF but plugged into the mains as normal when you do this check.
Quote
UNDP Grant Programme 2013
Attention: Mr. Tseung,
You have been nominated by the UN for a Humanitarian Development Cash Grant program to enhance and develop the standard of living geared towards poverty eradication as targeted by the year 2020.You have been granted the sum of 950,000.00 Pounds your grant pin # UNF/FBF-816-1119 G-900-94.
Contact payment department for due remittance of funds.
Payment Officer : Mrs. Grace Mayer
Email: undpgrantclaimsdept@hotmail.co.uk
You are to provide her with the following information's below for claims.
1 Full Names:
2 Full Address:
3 Nationality:
4 Age:
5 Gender:
6 Occupation:
7 Cell Phone:
8 Alternate Email Address:
[font=]Note: [/font]This is an automatic message do not click on your reply button,only send all require details to the below Email: undpgrantclaimsdept@hotmail.co.uk only.
Regards,
Dr. Waiser Marlene.
Chairman UNDP Grant Programme
I sent a couple of boards and some information to UN some weeks ago. Is the above a legit response???
Ah, I just saw your post about the CSV file not changing in response to the channel invert setting. That seems strange to me. Is there some way we can confirm this? Reviewing Table 2-47 and the associated text in the manual, I see nothing that is very helpful on this question.
But OK.... if the CSV storage is the raw, non-inverted data regardless of how the invert display button is set, then a negative value calculated here, with your probes positioned as in the schematic and apparently as in your latest picture above, indicates conventional +positive+ current flow in the normal direction, just as .99 has been telling you. See my rough sketch a few posts ago to understand which side of the current viewing resistor has the higher voltage in each case. The "negative" voltage reading comes from the fact that the probe TIP, at the negative pole of the battery, must be at a LOWER voltage than the ground clip on the circuit side of the current viewing resistor, when the current is flowing normally. So if the voltage at the ground clip is assigned "zero", then the probe tip will be negative.
http://security-world.blogspot.com/2011/01/undp-scheme-2011.html (http://security-world.blogspot.com/2011/01/undp-scheme-2011.html)
http://naijaspleen.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/spleen-scam-mails-alert-undp-grant-programme/ (http://naijaspleen.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/spleen-scam-mails-alert-undp-grant-programme/)
http://419.bittenus.com/12/2/undpgrantprogram.html (http://419.bittenus.com/12/2/undpgrantprogram.html)
http://emailscamscammersscamming.blogspot.com/2012/08/undp-grant-donation-programme.html (http://emailscamscammersscamming.blogspot.com/2012/08/undp-grant-donation-programme.html)
Seems legit???
NOT.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 07, 2013, 08:54:13 PM
Ah, I just saw your post about the CSV file not changing in response to the channel invert setting. That seems strange to me. Is there some way we can confirm this? Reviewing Table 2-47 and the associated text in the manual, I see nothing that is very helpful on this question.
But OK.... if the CSV storage is the raw, non-inverted data regardless of how the invert display button is set, then a negative value calculated here, with your probes positioned as in the schematic and apparently as in your latest picture above, indicates conventional +positive+ current flow in the normal direction, just as .99 has been telling you. See my rough sketch a few posts ago to understand which side of the current viewing resistor has the higher voltage in each case. The "negative" voltage reading comes from the fact that the probe TIP, at the negative pole of the battery, must be at a LOWER voltage than the ground clip on the circuit side of the current viewing resistor, when the current is flowing normally. So if the voltage at the ground clip is assigned "zero", then the probe tip will be negative.
@TK and poynt99,
Can you point out where the highlighted information is posted. Thank you.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 07, 2013, 08:58:56 PM
http://security-world.blogspot.com/2011/01/undp-scheme-2011.html (http://security-world.blogspot.com/2011/01/undp-scheme-2011.html)
http://naijaspleen.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/spleen-scam-mails-alert-undp-grant-programme/ (http://naijaspleen.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/spleen-scam-mails-alert-undp-grant-programme/)
http://419.bittenus.com/12/2/undpgrantprogram.html (http://419.bittenus.com/12/2/undpgrantprogram.html)
http://emailscamscammersscamming.blogspot.com/2012/08/undp-grant-donation-programme.html (http://emailscamscammersscamming.blogspot.com/2012/08/undp-grant-donation-programme.html)
Seems legit???
NOT.
Does this mean that I will not be receiving all of that money? I was really looking forward to building a new research facility.
Crap!
Bill
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 07, 2013, 09:04:59 PM
@TK and poynt99,
Can you point out where the highlighted information is posted. Thank you.
Most recently, .99 explained it here, just a few posts ago:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356491/#msg356491 (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356491/#msg356491)
My sketch, posted a few comments ago and attached again below, should help make it clear. When the current is flowing normally _out_ of the battery, supplying power TO the circuit, then the two ends of the current sensing resistor are at different voltages.... with the junction of the resistor and the negative battery pole ("A) at a LOWER voltage than the end of the resistor that is towards the rest of the circuit ("B"). So a conventional current flowing out of the positive pole, thru the circuit dissipating power, will, when measured with your schematic diagram's probe orientation and a NON inverted channel -- as in your CSV data, apparently -- then you will read a negative value for this voltage, and this negative will carry through the Ohm's law calculation and result in a _negative_ power value. This is because of the "reversed" orientation of the probe, which is required in the special case of your circuit where four channels must be used simultaneously and with a common "reference" point, what you are calling the common circuit ground. Claro?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 06, 2013, 01:15:39 PM
One other important issue to be keenly aware of Lawrence, is that your CH1 (A1-A2) probe is NOT giving you an accurate measurement of the true battery voltage for making the input power computation. You are in fact measuring across both the battery and the battery CSR resistor.
In order to obtain the true battery voltage measurement from the A1-A2 difference, you must subtract the voltage drop across the battery CSR (A4-A3) from the A1-A2 measurement.
Since A1-A2 is positive, and A4-A3 is negative, subtracting the two is equivalent to adding the two. So in fact your battery voltage is actually higher than what your A1-A2 probe is capturing, and as such, your input power result will be higher (in the negative direction) as well.
Of course you would need to do this computation in the spread sheet.
@TK and poynt99,
Please help me to get this
confusion out from the spreadsheet analysis. Let us assume that
NO Invert function was applied in both Ch1 and Ch2. In the spreadsheet, should I
add the A1-A2 value (positive) and the A4-A3 (negative) values together to get the
TRUE input voltage across the battery?
The addition will effectively
lower the value of the "Input Voltage" (A1-A2 value). I should then use this lowered value in the calculation of the Input Power. Multiple the lowered (A1-A2) value with the captured (A4-A3) value. For the calculation of the
COP or the Power Comparison, I should then add a negative sign to the resulting
Input Power value.
Is that correct?Thank you for clarifying this point. I shall redo the experiments with the "correct" analysis if needed.
No, Lawrence, your true input battery voltage is HIGHER than what your probe reads. Your probe is reading the battery and the resistor in series, not just the battery alone, and so is reading low, by the amount of the voltage drop across the resistor.
Hmm. Let me see if I can give my explanation without confusing things too badly.
Is the battery CSR to be considered part of the "power supply", or part of the circuit being powered? Since it's dissipating some power that the battery is supplying, I tend to think of it as part of the circuit. So the battery voltage that should be used for input power to the complete circuit is that which is read directly from the battery terminals without this resistor in series.
But the probe arrangement that Lawrence must use reads the battery voltage _with_ the resistor in series, and so must be reading _lower_ than the true battery voltage that we seek. Right?
What is the magnitude of this difference, and how can we correct for it? Since we know we need an answer that is Higher than what we are reading on the battery probe, we know that we have to _add_ something positive to our reading.
The difference is the voltage drop across the resistor. The true battery voltage is higher than what the probe reads, by the value of the voltage drop across the resistor, which is given directly by the "current" probe. The only problem is the negative sign of the reading from the current probe, which, as we recall, is an artefact of the way we need to position probes in this circuit.
So you take the reading from the battery probe, and ADD the _absolute value_ of the voltage drop across the resistor given by the current probe. The result gives the true battery voltage, as if the resistor wasn't there between the battery and the probe leads.
Note that this is NOT different from what .99 said. It just puts it in a different way. Subtracting a negative number is equivalent to adding its absolute value.
Of course if the resistor is considered part of the circuit, then the power dissipation in the resistor itself must be included in the circuit's total power dissipation as output.
ETA: I think your scope itself has the ability to do this "live" by selecting the Subtract function in the Math setup screens. Subtracting the voltage drop seen by the Ch2 probe from the battery-resistor voltage seen by the Ch 1 probe will yield the correct answer, because subtracting a negative is equivalent to adding a positive value. Again, this is the same thing that .99 has said and that I have explained above.
Another way of looking at the issue, of course, is to view the battery CSR as part of the power supply, just an additional internal resistance of the battery. In that case, the uncorrected reading from the voltage probe, across the battery and the resistor, is the "correct" input voltage to the rest of the circuit. But.... then you don't get to include the power dissipation in the CSR itself as output. So both your input power and your total output power go down, because your battery CSR is effectively "wasting" power that isn't getting to the rest of the circuit.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2013, 06:03:44 AM
No, Lawrence, your true input battery voltage is HIGHER than what your probe reads. Your probe is reading the battery and the resistor in series, not just the battery alone, and so is reading low, by the amount of the voltage drop across the resistor.
Hmm. Let me see if I can give my explanation without confusing things too badly.
Is the battery CSR to be considered part of the "power supply", or part of the circuit being powered? Since it's dissipating some power that the battery is supplying, I tend to think of it as part of the circuit. So the battery voltage that should be used for input power to the complete circuit is that which is read directly from the battery terminals without this resistor in series.
But the probe arrangement that Lawrence must use reads the battery voltage _with_ the resistor in series, and so must be reading _lower_ than the true battery voltage that we seek. Right?
What is the magnitude of this difference, and how can we correct for it? Since we know we need an answer that is Higher than what we are reading on the battery probe, we know that we have to _add_ something positive to our reading.
The difference is the voltage drop across the resistor. The true battery voltage is higher than what the probe reads, by the value of the voltage drop across the resistor, which is given directly by the "current" probe. The only problem is the negative sign of the reading from the current probe, which, as we recall, is an artefact of the way we need to position probes in this circuit.
So you take the reading from the battery probe, and ADD the _absolute value_ of the voltage drop across the resistor given by the current probe. The result gives the true battery voltage, as if the resistor wasn't there between the battery and the probe leads.
Note that this is NOT different from what .99 said. It just puts it in a different way. Subtracting a negative number is equivalent to adding its absolute value.
Of course if the resistor is considered part of the circuit, then the power dissipation in the resistor itself must be included in the circuit's total power dissipation as output.
ETA: I think your scope itself has the ability to do this "live" by selecting the Subtract function in the Math setup screens. Subtracting the voltage drop seen by the Ch2 probe from the battery-resistor voltage seen by the Ch 1 probe will yield the correct answer, because subtracting a negative is equivalent to adding a positive value. Again, this is the same thing that .99 has said and that I have explained above.
@TK or poynt99,
I am sorry to say that the explanation is adding
more confusion. The attached is an extract of the
raw data from the Input CSV file.
It has three columns. The first is the time which we can ignore in our analysis. The second is
Ch1 which represents the Input Voltage A1-A2. The third is
CH2 which represents the Input Current (A4-A3).
Please add the necessary columns and equations. Hope that helps all to understand and do the correct analysis....
Lawrence, when you hook a voltmeter to a battery, just by itself, you read the battery voltage, right?
Now put a light bulb in series with your battery and your voltmeter. Is the voltmeter reading higher, or lower? It is LOWER, by the value of the voltage drop across the light bulb due to its resistance. To find the true battery voltage in this case you must ADD the value of the voltage drop -- its unsigned, absolute value -- to the reading on the voltmeter.
The probe that you are using to read your INPUT BATTERY VOLTAGE is in series with a resistor. Thus it reads LOWER than the true, unresisted battery voltage. To find the true battery voltage, you must ADD the value of the voltage drop caused by the presence of the resistor. What could be plainer?
I think you can probably add your OWN column to your OWN spreadsheet to do the computation of ADDING the ABSOLUTE VALUE of the VOLTAGE DROP indicated on CH2, to the raw reading of your CH1. It does no good to have other people do work for you that you do not understand. You must strive to understand these very basic facts about voltage, current, and power measurement if you presume to claim that your measurements indicate anything special.
For every time instant:
VBatttrue = VCH1measured + ABS(CH2measured)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 08, 2013, 08:14:43 AM
For every time instant:
VBatttrue = VCH1measured + ABS(CH2measured)
@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!
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 08, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
@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 CH2measured can only be in one direction.
In the actual experiment, no matter how you measure or view it, the current (CH2measured ) 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!
Quote from: picowatt on April 08, 2013, 05:34:16 PM
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.
Thanks Lawrence.
I realized it was just a short "snippet" of data after the fact...
PW
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.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 08, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
@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 CH2measured can only be in one direction.
In the actual experiment, no matter how you measure or view it, the current (CH2measured ) 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Comments on your Slide12, the Board 80 input measurements.
In the first place your RMS voltage reading is irrelevant. Your scope trace in CH1 indicates fully 1.50 volts or more except in the "valleys" which are not "back emf", they are simply the dips in voltage caused by the LED turning on for a brief instant. Only the instantaneous voltage values are relevant to your power measurements, the RMS values only obfuscate the true issues.
In the second, most important place: Your WHITE LINE in your CH2 trace is a misrepresentation if it is supposed to be "zero" volts. Look at where the little bluegreen "2" symbol is to the left of the display area. THAT is where your "zero" value is, slightly above the major graticule line, not where you have drawn your white line which is almost a full minor division BELOW the graticule line. And the only part of your trace that is in any sense crossing this true zero line is .... NOISE, and perhaps a tiny ground bounce. And of course we recall that this probe is inverted, so negative values mean.... entirely conventional, battery discharging, power dissipating in the circuit, current flow.
Some comments on your Slide13, the Board 80 output measurements.
Once again, you are citing RMS voltage values, which are entirely irrelevant here. Only the instantaneous voltage and current (voltage drop) values have any relevance to power and energy calculations done in this manner.
But more importantly..... you are STILL not putting your channel baselines directly and exactly on a horizontal graticule line. This is IMPORTANT for observers to be able to interpret easily your scope images. Those wiggly lines have meaning! Lots and lots of it. You are making it harder than necessary to interpret those meanings, and indeed actively obfuscating some details, by your sloppy positioning of your baselines. Positioning the baselines correctly allows one to see at a glance the voltage levels concerned.
Also, you are still putting your Trigger right on top of your baseline. Fortunately the Atten scope has a fairly intelligent trigger and isn't too upset by your attempts to fool it. Please place your trigger decently above your baseline level, so that you know that you are not going to be triggering on noise, and so that the T indicator doesn't obscure the 2 of the baseline indicator, displayed to the left of the trace area.
Your parameters panels do not provide the information necessary to determine energy performance at all, so please do not suggest that they "indicate possible OU".
I find it remarkable that this board is producing "exactly" 3 kHz signal.
And finally, for this round.... your input and output measurements are not synchronous, being taken on two different scopes. Would you please show a set of traces obtained in the following manner: Use Scope 1 to monitor the Input Voltage and the Output Voltage. Use Scope 2 to monitor the Input Current and the Output Current. This will allow us to see the time and magnitude relationships between Input and Output directly, something that we have not yet seen from your arrangement.
When a nice 4-ch scope is used we'll have all of this data on one screen which will make matters much easier to interpret.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 04:19:13 AM
And finally, for this round.... your input and output measurements are not synchronous, being taken on two different scopes. Would you please show a set of traces obtained in the following manner: Use Scope 1 to monitor the Input Voltage and the Output Voltage. Use Scope 2 to monitor the Input Current and the Output Current. This will allow us to see the time and magnitude relationships between Input and Output directly, something that we have not yet seen from your arrangement.
When a nice 4-ch scope is used we'll have all of this data on one screen which will make matters much easier to interpret.
@poynt99:
We are now all earger to see your 4-CH scope results. Sorry to put the
pressure on you.
@TK:
The
Vrms display is left from history. Five Years ago, I did not use oscilloscopes and relied on voltmeters and ampmeters with AA batteries as source. There was discussion that the correct way was to see the
entire waveform and use the equation:
Intanstaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current.If there were
pulse elements, the closest value is the Vrms - not Vmax, Vavg etc. At that time I called such displays "Tseung index" as a comparison for my many FLEETs. They are still useful when I compare different JTs.
I enclose the scope analysis for Output and for Input as you suggested. The numerical or
absolute value for Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power. If we agree that the
COP is the ratio of Average Output Power over Average Input Power, we get COP > 1.
Let us let poynt99 comment on that - with the results from his 4-Ch scope.
TK,
Referring to the schematic in your post 469 a few pages back, if you draw a short circuit between the A3-A4 point (scope grounds) and the A1 point, you will have maximum current flow thru the input side CSR. Assuming for the moment that the battery (and the short circuit) has an infinitely low internal resistance, the measured voltage at A1 would be zero volts, and at A2, the voltage would be -1.5V (assuming a 1.5 volt battery).
Current flow would threfore be 1.5 amps and the actual battery voltage would be (A1-A2), which is 0-(-1.5), or 1.5volts.
In the recent captures, the negative going ripple on A1 is due to Vdrop across both Rint and the CSR when current is being drawn from the battery. Any negative voltage observed at A2 represents current drawn from the battery.
Therefore, the negative dips/ripples on the A2 voltage are due to Q1 turning on and loading the battery with the toroid, which produces current flow thru the CSR and causes A2 to be a negaive voltage (base curren is also drawn to a lesser degree). During the Q1 on time, the voltage across the LED is effectively Vce(sat), so the LED is turned off because the voltage at B1 is below Vled(on) during this time. (this assumes the schematic as drawn in your 469 without a second battery in series with the LED).
When Q1 turns off, the voltage at B1 rises above Vbatt as the energy stored in the toroid discharges in series with Vbatt. The voltage at B1 is clamped at the LED voltage as the LED turns on briefly (the B1 LED voltage must also be corrected by subtracting the output CSR Vdrop similar to the A1 Vbatt correction).
As the waveforms contain some fairly high frequency components/harmonics, all of the caveats regarding wiring inductance relating to accurate voltage/current measurements must also be considered.
That's my take on it...
PW
I am in phoenix until apr 16, but I am following along.
@PW:
The sequence of events you have described is exactly why I have asked Lawrence to provide the input and output Voltages on one scope, and the input and output Currents on the other scope. This will allow "us" to observe the time sequence, the relationship between the input and output pulsations. We cannot see this in Lawrence's present data, with input and output data on separate instruments. A 4-ch scope will of course show these relationships in real time, but Lawrence only has the two 2-ch scopes to work with.
Another bit of data that would be quite instructive to "us" would be some actual measure of LED light output. This doesn't have to be quantitative, just synchronous. This would allow "us" to observe the relationship between the actual _illumination_ of the LED and the pulses coming from the various parts of the circuit. Again, there are not enough channels available to see this in real time, but an experimental session could be devoted to showing, say, the input or output voltage or current trace on one channel, and the trace from a photovoltaic cell taped to the LED on the second channel. This will answer the question of "when" the LED is actually ON, in relationship to the input and output signal pulses.
I have found in the past in pulsed circuits that people sometimes believe that a component is "on", when in fact it is "off".
@PW, .99:
In Lawrence's recent scopeshots of Board 80, the one that I have edited to show the _true_ baseline for the CH2 current measurement.... note that the scope is reporting + 40.00 mV RMS for that signal...... which barely ever actually goes positive, never even reaching 40 mV positive that I can see, and extending deeply negative during its spikes. RMS, of course, is mathematically always a positive value..... so how are we to interpret a _positive_ RMS value for a signal that is actually almost always, if not strictly always, negative? The RMS value gives the wrong direction for the current being measured in this channel, doesn't it?
Lawrence has explained that the RMS boxes are a "legacy" from his early work. I hope it's clear now that these values are not relevant and may even be confusing the issue, due to things like the positive RMS value for a clearly negative-average signal. They should not be displayed at all. If the scope has a simple "average" parameter available, that might provide some rough and useful information. An artificially positive RMS value does not.
@Lawrence:
Once again.... I ask you to provide Input and Output Voltages on ONE SCOPE, and the Input and Output Currents on the OTHER SCOPE, so that we can see the TIMING relationship between the input and output pulses. I am NOT suggesting that you always do it this way; what you are doing normally is proper for your power measurements. But we need to see at least one set of screens taken with input and output voltages on one scope, and input and output currents on the other, for the timing relationships.
This TIMING relationship is what PW has described in detail above, and what I have greatly simplified when I said that the dips in the battery voltage trace are due to the LED turning on.
As PW has explained there are a couple of intermediate steps in that process, and the light from the LED is probably not happening at the exact same time that the dips in the battery voltage are happening. Nevertheless, the dips represent power being drawn from the battery, and this power eventually is mostly dissipated in the light from the LED. We really would like to see some traces of INPUT and OUTPUT on the SAME scope screen at the SAME time, so that these relationships can be made clear.
If you can arrange it, a photovoltaic cell (solar cell) simply taped in a stable manner to your board's LED will provide a voltage signal when the LED is actually ON, and can be simply hooked to a scope channel probe directly. This measurement should be done with the FLEET board's _Input_ Battery Voltage on one channel and the Photovoltaic output on the second channel. You can get a photovoltaic (solar) cell very cheaply by taking apart one of those self-charging garden lights that cost a couple of dollars -- and you'll also get a couple of white LEDs. A bargain however you look at it. Or, a simple photoRESISTOR in series with a power source like a battery can be used to provide a signal that is on when the LED is on. There is also a photoresistor inside many types of garden lights, but some simply use the PV cell itself to detect day/night.
An even better, temporary, arrangement that might work to show the time relationship between the LED output and the circuit's pulsations, would be to use an optoisolator chip's input stage as a substitute for the board's LED. Then one can simply use the phototransistor output from the optoisolator to monitor the actual "LED" turning on and off. This method doesn't have the potential to actually measure the board's LED light output, though, but it will give the most accurate timing data, I think.
The H11Dx series of optoisolators is cheap and robust. I think I have an H11D4 that's not in use, I can try this on my 2n2222 JT test bed to see if it will work. The phototransistor output stage can be powered by a separate battery or power supply for the few moments the testing will take.
Some oscilloscopes, like my venerable HP180a with the 1821a horizontal timebase/delay generator, have a trigger _output_ that can be used to synchronize other instruments.
It would be nice if the Attens had a trigger output. Then you could use the trigger out from one to trigger the other one, and achieve "manual" synchrony that way and reassemble a "4-channel" set of traces in the spreadsheet.
Sorry to make so many posts in a row, but I'm having my coffee and thinking hard about this, also warming up my scopes.
By the way, Lawrence, even DSOs should be "warmed up" for a few minutes and allowed to stabilize before taking quantitative measurements. Believe it or not, we have actually encountered.... persons.... who will turn the scope on, and as soon as it passes its internal self-test they make a measurement and then immediately turn the scope off, to .... save power or something. Then to make the next measurement, they turn the scope back on...... '
But the point of this post is to request that Lawrence select ONE "good" performing JT / FLEET board for his own testing and reporting purposes here, so that we can always refer to that board's performance traces in our discussions. This jumping around from board to board, with their individual differences, is not helping to clarify matters in the question of OU performance very much.
But it might also be helpful to have the WORST performing of all the boards to use as a control or comparison, as well.
TK,
If you look at the B2 trace for Board 80, the LED is on during the narrow (c.a. 70us) positive going peaks during which time the LED is turned on. As the LED turns off (because the voltage across it is dropping below its turn on V), the current indicated by B2 drops to zero. This causes the rate at which the voltage is falling on B1 to slow down, hence the somewhat exponential rolloff. As soon as Q1 turns on again, the voltage at B1 rapidly falls to zero (actuallyit falls to Q1's Vce).
Looking at the waveforms for Pin and Pout for Board 80, it looks like the circuit is 75 to 85% efficient or there abouts.
PW
@PW:
You are confusing me with your "B"s, I don't have the diagram constantly in front of me, so I like to refer to the four possible traces as "input battery voltage", "input current", "output voltage" and "output current". The A1A2A3A4B1B2B3B4 assignments can be read from the schematic when they are needed, as long as we all agree to use the same schematic and the same probe orientation as given.
I've made a short video showing the response of an NPN phototransistor (NTE3037) coupled to the LED of my PCB 2n2222a JT. I verified the output of the phototransistor by also using a photovoltaic cell to show that the PV gives the same kind of waveform as the PT when stimulated by the LED, just at lower amplitude.
I've compared the phototransistor response to both the "input battery voltage" and the "output voltage" taken at the normal points as indicated on the schematic. The deepest part of the valley or dip in the Input Battery Voltage trace coincides with the moment of LED turn-on, and the LED, with a depleted battery, isn't at constant brightness during its "on" time, as evidenced by the nonhorizontal tops of the positive going narrow peaks in the output voltage trace.
This isn't a quantitative measurement, of course.... that would take some calibration effort but is clearly possible. This is just designed to look at the timing of the events. I've been meaning to do this step for some time, to verify just where in the LED light curves, the peaks and valleys of the electrical signals occur.
The video is processing and uploading now and should be viewable in half an hour or so. It will be at:
http://youtu.be/E4k2bsyca4I (http://youtu.be/E4k2bsyca4I)
ETA:Golly... I've just finished writing the notes/description, and the thing has already had three views. Please, be sure to read the description again, there might be additions that you've missed, whoever you are out there in the audio radiance.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 09, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
I am in phoenix until apr 16, but I am following along.
@poynt99,
While we wait for your results, I shall go to Shenzhen and see if I can
borrow some
4-Ch Oscilloscopes. Hopefully, I can get their experts to calibrate and do the actual hook-ups for me. PhysicsProf has the 2-CH Atten Scopes. He will be able to double check my results in the latest
corrected way. I am sure that I can have
Mr. Zhou use his many
different models of Osilloscopes to display his results (Board 101-200).
My plan is to get the Hong Kong Universities, especially their Physics and Electrical Engineering departments involved
again. They have better scopes and most probably the high-end 4-Ch scopes. It will take them a few
minutes to hook up any one of these "guaranteed OU" boards and record the waveforms and perform the oscilloscope analysis as described. (I shall update and provide the latest procedure to avoid confusion).
My job is to sow seeds.
We now have the Boards and Procedures that appear to show OU. We should have more experts join the game. They will know their oscillocopes better. They will be able to produce better JTs including better toroids, more layers, more LEDs etc. Some will no doubt use the 2n3055 with the higher power so as to work above the
noise level.
In October 2013, my filed
patent with BSI Hong Kong will be published. In the patent, many
conceptual applications are described. However, I believe many researchers will think of same or similar applications before that date. The floodgate is open. With your expected results (and those from PhysicsProf) and others, I feel that much more resources will pour into this
lead-out energy research.
Thank you to you,
Tk and others for spending so much time and energy to make such progress. God Bless.
Well, I appreciate the acknowlegment, but what are you going to do "if" we find that your circuit isn't OU after all, nor is it even especially efficient? (I believe that PW's estimate is "ballpark" accurate.)
Meanwhile I realized that I haven't shown the test point locations on my PCB JT. Except for the use of a metal can 2n2222a, this circuit, even including the toroid windings and material, is, as far as I can tell, the exact same as your boards (without the capacitors). I'm using a battery that is even less powerful than a depleted AAA, though.
Anyhow, FWIW here are the locations of the test points, corresponding to the letter-number system used on Lawrence's most recently posted schematic.
Legend:
A2A3, B2B4 == common circuit reference point, all scope ground leads go here
A1 == input battery voltage
A4 == input current (inverted probe, so negative means "conventional" current flowing)
B1 == output voltage
B3 == output current
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 05:22:57 PM
@PW:
You are confusing me with your "B"s, I don't have the diagram constantly in front of me, so I like to refer to the four possible traces as "input battery voltage", "input current", "output voltage" and "output current". The A1A2A3A4B1B2B3B4 assignments can be read from the schematic when they are needed, as long as we all agree to use the same schematic and the same probe orientation as given.
I've made a short video showing the response of an NPN phototransistor (NTE3037) coupled to the LED of my PCB 2n2222a JT. I verified the output of the phototransistor by also using a photovoltaic cell to show that the PV gives the same kind of waveform as the PT when stimulated by the LED, just at lower amplitude.
I've compared the phototransistor response to both the "input battery voltage" and the "output voltage" taken at the normal points as indicated on the schematic. The deepest part of the valley or dip in the Input Battery Voltage trace coincides with the moment of LED turn-on, and the LED, with a depleted battery, isn't at constant brightness during its "on" time, as evidenced by the nonhorizontal tops of the positive going narrow peaks in the output voltage trace.
This isn't a quantitative measurement, of course.... that would take some calibration effort but is clearly possible. This is just designed to look at the timing of the events. I've been meaning to do this step for some time, to verify just where in the LED light curves, the peaks and valleys of the electrical signals occur.
The video is processing and uploading now and should be viewable in half an hour or so. It will be at:
http://youtu.be/E4k2bsyca4I (http://youtu.be/E4k2bsyca4I)
T,
Really, you can't manage A1=Vin, A2=Iin, B1=Vout, B2=Iout with the A3-4 and B3-4 being the scope grounds connected to the bottom of the input CSR?
OK, I'll quit usig them.
Your video shows that the LED is on when the voltage at Vout is hi, which can only happen when Q1 is off. that is as I stated previously.
Regarding the second part of the video showing the Vin ripples and Vout:
As Q1 turns off, and Vout subsequently goes hi, the current draw on the battery is switched off. Vin immediately begins to rise as the battery recovers from the load applied when Q1 was turned on. This battery (Vin) recovery is the rising portion of the "apparent" negative peak during your Vout "hi" time . The positive most portion of Vin is the maximum recovered battery voltage. When Q1 turns on again, Vout is pulled lo. At the same time, currejt is being drawn from Vin which slowly discharges the battery, hence the slow downward ramp on Vin until Q1 again turns off releasing the load on the battery and again allowing it to recover.
Again, if you look at the second part of your video, you will see that Vin begins to drop as soon as Q1 turns on (and Vout goes lo) and immediately begins to recover as Q1 turns off (and Vout goes hi). So, actually, the poitive going portion of the Vin ripple coincides with Q1 turning off, Vout going hi, and the LED turning on. The negative going portion of the Vin ripple, which is much slower and drawn out in time, coincides with Q1 being on, Vout being lo, and the LED being off.
Your waveforms don't look as sharp and "spikey" as Lawrence's. What do your Vin and Iin traces look like?
PW
For comparison with Lawrence's Board 80 Output slide, I have here taken corresponding traces from the PCB JT. Here I am powering it from a partly depleted AA battery that measures 1.304 volts unloaded, on the Simpson digital voltmeter. I don't usually use this much input power, but this is more comparable to Lawrence's input.
The top trace is the Voltage Output at B1, the bottom trace is the Current Output at B3. The top trace is set to 2 volts per division, the bottom trace at 100 mV per division. (The top trace is using the center horizontal graticule line as the baseline, not the line indicated by the number "1" to the right. The lower trace is using the baseline indicated by the "2".) I am showing only a single pulse to make the point that the waveshapes are the same, except that my "60 MHz" analog scope isn't displaying the spike amplitude.... but I assure you that it is there.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 06:53:50 PM
For comparison with Lawrence's Board 80 Output slide, I have here taken corresponding traces from the PCB JT. Here I am powering it from a partly depleted AA battery that measures 1.304 volts unloaded, on the Simpson digital voltmeter. I don't usually use this much input power, but this is more comparable to Lawrence's input.
The top trace is the Voltage Output at B1, the bottom trace is the Current Output at B3. The top trace is set to 2 volts per division, the bottom trace at 100 mV per division. (The top trace is using the center horizontal graticule line as the baseline, not the line indicated by the number "1" to the right. The lower trace is using the baseline indicated by the "2".) I am showing only a single pulse to make the point that the waveshapes are the same, except that my "60 MHz" analog scope isn't displaying the spike amplitude.... but I assure you that it is there.
T,
Your Iout trace drops off as a fairly linear ramp. Board 80's Iout drop looks more exponential.
I don't believe your scope BW is the issue here regarding the "less spikey". More likely your PCB has less interconnect inductance so the waveforms are more heavily damped.
You don't have the BW limit on do you? (Just kidding)
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 06:46:14 PM
T,
Really, you can't manage A1=Vin, A2=Iin, B1=Vout, B2=Iout with the A3-4 and B3-4 being the scope grounds connected to the bottom of the input CSR?
OK, I'll quit usig them.
Your video shows that the LED is on when the voltage at Vout is hi, which can only happen when Q1 is off. that is as I stated previously.
Regarding the second part of the video showing the Vin ripples and Vout:
As Q1 turns off, and Vout subsequently goes hi, the current draw on the battery is switched off. Vin immediately begins to rise as the battery recovers from the load applied when Q1 was turned on. This battery (Vin) recovery is the rising portion of the "apparent" negative peak during your Vout "hi" time . The positive most portion of Vin is the maximum recovered battery voltage. When Q1 turns on again, Vout is pulled lo. At the same time, currejt is being drawn from Vin which slowly discharges the battery, hence the slow downward ramp on Vin until Q1 again turns off releasing the load on the battery and again allowing it to recover.
Again, if you look at the second part of your video, you will see that Vin begins to drop as soon as Q1 turns on (and Vout goes lo) and immediately begins to recover as Q1 turns off (and Vout goes hi). So, actually, the poitive going portion of the Vin ripple coincides with Q1 turning off, Vout going hi, and the LED turning on. The negative going portion of the Vin ripple, which is much slower and drawn out in time, coincides with Q1 being on, Vout being lo, and the LED being off.
Your waveforms don't look as sharp and "spikey" as Lawrence's. What do your Vin and Iin traces look like?
PW
One thing you must realize is that those traces were done with the tiny hearing aid battery that is mostly depleted. Here are some traces from this board for comparison to Lawrence's traces, that I just made with an alkaline AA battery that reads 1.304 volts unloaded... that is, it too is fairly well depleted.
I don't usually use this much input power, but this is more comparable to Lawrence's input.
In the first shot, Output, the top trace is the Voltage Output at B1, the bottom trace is the Current Output at B3. The top trace is set to 2 volts per division, the bottom trace at 100 mV per division. (The top trace is using the center horizontal graticule line as the baseline, not the line indicated by the number "1" to the right. The lower trace is using the baseline indicated by the "2".) I am showing only a single pulse to make the point that the waveshapes are the same, except that my "60 MHz" analog scope isn't displaying the spike amplitude.... but I assure you that it is there. Timebase is at 10 microsec/div and the delay function is used to bring a pulse onto the screen window.
The second shot is the Input, the top trace is the Input Battery Voltage at A1 and the lower trace is the Input Current at A4. The top trace is at 500 mV per division and is using the center horizontal graticule marker as its baseline, not the number to the right. The lower trace is at 100 mV per division, is using the numbered graticule line "2" as its baseline, and clearly and repeatably shows values both above and below the baseline. No "invert" is used and the probe is positioned just like Lawrence's is wrt current direction. Timebase is at 50 microsec/div.
So you can presumably see clearly that, if Lawrence's board is OU.... then mine must be too, since it gives the same instrumental readings when powered and probed in the same way that his is..... excepting the appearance of the high-frequency spikes.
And your detailed explanation seems to concur with what I said: the LED turns on at the bottom of the valleys, at the point where the slope reverses, and the power represented by the decreasing voltage slope to that point is the power that is pulsed into the LED.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 07:16:08 PM
One thing you must realize is that those traces were done with the tiny hearing aid battery that is mostly depleted. Here are some traces from this board for comparison to Lawrence's traces, that I just made with an alkaline AA battery that reads 1.304 volts unloaded... that is, it too is fairly well depleted.
I don't usually use this much input power, but this is more comparable to Lawrence's input.
In the first shot, Output, the top trace is the Voltage Output at B1, the bottom trace is the Current Output at B3. The top trace is set to 2 volts per division, the bottom trace at 100 mV per division. (The top trace is using the center horizontal graticule line as the baseline, not the line indicated by the number "1" to the right. The lower trace is using the baseline indicated by the "2".) I am showing only a single pulse to make the point that the waveshapes are the same, except that my "60 MHz" analog scope isn't displaying the spike amplitude.... but I assure you that it is there. Timebase is at 10 microsec/div and the delay function is used to bring a pulse onto the screen window.
The second shot is the Input, the top trace is the Input Battery Voltage at A1 and the lower trace is the Input Current at A4. The top trace is at 500 mV per division and is using the center horizontal graticule marker as its baseline, not the number to the right. The lower trace is at 100 mV per division, is using the numbered graticule line "2" as its baseline, and clearly and repeatably shows values both above and below the baseline. No "invert" is used and the probe is positioned just like Lawrence's is wrt current direction. Timebase is at 50 microsec/div.
So you can presumably see clearly that, if Lawrence's board is OU.... then mine must be too, since it gives the same instrumental readings when powered and probed in the same way that his is..... excepting the appearance of the high-frequency spikes.
And your detailed explanation seems to concur with what I said: the LED turns on at the bottom of the valleys, at the point where the slope reverses, and the power represented by the decreasing voltage slope to that point is the power that is pulsed into the LED.
TK,
I still think Board 80's waveforms look a bit different than yours. Not just that the spikes are missing, but the general slopes on the tops of bothe the V and I waveforms appear to have a different rate.
As with regards to your last sentence above, I agree that the LED turns on at the bottom of the input voltage valleys, at the point where the slope reverses, BUT, I would state: the power represented by the decreasing voltage up to that point is the power being drawn from the battery and stored in the toroid (and as well disipated in Q1, the input CSR and the battery's Rint).
The LED turns on when no current is being pulled from the battery (Q1 is off). As well, if there is any battery recharging from the collapse of the toroid, it is occurring during the rising portion of the Vin waveform from just past the most negative peak when the LED is on. During that period (whilst the waveform is rising) the LED is on and current must flow thru the LED, output CSR, Input CSR, input battery, and the toroid to complete he circuit. The collasing toroid acts as an additional battery in series with, and with a voltage higher than, the input battery. The polarity is such that the current thru the LED and toroid tends to raise the terminal voltage of the input battery slightly during the LED on time. So, if anything, the battery is actually recovering a bit of its charge when the LED is on.
The internal R of the input battery will affect the amount of ripple seen on Vin, and the amount of battery depletion determines the battery internal R.
What happens to your circuit with a fresh alkaline?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 07:12:35 PM
T,
Your Iout trace drops off as a fairly linear ramp. Board 80's Iout drop looks more exponential.
I don't believe your scope BW is the issue here regarding the "less spikey". More likely your PCB has less interconnect inductance so the waveforms are more heavily damped.
You don't have the BW limit on do you? (Just kidding)
PW
You are probably right about the spikes, I withdraw my assurances. I just checked with a higher-bandwidth scope and I can't resolve the spike.
No, no bw limit on.
The I drop difference is probably because of the source battery, I should think. But I'm not so sure it is that different.
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 07:55:17 PM
TK,
I still think Board 80's waveforms look a bit different than yours. Not just that the spikes are missing, but the general slopes on the tops of bothe the V and I waveforms appear to have a different rate.
As with regards to your last sentence above, I agree that the LED turns on at the bottom of the input voltage valleys, at the point where the slope reverses, BUT, I would state: the power represented by the decreasing voltage up to that point is the power being drawn from the battery and stored in the toroid (and as well disipated in Q1, the input CSR and the battery's Rint).
The LED turns on when no current is being pulled from the battery (Q1 is off).
Actually the light curve shows that there is still some current drawn during the time the LED is on. The current doesn't return to (near) zero until the LED turns off. Please see the trace below, which is the phototransistor output and the input battery current.
Quote
As well, if there is any battery recharging from the collapse of the toroid, it is occurring during the rising portion of the Vin waveform from just past the most negative peak when the LED is on. During that period (whilst the waveform is rising) the LED is on and current must flow thru the LED, output CSR, Input CSR, input battery, and the toroid to complete he circuit. The collasing toroid acts as an additional battery in series with, and with a voltage higher than, the input battery. The polarity is such that the current thru the LED and toroid tends to raise the terminal voltage of the input battery slightly during the LED on time. So, if anything, the battery is actually recovering a bit of its charge when the LED is on.
The internal R of the input battery will affect the amount of ripple seen on Vin, and the amount of battery depletion determines the battery internal R.
What happens to your circuit with a fresh alkaline?
PW
I don't know, I'll have to try to find one.
In the traces below, the top trace is the output from the phototransistor looking at the LED's light. The bottom trace is the Input Current. Both traces are using the exact center graticule marker as the zero baseline.
The crossing of the zero baseline by the input current might be a DC offset error in the scope itself, especially since this signal is displayed at such a high amplification. In the shot below my input current does not cross the zero baseline, whereas using the weaker button cell and a different vertical attenuation, it did.
Using an absolutely fresh Duracell AA that measured 1.617 V unloaded, I got the PT light detector output and current input traces below, at the same vertical settings and same center baseline. I also tried a much weaker battery. (The horiz setting is different, the fresh battery allowed quite a bit higher frequency for a while.)
The residual current is greater for the fresher battery. As the battery voltage decreases, the current trace gets closer and closer to the zero current baseline. For my system, I need to use a pretty weak battery to get the input current to appear to cross the zero baseline.
Yes, I suppose the current in Lawrence's shots is decaying faster than in mine. And the significance of this is.... ? I think in his recent shots he's using some kind of rechargeable battery, isn't he?
Now I can't even remember what battery I used for this shot, but the two comparisons of Lawrence are the board 80 and another one from earlier in the thread.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 08:55:05 PM
Using an absolutely fresh Duracell AA that measured 1.617 V unloaded, I got the PT light detector output and current input traces below, at the same vertical settings and same center baseline. I also tried a much weaker battery. (The horiz setting is different, the fresh battery allowed quite a bit higher frequency for a while.)
The residual current is greater for the fresher battery. As the battery voltage decreases, the current trace gets closer and closer to the zero current baseline. For my system, I need to use a pretty weak battery to get the input current to appear to cross the zero baseline.
TK,
What are these traces again? Is the lower trace really the input current? If so, where is the zero ref? If it is at the masking tape with "2", then I am confused.
Could the lower trace actually be input V?
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 12:50:52 PM
@PW, .99:
In Lawrence's recent scopeshots of Board 80, the one that I have edited to show the _true_ baseline for the CH2 current measurement.... note that the scope is reporting + 40.00 mV RMS for that signal...... which barely ever actually goes positive, never even reaching 40 mV positive that I can see, and extending deeply negative during its spikes. RMS, of course, is mathematically always a positive value..... so how are we to interpret a _positive_ RMS value for a signal that is actually almost always, if not strictly always, negative? The RMS value gives the wrong direction for the current being measured in this channel, doesn't it?
Lawrence has explained that the RMS boxes are a "legacy" from his early work. I hope it's clear now that these values are not relevant and may even be confusing the issue, due to things like the positive RMS value for a clearly negative-average signal. They should not be displayed at all. If the scope has a simple "average" parameter available, that might provide some rough and useful information. An artificially positive RMS value does not.
Tk, dare I say you answered your own question. The scope is reporting a positive rms value because rms inherently is always a positive number.
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 09:35:01 PM
TK,
What are these traces again? Is the lower trace really the input current? If so, where is the zero ref? If it is at the masking tape with "2", then I am confused.
Could the lower trace actually be input V?
PW
Yes, I think you are confused, but not about what you are thinking you are confused about. You are confused about your confusion, probably.
"At the same vertical settings and the same baseline" in my post you quoted was meant to refer to the immediately previous shot in post 525, where I explain that for these two screens I am using the exact center horizontal graticule marker for both displayed traces. Sorry I wasn't too clear about that; taking shortcuts sometimes often seems to wind up taking longer in the long run. This is to bring them closer together so that it's easier to see the temporal relationships.
The lower trace is the input current, measured as usual at point A4 so it shows negative values, and it's displayed at 100 mV per division. ETA: and the baseline is at the center horizontal graticule line.
If anyone's interested in the NTE3037 phototransistor measurement, I've made another short video where I drive a white LED with the function generator, using a triangle and a sine wave, at around 3kHz, and I show the response of the phototransistor to the changes in brightness of the LED. It seems quite satisfactory at this low frequency.
The video is uploading and should be available in a few minutes at:
http://youtu.be/me3kPvrOLi0 (http://youtu.be/me3kPvrOLi0)
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 07:16:08 PM
One thing you must realize is that those traces were done with the tiny hearing aid battery that is mostly depleted. Here are some traces from this board for comparison to Lawrence's traces, that I just made with an alkaline AA battery that reads 1.304 volts unloaded... that is, it too is fairly well depleted.
I don't usually use this much input power, but this is more comparable to Lawrence's input.
In the first shot, Output, the top trace is the Voltage Output at B1, the bottom trace is the Current Output at B3. The top trace is set to 2 volts per division, the bottom trace at 100 mV per division. (The top trace is using the center horizontal graticule line as the baseline, not the line indicated by the number "1" to the right. The lower trace is using the baseline indicated by the "2".) I am showing only a single pulse to make the point that the waveshapes are the same, except that my "60 MHz" analog scope isn't displaying the spike amplitude.... but I assure you that it is there. Timebase is at 10 microsec/div and the delay function is used to bring a pulse onto the screen window.
The second shot is the Input, the top trace is the Input Battery Voltage at A1 and the lower trace is the Input Current at A4. The top trace is at 500 mV per division and is using the center horizontal graticule marker as its baseline, not the number to the right. The lower trace is at 100 mV per division, is using the numbered graticule line "2" as its baseline, and clearly and repeatably shows values both above and below the baseline. No "invert" is used and the probe is positioned just like Lawrence's is wrt current direction. Timebase is at 50 microsec/div.
So you can presumably see clearly that, if Lawrence's board is OU.... then mine must be too, since it gives the same instrumental readings when powered and probed in the same way that his is..... excepting the appearance of the high-frequency spikes.
And your detailed explanation seems to concur with what I said: the LED turns on at the bottom of the valleys, at the point where the slope reverses, and the power represented by the decreasing voltage slope to that point is the power that is pulsed into the LED.
@TK,
From my experience of looking at the many JTs scope shots, your JT is likely to be
OU. If you have a Digital Scope with saving CSV data capability, you can easily
confirm it with Excel. Your finding that a weaker battery shows more "crossing" of the zero line for Input Current is also
correct - same as my results.
I have scheduled to go to Shenzhou tomorrow to work with
Mr. Zhou and take more
photos - probably with pretty models too. That will be fun.....
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 09, 2013, 10:31:19 PM
Yes, I think you are confused, but not about what you are thinking you are confused about. You are confused about your confusion, probably.
"At the same vertical settings and the same baseline" in my post you quoted was meant to refer to the immediately previous shot in post 525, where I explain that for these two screens I am using the exact center horizontal graticule marker for both displayed traces. Sorry I wasn't too clear about that; taking shortcuts sometimes often seems to wind up taking longer in the long run. This is to bring them closer together so that it's easier to see the temporal relationships.
The lower trace is the input current, measured as usual at point A4 so it shows negative values, and it's displayed at 100 mV per division. ETA: and the baseline is at the center horizontal graticule line.
TK,
Me? Confused? Yeah sure, that would be a first...
Did you mean to say at "A2" point s opposed to "A4"? A2 is the input CSR/battery junction. A3 and A4 should be the ground ref at the opposing end of the input CSR to which probe ground leds are attached.
So, if the center of the graticule is the zero ref, it is strange that you never get to zero current (or even go slightly above the zero ref) like Lawrence does. Could your Q1 base be leakey? Just a thought, as that could be a sneak path for current. Otherwise I can't figure why you're showing current draw ALL the time. Am I correct to assume that connecting the probe tip used at A2 to the ref ground at A3-A4 puts the trace at the zero ref line?
PW
TK,
Forgive me, I see that I am indeed confusing the A1, etc points. Back to Vin, Iin, Vout, Iout for me!
Can I use the "must be gettin' old" card?
In you reply #522, The input current trace looks as it should, going to zero and possibly just above zero.
What is different now?
PW
TK,
When you get the time, see if you can duplicate the reply 522 scope shots.
Particularly with regard to the Iin trace.
Could the Iin channel not be correctly set at your zero ref line "2" in that post?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 10:54:00 PM
TK,
Me? Confused? Yeah sure, that would be a first...
Did you mean to say at "A2" point s opposed to "A4"? A2 is the input CSR/battery junction. A3 and A4 should be the ground ref at the opposing end of the input CSR to which probe ground leds are attached.
So, if the center of the graticule is the zero ref, it is strange that you never get to zero current (or even go slightly above the zero ref) like Lawrence does. Could your Q1 base be leakey? Just a thought, as that could be a sneak path for current. Otherwise I can't figure why you're showing current draw ALL the time. Am I correct to assume that connecting the probe tip used at A2 to the ref ground at A3-A4 puts the trace at the zero ref line?
PW
Now you are really confusing me. I am using the letters and numbers as shown in this schematic attached below. I have always used these numbers, and I thought that everyone else was doing so as well. Is there a more recent schematic showing the test point locations? The only difference is that there is no capacitor on my board, nor on the ones Lawrence is testing now, right?
There is No probe tip at A2. A2 is NOT the junction of the input battery and the input CVR. CSR, whatever. A3 and A4 are NOT connected together, there is the input CVR between them. There is a probe tip, the input current probe, at A4 and its reference ground lead is at the common circuit ground at A2A3B2B4. As shown in the schematic below, and as noted in the legend of my photo of the PCB board above.
A2, A3, B2 and B4 are all connected together as shown in the diagram as the common "ground" and as I have noted in the legend to my photo of the PCB above. A1 is the battery positive terminal. A4 is the battery side of the input CVR, and this gets the current probe TIP, and so winds up being inverted.
Yes, grounding the probe tip to its reference lead produces the same baseline as switching the channel coupling switch to "ground". Yes, with weak input battery I get the input current trace "apparently" crossing the zero line and with stronger batteries it does not do so.
As Lawrence has confirmed, the stronger the battery used, the greater the "residual" or leakage current and the further negative the input current trace goes. What I find remarkable is that the wave shape itself is the same, even though it can move up or down wrt the reference depending on the battery's state of charge.
In the photos that show the PT output, there is NO connection between the PT circuit and the JT circuit, except thru the instrument ground leads, and there is no way that power can get from the PT supply to the JT, or vice versa.
Can't handle the letters and numbers, eh...?
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 11:19:50 PM
TK,
Forgive me, I see that I am indeed confusing the A1, etc points. Back to Vin, Iin, Vout, Iout for me!
Can I use the "must be gettin' old" card?
In you reply #522, The input current trace looks as it should, going to zero and possibly just above zero.
What is different now?
PW
Ah, OK, I replied to your last post before I saw this one. So we are clear on the letter-number designations now? ;D
Lawrence says that he too has noticed that stronger input batteries lower the entire input current trace and that weaker input batteries are more likely to show the zero-crossing behaviour in the input current trace. The difference you ask about is that the 522 trace was made with a depleted button cell, either a LR44 or a 392, I've used both, and these cells cannot provide the current output that a AA can, even if the AA is relatively depleted. The later traces were made with a little stronger AA, and then the last ones by your request with a new AA, and it showed the most negative current trace (most residual or "leakage" current). Since Lawrence's systems behave the same way, this is more "evidence" that our circuits have similar performance when tested similarly.
EDIT: Sorry, I see now that my notes say I used a AA battery that was at 1.3 v unloaded for those traces, not a button cell. Apologies, things are moving fast and my lab is in chaos, as you can probably tell.
Quote from: picowatt on April 09, 2013, 11:47:54 PM
TK,
When you get the time, see if you can duplicate the reply 522 scope shots.
Particularly with regard to the Iin trace.
Could the Iin channel not be correctly set at your zero ref line "2" in that post?
PW
Ah, I see now that I used a AA battery that was at about 1.3 volts unloaded for those traces. Sorry, I thought I had used a button cell.
I'm sure I can duplicate it, I've got plenty of dead and half-dead AA cells lying about. But the scopes are cold for the night, I may get to it tomorrow or later in the morning.
Yes, I checked the baseline position several times both by the coupling switch set to Ground and also by manually shorting the probe tip to its ground clip. The zero-crossings are as real here as they are in Lawrence's boards.
Check back in the morning, I'll see about reproducing it again.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 09, 2013, 10:44:14 PM
@TK,
From my experience of looking at the many JTs scope shots, your JT is likely to be OU. If you have a Digital Scope with saving CSV data capability, you can easily confirm it with Excel. Your finding that a weaker battery shows more "crossing" of the zero line for Input Current is also correct - same as my results.
I have scheduled to go to Shenzhou tomorrow to work with Mr. Zhou and take more photos - probably with pretty models too. That will be fun.....
I am puzzled that wih only an
analog oscilloscope, how can one do the
spreadsheet analysis? Without the spreadsheet, how can one do the multipliction and averaging of
thousands of sample points?
TK, Lawrence, et.al,
Because I now realize I was using odd assignments for channel 1 (A1=CH1 probe, A3=CH1 gnd) and even assignments for channel 2 (A2= CH2 probe, A4=CH2 gnd), I am reposting the following with corrections. It proably made very little sense as it was!
The main point here was to assist in visualizing the correct polarity of the voltage measured at the input CSR when the battery is discharging. Past posts I read here pointed to a bit of confusion regarding this.
TK,
Referring to the schematic in your post 469 a few pages back, if you draw a short circuit between the A2-A3 point (scope grounds) and the A1 point (batt+), you will have maximum current flow thru the input side CSR. Assuming for the moment that the battery (and the short circuit) has an infinitely low internal resistance, the measured voltage at A1 (batt+) would be zero volts, and at A4 (batt- and CSR), the voltage would be -1.5V (assuming a 1.5 volt battery).
Current flow would threfore be 1.5 amps and the actual battery voltage would be (A1-A4), which is 0-(-1.5), or 1.5volts.
In the recent captures, the negative going ripple on A1 is due to Vdrop across both Rint and the CSR when current is being drawn from the battery. Any negative voltage observed at A4 represents current drawn from the battery.
Therefore, the negative going dips/ripples on the A1 voltage are due to Q1 turning on and loading the battery with the toroid, which produces current flow thru the CSR and causes A4 to be a negaive voltage (base current is also drawn to a lesser degree). During the Q1 on time, the voltage across the LED is effectively Vce(sat), so the LED is turned off because the voltage at B1 is below Vled(on) during this time. (this assumes the schematic as drawn in your post 469 without a second battery in series with the LED).
When Q1 turns off, the voltage at B1 rises above Vbatt as the energy stored in the toroid discharges in series with Vbatt. The voltage at B1 is clamped at the LED voltage as the LED turns on briefly (the B1 LED voltage must also be corrected by subtracting the output CSR Vdrop similar to the A1 Vbatt correction).
As the waveforms contain some fairly high frequency components/harmonics, all of the caveats regarding wiring inductance relating to accurate voltage/current measurements must also be considered.
That's my take on it...
Hopefully the above post will now make sense.
PW
TK,
I looked for, but could not find, the core specs and winding info for the toroid.
What did you use?
PW
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 10, 2013, 06:52:16 AM
I am puzzled that wih only an analog oscilloscope, how can one do the spreadsheet analysis? Without the spreadsheet, how can one do the multipliction and averaging of thousands of sample points?
Well, in the first place you don't really need thousands of sample points, if the sample points are selected intelligently instead of by rote, and in the second place..... how do you think people did these things before DSOs and easy-to-use spreadsheets were developed? How, for example, was the first digital oscilloscope designed and tested?
One way that has been used in the past with great accuracy is to make an image of the scope trace on paper, then you cut out the waveforms carefully with scissors and you weigh the pieces of paper on an analytical balance.
Another way is to use, instead of an oscilloscope, an integrating power meter like a Clarke-Hess 2330.
Using a completely manual method on my scope displays of some traces from a different, but quite comparable, electrical OU claim, I was able to come to within a few percent of the "theoretical" values obtained from displaying the same traces on a 4CH DSO that did the necessary computations _of many thousands_ of sample points in real-time. Of course the manual process is painstaking and takes a good amount of time, like about 2 hours of sustained concentration to process a single screenshot.
The image below will give you some idea of one stage of the process as I implemented it. Please don't laugh, this really does work "close enough for government purposes" , and the issue of spikes and sampling errors is addressed by doing the process at the correct time scale resolution.
There are other ways, too, working from screen imagery of scopetraces. For example many graphics programs allow you to select or define an area, and then they will return the pixel count of that area, a very effective way of performing a graphical "integration".
Quote from: picowatt on April 10, 2013, 04:21:39 PM
TK,
I looked for, but could not find, the core specs and winding info for the toroid.
What did you use?
PW
It's a green-painted toroid from a defunct PC PSU. It has a 10 turn primary of 1.08 mm enameled wire that was already on it, and about 55 turns of 0.70 mm enameled wire secondary that I wound onto it. The bare toroid is 20 mm in diameter.
And I also should point out that the PCB JT has a metal-can 2n2222 transistor in it, not a TO-92 2n2222a or even a metal can 2n2222a. However I am happy (more or less) to pull the one and put the other in, I have all three types in stock. But there are other transistors that will work even "better" if we want to get down to comparing equipment... so to speak. 2n2369a works well, MPSA18 is great.
OK, ok, so I put a genuine TO-18 Motorola 2n2222a in there, along with trying a few other flavors. (The old one was a Motorola 2n2222). The plastic MPS2222a really surprised me. It didn't give a big brilliant light, but at less than 2ma PEAK current draw from the battery it will run for a long long time. The 2n2222a seems the best of the 2222 variants that I've tried but it's hard to see any difference with the 2n2222 by the same manufacturer at these frequencies.
I found a data sheet that shows the differences in ratings between the 2n2222 and the "a" variant.
TK,
Before you make too many changes, consider trying to duplicate the waveforms of your reply #522.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 10, 2013, 10:39:07 PM
TK,
Before you make too many changes, consider trying to duplicate the waveforms of your reply #522.
PW
Yes, I have tried, both with the original transistor and the new one, using the same battery too, and I can't seem to do it. The traces always stay below the zero line. I am starting to wonder if I inadvertently set that channel to AC-coupled for that trace. It is barely possible that I flipped the channel coupling switch the wrong way after checking the baseline at "ground" coupling. I am having a hard time believing I would do that, though, since I did check the trace several times.
Awww... does that mean my little PCB JT isn't OU after all? I'm crushed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 11, 2013, 11:09:21 AM
Yes, I have tried, both with the original transistor and the new one, using the same battery too, and I can't seem to do it. The traces always stay below the zero line. I am starting to wonder if I inadvertently set that channel to AC-coupled for that trace. It is barely possible that I flipped the channel coupling switch the wrong way after checking the baseline at "ground" coupling. I am having a hard time believing I would do that, though, since I did check the trace several times.
Awww... does that mean my little PCB JT isn't OU after all? I'm crushed.
TK,
That would be my guess. Its one of the hazards of doing late night 'scoposcopy...
PW
Well, the first place I generally try to look, to explain any anomalous results, is for my own errors. Thanks for suggesting that I try to reproduce that trace. I'm still not convinced that I actually did that silly mistake, though, so I am going to keep on trying. My own preferred suspect is a DC balance/offset error in the scope's internal calibration. Still, if that were the explanation I should have been able to reproduce the trace.
It's a good thing that Lawrence's scope shows the channel coupling right on the screen; sometimes he has used AC coupling deliberately, but at least he won't be using it accidentally without any way to tell, like on my scope.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 11, 2013, 12:20:09 PM
Well, the first place I generally try to look, to explain any anomalous results, is for my own errors. Thanks for suggesting that I try to reproduce that trace. I'm still not convinced that I actually did that silly mistake, though, so I am going to keep on trying. My own preferred suspect is a DC balance/offset error in the scope's internal calibration. Still, if that were the explanation I should have been able to reproduce the trace.
It's a good thing that Lawrence's scope shows the channel coupling right on the screen; sometimes he has used AC coupling deliberately, but at least he won't be using it accidentally without any way to tell, like on my scope.
I value my Atten Scope more now. Just repeated the Input Waveform capture on Board 80. You can draw the zero axis yourself. It definitely shows current crossing the axis.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 11, 2013, 08:55:38 PM
I value my Atten Scope more now. Just repeated the Input Waveform capture on Board 80. You can draw the zero axis yourself. It definitely shows current crossing the axis.....
Lawrence,
Although your Board 80 input current trace does show some excursion above the zero ref line, overall, there is much more area under the zero ref line. Everything under the zero ref line is current being drawn from the battery. Looking at that board's input and output power captures demonstrates an efficiency of about 75 to 85%.
TK's reply 522 definitely looked like it was OU by a significant amount. The apparent equal area above and below the zero ref line on the input current trace made me wonder, however, if he had inadvertantly switched to AC coupling. Although the jury may still be out on that completely, it is the most likely explanation for that anamalous capture.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2013, 09:52:37 PM
Lawrence,
Although your Board 80 input current trace does show some excursion above the zero ref line, overall, there is much more area under the zero ref line. Everything under the zero ref line is current being drawn from the battery. Looking at that board's input and output power captures demonstrates an efficiency of about 75 to 85%.
TK's reply 522 definitely looked like it was OU by a significant amount. The apparent equal area above and below the zero ref line on the input current trace made me wonder, however, if he had inadvertantly switched to AC coupling. Although the jury may still be out on that completely, it is the most likely explanation for that anamalous capture.
PW
I got 10 more boards from Mr. Zhou yesterday. Six of them have similar characteristics as Board 80. Two could not light up the LED. Two showed unusual behavior (Broad 107 and 113.)
Instead of returning them to Mr. ZHou as "reject", I shall keep them and work on them more. We may be able to learn much more from such "unusual boards" as TK recommended.
Here, I shall show the Input Waveforms of the "usual boards".
I did the DSO analysis on Board 80 again with the latest "correct" setting.
The negative Input Power is now taken to be Current drawn from the battery. Thus the COP is now positive.
The COP is still 1.41. The Average Output Power is still greater than then Average Input Power.
More research is worthwhile.
Input and Output Waveforms for the unusual Board 107.
Input and Output for the unusual Board 113
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 11, 2013, 11:46:55 PM
I did the DSO analysis on Board 80 again with the latest "correct" setting.
The negative Input Power is now taken to be Current drawn from the battery. Thus the COP is now positive.
The COP is still 1.41. The Average Output Power is still greater than then Average Input Power.
More research is worthwhile.
Lawrence,
Do you have a completed spreadsheet of slide 12 (board 80 input)?
PW
Lawrence,
In your recent post #549 of board 80's input power, the waveshapes and frequencies are different from that which you posted in your reply 503.
Slide 12 of post 503, which is supposed to be the input power capture for board 80, is at 3KHz, the same as the output power slide . Both of the recent posts of board 80's input capture have different frequencies and wveshapes. The only input power that can compared to a board's output power is one that was performed as close to simultaneously as possible.
Also, when comparing the input and output data, you should attempt to sync up the data as best you can. As TK has suggested, try looking at both the inpuc current with CH1 and the output current with CH2 on the same scope. You will then be able to recognize the true beginning of a cycle when you use two scopes. You can then collect a bit more data length than you need and edit your sample list from each scope so that you are sure they both contain the same number of cycles (i.e., have the same beginning and end point relative to an integral number of samples).
Alternately, you might try using a fifth probe connected to the output voltage point (top of LED) and connect that probe to the external trigger of the first scope. The output voltage waveform has a fairly fast risetime so by triggering both scopes from that point, you will be more assured of having the same number of full cycles in your sample data.
To sync up even closer, you could use 6 probes total, with the tips of probes 5 and 6 cboth onnected to the output voltage point and each used to drive the externa trigger inputs of the two scopes. Using 10X probes shouldn't overly load that point and by setting the triggers on both scopes to external, rising edge, and the same voltage, you will be assured of at least some degree of reasonable sync triggering. All input/output capture images posted will then be time aligned between the two scopes to a fair degree.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 03:37:04 AM
Lawrence,
Do you have a completed spreadsheet of slide 12 (board 80 input)?
PW
See Reply 552. That completed spreadsheet is for Board 80. It has the Average Input and Output Power, the COP and the graphs. Please study and comment on it carefully. It will be presented to the Hong Kong Government.
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
This Board 107 will be carefully studied and preserved.
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 03:52:35 AM
Lawrence,
In your recent post #549 of board 80's input power, the waveshapes and frequencies are different from that which you posted in your reply 503.
Slide 12 of post 503, which is supposed to be the input power capture for board 80, is at 3KHz, the same as the output power slide . Both of the recent posts of board 80's input capture have different frequencies and wveshapes. The only input power that can compared to a board's output power is one that was performed as close to simultaneously as possible.
Also, when comparing the input and output data, you should attempt to sync up the data as best you can. As TK has suggested, try looking at both the inpuc current with CH1 and the output current with CH2 on the same scope. You will then be able to recognize the true beginning of a cycle when you use two scopes. You can then collect a bit more data length than you need and edit your sample list from each scope so that you are sure they both contain the same number of cycles (i.e., have the same beginning and end point relative to an integral number of samples).
Alternately, you might try using a fifth probe connected to the output voltage point (top of LED) and connect that probe to the external trigger of the first scope. The output voltage waveform has a fairly fast risetime so by triggering both scopes from that point, you will be more assured of having the same number of full cycles in your sample data.
To sync up even closer, you could use 6 probes total, with the tips of probes 5 and 6 cboth onnected to the output voltage point and each used to drive the externa trigger inputs of the two scopes. Using 10X probes shouldn't overly load that point and by setting the triggers on both scopes to external, rising edge, and the same voltage, you will be assured of at least some degree of reasonable sync triggering. All input/output capture images posted will then be time aligned between the two scopes to a fair degree.
PW
@PW
Poynt99 has a 4-CH DSO. All the top Universities in Hong Kong (and the World) are expected to have top of the line 4-Ch DSOs. I sow seeds only.
Board 113 is unusual in that the COP = 0.1.
Possible soldering problem as some solders were seen that appeared to do nothing? Might have short circuited something?
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 03:54:03 AM
See Reply 552. That completed spreadsheet is for Board 80. It has the Average Input and Output Power, the COP and the graphs. Please study and comment on it carefully. It will be presented to the Hong Kong Government.
Lawrence,
On my computer, the first Board 80 data you presented is shown in reply #503 as slide 12.jpg and slide 13.jpg.
I looked at the .xls data linked in that post. There is no output data .xls spreadsheet, and the input data spreadsheet appears to only be a list of the sampled data with no math performed.
So I have yet to find a spreadsheet for board 80 that shows the corrected instantaneous input voltages multiplied by the instantaneous current with the products then averaged for a calculated average input power..
You recently posted a spreadsheet for slide 13 which is the output data for board 80 and it would be nice to see a similar spreadsheet for side 12.
Could you repost a spreadsheet showing the calculated average input power for board 80 using the data from the "slide 12.jpg"?
Thanks,
PW
@TK,
Worried about not reproducing your graph of Input Current crossing the zero axis?
If you have a DC Power Supply, you can easily reproduce that situation. If you rely on partially depleted batteries, you need much luck.
See the results of different Input Voltages on the Input Current. I changed the CH2 Vrms display to CH2 Vavg so that the negative sign is much easier to spot. You can tune until the Vavg = 0. That will give equal crossing of the zero axis.
*** Board 80 was used.
The Almighty encourages us to learn more with more hard work. I do not think you made a mistake. You just did not find the right depleted battery...
@All,
It is now clear from the pictures on reply 562 that the Average Input Current can be tuned to 0. Since the Input Voltage is always positive, we can get Average Input Power close to zero. The Output Voltage and Output Current are always positive as seen in the many Output waveform graphs.
This means that we can tune the COP to almost any value. (from large positive to large negative). This fully explains the DSO analysis results. It also explains why a rechargeable battery used as Source Input can show increasing voltage (being recharged) and decreasing voltage (being drained).
Everything makes sense. The 200 Boards from Mr. Zhou are guaranteed to be OU if we tune them with the DC Power Supply!
Board 80 can definitely be demonstrated as OU in front of the Hong Kong Government.
All Glory and Honor to the Almighty.
@PhysicsProf:
You have the Atten and two boards. You are in the best position to confirm the discussed findings. Thank you in advance for your efforts.
@PW:
You can see that magic can be perrformed on Board 80 (or any of the Zhou boards). You can name a COP (positive or negative) and any person with a DC Power Supply can tune it for you. A lot more will be done on Board 80 in the coming weeks. Thank you for asking TK to reproduce the "equal" crossing graph. That triggered my thoughts on the Board 80 experiment.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 03:55:55 AM
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
This Board 107 will be carefully studied and preserved.
Lawrence,
I suggest you slow down and focus on just one board and attempt to demonstrate input and output data calculations that support your claim of OU using that one board and data set.
You posted "Board 107 input.jpg" and "Board 107 output.jpg" in reply 553. Looking at thos captures, there is no evidence of OU.
Yet here in this post you present data that somehow is supposed to indicate that board 107 has a COP=1221.52.
In the spreadsheet that is somehow supposed to support your claim of COP=1221.52, the provided input power waveforms are nothing at all like those of board 107 shown in your reply 553.
You appear to be mixing and matching data and never seem to provide a spreadsheet that shows BOTH the input and output calculations for given set of waveforms.
I would suggest you pick one set of scope captures for one board, post the .jpg's of the input and output power screen captures and the spreadsheets of the calculated average power for those screen captures.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 11:05:28 AM
Lawrence,
I suggest you slow down and focus on just one board and attempt to demonstrate input and output data calculations that support your claim of OU using that one board and data set.
You posted "Board 107 input.jpg" and "Board 107 output.jpg" in reply 553. Looking at thos captures, there is no evidence of OU.
Yet here in this post you present data that somehow is supposed to indicate that board 107 has a COP=1221.52.
In the spreadsheet that is somehow supposed to support your claim of COP=1221.52, the provided input power waveforms are nothing at all like those of board 107 shown in your reply 553.
You appear to be mixing and matching data and never seem to provide a spreadsheet that shows BOTH the input and output calculations for given set of waveforms.
I would suggest you pick one set of scope captures for one board, post the .jpg's of the input and output power screen captures and the spreadsheets of the calculated average power for those screen captures.
PW
@PW:
Read reply 562 and 563. Any change in DC Power Supply value will change the waveforms!
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 11:22:43 AM
@PW:
Read reply 562 and 563. Any change in DC Power Supply value will change the waveforms!
Lawrence,
This reply would be fine had asked if changes in supply voltage affect the waveform. I did not ask for that.
However, I am asking for you to post a pair of input and output screen capture .jpg's taken from a board at the same time and then provide spreadsheets that calculate both the input and output power of the data from those screen captures.
So far I have been unable to find one instance where you ave done this.
A good place to start would be for you to provide spreadsheet calculations of the board 80 input and output captures which are slide 12 and slide 13.
PW
A systematic analysis on Board 80 will be done in the next few days or weeks.
The analysis will cover at least the following:
(1) Low Input Voltage so that CH2 Vavg is of relatively large positive value - giving rise to small negative COP
(2) Higher Input Voltage so that CH2 Vavg is of relatively small positive value - giving rise to large negative COP
(3) Higher Input Voltage so that Ch2 Vavg is zero - giving COP value equal to infinity!
(4) Higher Input Voltage so that CH2 Vavg is of relatively small negative value - giving rise to large positive COP
(5) Higher Input Voltage so that CH2 Vavg is of relatively large negative value - giving rise to small positive COP
Be patient. I think I can get a 4-CH DSO to do the above. That will resolve all problems related to not having simultaneous Input and Outpur measurements. Poynt99 can do that for us. (Or a Top University can do that for us.)
@PW
Do you have a 2 or 4-CH DSO? If so, I shall be happy to send you one of the Zhou Boards. You can then have fun yourself and do any analysis at your leisure. Remember that I sow seeds only.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 09, 2013, 12:18:35 AM
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.
Lawrence and all,
Can someone please set up the excel "input.xls" included in the above quoted post so that the input V is corrected and the VxI product is displayed in the a column with an average of all VxI products is generated? (this is supposed to be the input data set for slide 12 of post 503, which is Board 80)
At least then we would have a full set of input/output captures and an average Pin and Pout calculated from at least that capture data.
I have no idea how Lawrence can make ANY claim without at least doing this for all boards and captures.
Lawrence... If you don't think you can make a proper analysis until you have a University or such do so, I suggest you stop posting unsupported claims until then. That is just a suggestion. It tends to erode your credibility.
Thanks,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 12:58:42 PM
Lawrence and all,
Can someone please set up the excel "input.xls" included in the above quoted post so that the input V is corrected and the VxI product is displayed in the a column with an average of all VxI products is generated? (this is supposed to be the input data set for slide 12 of post 503, which is Board 80)
At least then we would have a full set of input/output captures and an average Pin and Pout calculated from at least that capture data.
I have no idea how Lawrence can make ANY claim without at least doing this for all boards and captures.
Lawrence... If you don't think you can make a proper analysis until you have a University or such do so, I suggest you stop posting unsupported claims until then. That is just a suggestion. It tends to erode your credibility.
Thanks,
PW
@PW,
You probably missed it with the hugh number of posts. See reply 552. It contains the full DSO analysis for Board 80. The first sheet is the Output. The second sheet is the Input. The various wavforms such as Voltage, Current and Power are also displayed. The saved BMP files are included for comparison. The COP was calculated to be
1.41 at the end of first sheet.
@All,
I also tried to get CH2 Vavg to
0V by adjusting the DC Power Supply. The readings were fluctating and I could not get a perfect steady reading. However, when CH1 Vrms was at 680mV, CH2 Vavg fluctuated between 4mV and -2mV.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 07:14:48 PM
@PW,
You probably missed it with the hugh number of posts. See reply 552. It contains the full DSO analysis for Board 80. The first sheet is the Output. The second sheet is the Input. The various wavforms such as Voltage, Current and Power are also displayed. The saved BMP files are included for comparison. The COP was calculated to be 1.41 at the end of first sheet.
@All,
I also tried to get CH2 Vavg to 0V by adjusting the DC Power Supply. The readings were fluctating and I could not get a perfect steady reading. However, when CH1 Vrms was at 680mV, CH2 Vavg fluctuated between 4mV and -2mV.
Lawrence,
I have looked at the DSO Analysis.xls attached to post 552 several times. It appears to be only the output data calculated for average output power, but no where do I see the input power data or calculation.
It should not be this difficult to communicate. A while back you posted Board 80's screen captures as slide 12 and slide 13 in your post 503. You said those captures indicated OU. I have asked several times for the input and output power calculations from the data captured during that same test and represented by slides 12 and 13. The calculations in post 552 appear to be from slide 13, but no where have I seen the slide 12 input power calculations.
Actually, to date, I have not been able to find any posts wherein you provide input AND output power calculations from input and output data collected at the SAME time during any given test you have presented. With some tests you post your output calculations, with others you post input calculations.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 11, 2013, 09:52:37 PM
Lawrence,
Although your Board 80 input current trace does show some excursion above the zero ref line, overall, there is much more area under the zero ref line. Everything under the zero ref line is current being drawn from the battery. Looking at that board's input and output power captures demonstrates an efficiency of about 75 to 85%.
TK's reply 522 definitely looked like it was OU by a significant amount. The apparent equal area above and below the zero ref line on the input current trace made me wonder, however, if he had inadvertantly switched to AC coupling. Although the jury may still be out on that completely, it is the most likely explanation for that anamalous capture.
PW
I still stand with my original prediction made March 31, 2013, 02:53:13 PM, partially quoted below:
" 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."
Those toroids are not the best ones to use and he is losing a lot of energy to those resistors as heat. No way is it COP of 1,221. We will see if I am close to being correct.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 12, 2013, 08:49:32 PM
I still stand with my original prediction made March 31, 2013, 02:53:13 PM, partially quoted below:
" 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."
Those toroids are not the best ones to use and he is losing a lot of energy to those resistors as heat. No way is it COP of 1,221. We will see if I am close to being correct.
Bill
Bill,
My "eyeball" guesstimate of efficiency for board 80 in post #503 slide 12 and 13 is tad bit better than your estimate, but not a COP of 1,221...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 08:58:31 PM
Bill,
My "eyeball" guesstimate of efficiency for board 80 in post #503 slide 12 and 13 is tad bit better than your estimate, but not a COP of 1,221...
PW
Stefan should start a contest to see who gets the closest, ha ha. We could all agree to go by .99's numbers when they come in. I guess we will just have to wait and see. I thought I was guessing on the high side but...oh well...we will see.
Bill
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 03:55:55 AM
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
This Board 107 will be carefully studied and preserved.
ltseung888,
Please post a photo of this board.
GL.
Quote from: picowatt on April 12, 2013, 08:31:40 PM
Lawrence,
I have looked at the DSO Analysis.xls attached to post 552 several times. It appears to be only the output data calculated for average output power, but no where do I see the input power data or calculation.
It should not be this difficult to communicate. A while back you posted Board 80's screen captures as slide 12 and slide 13 in your post 503. You said those captures indicated OU. I have asked several times for the input and output power calculations from the data captured during that same test and represented by slides 12 and 13. The calculations in post 552 appear to be from slide 13, but no where have I seen the slide 12 input power calculations.
Actually, to date, I have not been able to find any posts wherein you provide input AND output power calculations from input and output data collected at the SAME time during any given test you have presented. With some tests you post your output calculations, with others you post input calculations.
PW
@PW
I am not sure what you were looking at. I attach the top and bottom of both Input and Output for you to check. The same file is again attached.
Quote from: Groundloop on April 13, 2013, 12:00:02 AM
ltseung888,
Please post a photo of this board.
GL.
@GL
Here it is.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 13, 2013, 12:23:45 AM
@GL
Here it is.
ltseung888,
Thank you for posting the photo of the board number 107.
Ouote
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
End Quote
Based on common sense, do you really think your measurement of 12 Watt output is correct for this board?
You did made a output measurement over a 1 Ohm resistor in series with that small 0,1 Watt LED. Do you think
that a small LED like that will survive 12 Watt through it?
GL.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 13, 2013, 12:00:59 AM
@PW
I am not sure what you were looking at. I attach the top and bottom of both Input and Output for you to check. The same file is again attached.
Lawrence,
I am concerned that the data presented contain different record lengths for the input and output data. Both scopes should be set to sample identically when performing your tests.
As a calibration/verification test of your scope settings, consider connecting both scope one and two to measure only the input power of a board. That is, CH1 of both scope 1 and 2 connected to the input V (battery +) and CH2 of both scope 1 and 2 connected to the input current (batt- and CSR junction).
Perform captures as you usully do and then calculate the average power. See if both scopes give you the same average power result.
Alternately, try performing an input/output power measurement as you normally do using scope 1 for input power and then repeat the test with the scopes swapped so that scope 2 is now measuring input power. The calculated results from the two tests should be similar (providing you can swap the scopes and perform the second test before the circuit's operating parameters change too much).
PW
Quote from: Groundloop on April 13, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
ltseung888,
Thank you for posting the photo of the board number 107.
Ouote
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
End Quote
Based on common sense, do you really think your measurement of 12 Watt output is correct for this board?
You did made a output measurement over a 1 Ohm resistor in series with that small 0,1 Watt LED. Do you think
that a small LED like that will survive 12 Watt through it?
GL.
@GL,
That is why I put it aside. Much more research is needed. The present work is focused on the normal boards such as Board 80.
Quote from: picowatt on April 13, 2013, 02:05:27 AM
Lawrence,
I am concerned that the data presented contain different record lengths for the input and output data. Both scopes should be set to sample identically when performing your tests.
As a calibration/verification test of your scope settings, consider connecting both scope one and two to measure only the input power of a board. That is, CH1 of both scope 1 and 2 connected to the input V (battery +) and CH2 of both scope 1 and 2 connected to the input current (batt- and CSR junction).
Perform captures as you usully do and then calculate the average power. See if both scopes give you the same average power result.
Alternately, try performing an input/output power measurement as you normally do using scope 1 for input power and then repeat the test with the scopes swapped so that scope 2 is now measuring input power. The calculated results from the two tests should be similar (providing you can swap the scopes and perform the second test before the circuit's operating parameters change too much).
PW
@PW:
Thank you for your suggestions. There is much work on Board as suggested by a Hong Kong Government Consultant. His suggestions take higher priority.
I have done the systematic test on Board 80. The test started with the DC Power Supply set to as low as possible but enough to light the LED (dimly). The Input Current CH2 Vavg was almost all positive (all values were on the positive side of the zero axis). I then increased the Input DC Power Supply slowly. Sure enough, the CH2 Vavg started to cross the zero axis to become negative. At higher Input DC Power Supply(1.5V), most of the CH2 Vavg values became negative.
I did the full DSO analysis on five points first. The full analysis files are in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg30693#msg30693 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.msg30693#msg30693)
I also managed to get CH2 Vavg = 0. This occurred at the same displayed CH1 Vrms value of one of the above points (400mV). That file is "DSO analysis6.xls" at the same above thread.
The summary is displayed here. I managed to get COP values from -10.57 to 9.17 on the same Board 80 just by tuning with the DC Power Supply. If Poynt99 has a DC Power Supply in addition to his 4-CH DSO, he can easily reproduce the above. That will confirm that the Zhou Boards are Overunity with this particular oscilloscope analysis. When such results are widely published, more resources will come to Lead-out Energy Research.
All the well known "free energy" researchers will get DSOs and DC Power Supplies. They will be invited to special conferences. (TK will get his platinum card!) The floodgate is now open.
God Bless
Mainly .99, but everyone else too,
If you are still following along on this thread, please consider the following:
I believe I have found the measurement errors that cause Lawrence's JT's to measure OU. I am not fully certain I have the formulae completely worked out, but at the very least this should be food for thought. Possibly you can assisit in working them out a bit further. I believe the error to be in the way the output power is calculated.
Although it is a bit spread out, there has now been sufficient data presented regarding Board 80 that an analysis can be made.
To better follow along, I would print, or at least open, the three files below:
Schematic from reply 469: Two DSO config.jpg
Input screen capture from reply 503: Slide12.jpg
Output screen capture from reply503: Slide13.jpg
Also, the calculated input and output data is in reply 575, which shows an input power of 31mw and an output power of 44mw. I have scanned the .xls files and the data and calculations appear correct as presented, and are representative of the data derived from slide 12 and 13.
Please look at the schematic, note the locations of A1-A4 and B1-B4 test points, and follow along. When referring to the toroid secondary, it will be the winding connected to the Q1 collector.
Input voltage, Vbatt, is equal to (A1-A4) and input current is equal to (A4/1).
Instantaneous input power calculation is Vbatt times the input current. Using the test points as per the schematic, the instantaneous input power is Pin(inst)=(A1-A4)x(A4/1), and Pin(avg)=Pin(inst)1+Pin(inst)2+...Pin(inst)n/n, where the numbers 1 thru "n" denote contiguous numbers of data sample points.
These are the formulae used to calculate the input power for the Board 80 data as represented in slide 12 and its associated .xls file, and I believe these to be correct.
However, instantaneous output power is being calculated as simply Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1), and this I believe is wrong.
Referring to Slide 13, the only time there is actual output power is when the output voltage, B1, is greater than Vbatt. Any time B1 is less than Vbatt, current flow thru the LED and CSR string, and/or, current flow thru the toroid and Q1, represent current being drawn from the battery. These currents are fully accounted for in the input power calculations, but are mistakingly being added back in during the Pout calculations when using Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1) to calculate output power.
I believe the correct formula for calculating the output power is closer to the following:
When Q1 is off, Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1)-(Vbatt)x(B3/1)
When Q1 is on, Pout(inst)=(B1)x((B3/1)-(LEDleakpwr), where the expressions (B1)x(B3/1) and (LEDleakpwr) are interchangeable and, therefore, when Q1 is on, Pout(inst)=0
Possibly this can be better stated by: If B1>Vbatt, Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3)-(Vbatt)x(B3) and if B1< or = Vbatt, Pout(inst)=0
The formulae need a bit more work, but for now, they are at least food for thought.
Please read on and come back to this after completing the read.
Looking at Slide 13, Q1 turns on at the onset of the sharp falling edge of the B1 waveform shown by CH1. As Q1 turns on, the output voltage, B1, falls rapidly to the Vce of Q1, which, from the raw data, is 80mV. During the time when Q1 is on, 12ma of the input current is flowing parallel to the Q1 current thru the LED and output CSR string. During this time when Q1 is on, the 12ma of current flow thru the LED and output CSR string is current being drawn from the battey. The simple Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1) formula is incorrectly adding this current to the output power calculation as output power, when in reality it is input loading that is already accounted for by the input power calculations and represents no output current.
As well, looking again at slide 13, Q1 turns off at the sharp rising edge of the B1 waveform. The voltage at this point in time rises rapidly. As the output voltage rises, the LED turns on harder eventually clamping the output voltage at the LED forward voltage. As well, there is an overshoot in the output voltage above the LED's V(fwd) due to the turn on delay of the LED. This is the narrow spike that rises quickly and then falls quickly to the point where a more exponential fall begins.
Looking at the output current waveform B3, which is CH2 in slide 13, there is a rapid rise (spike) in output current, most likely due to the LED junction capacitance, and then, as the LED turns on, a quick drop to a point where a more exponential fall in current begins, closely matching the curve of the falling output voltage.
My premise is that at any time if Vout is at or below Vbatt, current is being drawn from the battery. If at any time Vout exceeds Vbatt, the toroid is "discharging" and is acting as an additional battery in series with Vbatt. LED forward current increases to beyond that which Vbatt can alone produce only when Vout exceeds Vbatt. Any time Vout is equal to or less than Vbatt, Vbatt is actually supplying all power.
As additional supporting arguments:
Looking at the schematic, consider Q1 as being turned on and in a DC state. The B1 (output voltage) will be equal to the Vce of Q1, and from the data we see that to be 80mV. Looking at the input raw data files, this 80mV causes a current to flow thru the LED and output CSR string equal to 12ma (this woud be the LED's forward leakage current at 80mv). There is also current flowing thru the toroid secondary and thru Q1 via its collector and emitter. As well, there is the base current flowing thru the toroid primary and Q1 base.
Now, if we wish to measure the current drawn from the battery under these DC conditions, we consult the input data and calculate Vbatt as (A1-A4)=Vbatt and the input current as (A4/1)=Iin. The input power is then simply (Vbatt)x(Iin)=Pin. These are the formulae used to make the instantaneous Pin calculations for the Board 80 data as depicted by slide 12 and appear to be correct. Averaging the product of of the instantaneous Pin calculations using that formula produces an accurate calculation of Pin(avg).
However, let's consider that 12ma being consumed in the LED and output CSR leg during this same DC condition when Q1 is on.
As we can see from the schematic and collected data, when Q1 is on (Vce=80mV), there will be current flow thru Q1 and the torroid, and, as well, there will be a smaller portion of the input current being dissipated thru the LED/output CSR string (equal to 12ma). None of this matters regarding the calcultion of input power, because the use of the data collected using A1 and A4 as above, will account for all power being drawn from the battery.
The output power calculations, however, are being calculated as simply (Vout)x(Iout)=Pout. Under the above DC conditions wherein Q1 is on, Vout=B1=80mV and Iout=B3/1=12ma. The output power would therefore be calculated as approximately 1mw. It should be readily apparent that under these DC conditions, there is no "output power", at least in the sense of something beyond what is being supplied by the battery. There is power being disspiated in the toroid and Q1 and as well, there is approximately 1mw flowing thru the LED and output CSR. All of this power, however, under these conditions, is power being drawn from the battery. Under these DC conditions, Pin=(Vbatt)x(A4/1) and the totality of that power is being dissipated in the windings of the toroid, Q1, and the LED/output CSR. Using the eroneous formula Pout=(B1)x(B3/1) would indicate that there is 1mw of power being generated at the output, when in reality Pout=0, and this 1mw is merely a portion of the load on the battery.
Now, referring again to the schematic, consider the alternate DC condition wherein Q1 is off. Under this static condition, the output voltage, B1, will, for the most part, be equal to the voltage at Vbatt+, which is point A1 on the schematic. Because Q1 is off, only Q1 leakage and a bit of base current will be flowing thru Q1 and the 1K resistor. As we know the LED allows 12ma of current to flow when B1 is 80mv, it is logical to assume that when B1 is equal to Vbatt, or approximately 1.5 volts, a bit more leakage current will flow thru the LED at this time. However, 1.5 volts remains below the LED forward voltage, so it is doubtful the LED leakage is a large amount of current. Under these DC conditions wherein Q1 remains off, if we measure Pout using the erroneous formula Pout=(B1)x(B3/1), it will appear that again we have some amount of output power, moreso than when the Vout was 80mV due to increased LED leakage, when again, in reality all power is being drawn from the battery under these conditions.
Under these same static conditions wherein Q1 is off, let's replace the toroid secondary with a virtual 4 volt battery whose ESR is roughly equivalent to the toroid's impedance. This virtual battery is connected so that its negative terminal is connected to A1 and its positive terminal connected to the Q1 collector and LED junction (effectively, B1). The output voltage at B1 will now measure as a positive 5.5volts. This voltage exceeds the LED turn on voltage causing the LED to conduct and current to flow thru the CSR, limited, for the most part, by the virtual battery's ESR (or, in reality, under AC conditions, the toroid's impedance) and current flow increases. If, during this static condition, Pout is again measured using the erroneous formula Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3), the measured output power will be (5.5)x(B3). Clearly, under this static condition, 1.5 volts of the output voltage is actualy being provided by the input battery, and 4 volts is provided by the virtual battery (which, in reality, is the collapsing toroid secondary). Therefore, output power, under these static conditions, is actually (B1)x(B3/1)-(Vbatt)x(B3/1) and simultaneously, (Vbatt)x(B3/1) is being drawn from the battery.
Again, I believe that the actual output power during dynamic conditions is closer to the following:
When Q1 is off, Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1)-(Vbatt)x(B3/1)
When Q1 is on, Pout(inst)=(B1)x((B3/1)-(LEDleakpwr), where the expressions (B1)x(B3/1) and (LEDleakpwr) are considered interchangeable and, therefore, when Q1 is on, Pout(inst)=0
Possibly .99 can verify this in simulation. Possibly these modified formulae also need a bit more work.
I know this has been a long post, but as I have followed Lawrence's work over what must be years now, I have been puzzled as to why he measures OU with his circuits. Although the above may not be fully complete, it is food for thought and I believe the road to an answer. Hopefully it is written well enough to allow the points to be grasped.
All comments welcome!
PW
Pw,
Your analysys is brilliant and detailed as usual, but is your effort made in vain?
I have not looked at Lawrences xls files, but I will take your word for how he is computing Pout. That method is incomplete. The correct method to obtain Pout (avg) is to average the instantaneous Pout readings exactly the same as is done for Pin. Now this of course assumes that Lawrence feels that Pout is in fact the power in the LED only.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 13, 2013, 08:12:30 PM
Pw,
Your analysys is brilliant and detailed as usual, but is your effort made in vain?
I have not looked at Lawrences xls files, but I will take your word for how he is computing Pout. That method is incomplete. The correct method to obtain Pout (avg) is to average the instantaneous Pout readings exactly the same as is done for Pin. Now this of course assumes that Lawrence feels that Pout is in fact the power in the LED only.
.99,
After looking at all the data, I believe the input power is being calculated correctly. However, regarding the output power, I believe it is more complex than just correcting Vout by subtracting the voltage at the output CSR, as was done for the input. Possibly Vbatt needs to be subtracted.
If you look at CH1 in slide 13, draw a line at 1.5volts. The only output power, is I believe, the area above that line. Whenever Vout is less than or equal to Vout, there is no Pout. Only when Vout is greater than Vbatt is there a net Pout.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 13, 2013, 08:12:30 PM
Pw,
Your analysys is brilliant and detailed as usual, but is your effort made in vain?
I have not looked at Lawrences xls files, but I will take your word for how he is computing Pout. That method is incomplete. The correct method to obtain Pout (avg) is to average the instantaneous Pout readings exactly the same as is done for Pin. Now this of course assumes that Lawrence feels that Pout is in fact the power in the LED only.
.99,
And no, I dont believe it was in vain. It is just a thought puzzle that has been gnawing away at me for some time, and I feel confident that what I have presented sheds a bit of light on the puzzle.
Glad to see you are still "hangin' around" even if it is from Pheonix...
PW
ADDED: Possibly you can help me work out the correct formula for Pout based on what I have presented. You're much better at that!
.99,
I have looked through the raw input/output data files for board 80 as presented in slide 12 and 13 and am confident that the raw data is representative of slide 12 and 13. There is a smaller error in that there are approximately 3 full input cycles of collected data and closer to 4.75 cycles of collected output data. A difference in the integral number of cycles of data collected will not affect the Pin(avg) versus Pout(avg) calculation, but that extra .75 output cycle will produce a slight error in favor of Pout(avg).
However, I believe this to be an error of 5% or less (the extra .75 of an output cycle did not contain a Pout power peak).
PW
.99,
Lawrence's Pout(avg) calculations and raw data are in the file "DSO Analysis1.xls" in his post #552.
The raw input data is the "Input.xls" file at the bottom of his post 503. That is just the raw input data with no math performed, but in his post 575, he did do the input calculations and a beginning an end portion of the xls file is provided there as well (along with the Pin(inst) math).
PW
@PW,
Please study reply 581. If we vary the Input Voltage, we can get different COP (-10 to +9). Vout (B1) is the voltage including LED and the 1 ohm resistor. Iout(B3) is the current (voltage across the 1 ohm resistor). We can change the load easily by connecting a component at B1 and B3. That is effectively connecting it in parallel with the LED. We can also take out the LED and the Load will be whatever is across B1 and B3. Board 71 has this feature.
In reply 581, we can get different COP just by tuning the Input DC Power Supply. We can also avoid all this discussion on possible Output Power Measurement Error by using a secondary winding on the Toroid. The Output can then be calculated by the Secondary Voltage x the Secondary Current. I used to do that. Recently, I found that I can get COP >1 without the use of the secondary Coil. I shall dig out some old winding-toroids and do the Output Power Measurements.
*** I have to admit that I could not follow your logic in the long Output Measurement posts. Normally, in instantaneous measurements, we do not need to worry about the Load and the Voltage/Current fluctuations. We just take the Instantaneous Voltage value and multiply it by the Instantaneous Current value to get the Instantaneous Power. I thought that is simple and solid Physics.....
Do you have a 2-CH or 4-CH DSO and a DC Power Supply? If so, I can send you one of these Zhou boards and you do not have to "guess"..... I believ TK now has an equivalent Zhou Board. He is seeing the crossing of the zero axis by Input Current (CH2 Vavg). If he had a DSO and a DC Power Supply, he could have performed the same experiments as reply 581...
Quote from: poynt99 on April 13, 2013, 08:12:30 PM
Pw,
Your analysys is brilliant and detailed as usual, but is your effort made in vain?
I have not looked at Lawrences xls files, but I will take your word for how he is computing Pout. That method is incomplete. The correct method to obtain Pout (avg) is to average the instantaneous Pout readings exactly the same as is done for Pin. Now this of course assumes that Lawrence feels that Pout is in fact the power in the LED only.
@poynt99
Please hook up your 4-CH scope to get the Input and Output waveforms as the
first experiment. That will immediately solve the problem of "non-simultaneous" capturing of Input and Output values. They should correspond to the "separate Input and Output" waveforms from the 2-CH Atten Scopes.
I blieve that you also have a DC Power Supply. Vary the DC Power supply from zero to just lighting the LEDs and slowly increase it to 1.5V. See if you can detect the
Iin (Input CH2 average value) changing from
positive to negative value. That will confirm that there are no experiment or equipment errors.
We can try to understand
PW's logic later. I read it six times now and still
could not grasp it.... With the experimental set up, we can always make Iin (Input Current Average) very low. That will force a high COP. COP can be greater than 1 no matter what his new formula says....
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 14, 2013, 02:27:11 AM
@PW,
Please study reply 581. If we vary the Input Voltage, we can get different COP (-10 to +9). Vout (B1) is the voltage including LED and the 1 ohm resistor. Iout(B3) is the current (voltage across the 1 ohm resistor). We can change the load easily by connecting a component at B1 and B3. That is effectively connecting it in parallel with the LED. We can also take out the LED and the Load will be whatever is across B1 and B3. Board 71 has this feature.
In reply 581, we can get different COP just by tuning the Input DC Power Supply. We can also avoid all this discussion on possible Output Power Measurement Error by using a secondary winding on the Toroid. The Output can then be calculated by the Secondary Voltage x the Secondary Current. I used to do that. Recently, I found that I can get COP >1 without the use of the secondary Coil. I shall dig out some old winding-toroids and do the Output Power Measurements.
*** I have to admit that I could not follow your logic in the long Output Measurement posts. Normally, in instantaneous measurements, we do not need to worry about the Load and the Voltage/Current fluctuations. We just take the Instantaneous Voltage value and multiply it by the Instantaneous Current value to get the Instantaneous Power. I thought that is simple and solid Physics.....
Do you have a 2-CH or 4-CH DSO and a DC Power Supply? If so, I can send you one of these Zhou boards and you do not have to "guess"..... I believ TK now has an equivalent Zhou Board. He is seeing the crossing of the zero axis by Input Current (CH2 Vavg). If he had a DSO and a DC Power Supply, he could have performed the same experiments as reply 581...
Lawrence,
The measurements you made for board 80 related to the slides 12 and 13 appear to be correct, the problem is in the math used to calculate Pout. If you priint out the schematic and the two sliides 12 and 13, it is a bit easier to follow along with my "long" post while referring to those printouts. However, I am confident that .99 was able to understand my points in that post and, after pondering it a bit, hopefuly he will arrive at a more elegant solution for a proper Pout equation than my present efforts.
Basically, the use of the formula Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1) causes an error in the Pout calculation because some of the power in that expression is actually input power. This error causes the Pout calculations to be higher than than they really are.
Whenever B1 is less than Vbatt, there is no output current flow beyond that which the battery is supplying, and all currents flowing at that time are from the battery (this is a bit simplified for the actual AC condition, but for now I am just trying to make a point for discussion).
I believe the input power calculations are correct, that is; Vbatt=(A1-A4) and Pin(inst)=(Vbatt)x(A4/1), which is the formula you are using in your excel spreadsheet for input power.
As I said, print out the schematic and the slides 12 and 13, and at least read the supporting arguments given in my long post wherein I discussed the circuit under several static DC conditions.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 03:13:08 AM
Lawrence,
The measurements you made for board 80 related to the slides 12 and 13 appear to be correct, the problem is in the math used to calculate Pout. If you priint out the schematic and the two sliides 12 and 13, it is a bit easier to follow along with my "long" post while referring to those printouts. However, I am confident that .99 was able to understand my points in that post and, after pondering it a bit, hopefuly he will arrive at a more elegant solution for a proper Pout equation than my present efforts.
Basically, the use of the formula Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1) causes an error in the Pout calculation because some of the power in that expression is actually input power. This error causes the Pout calculations to be higher than than they really are.
Whenever B1 is less than Vbatt, there is no output current flow beyond that which the battery is supplying, and all currents flowing at that time are from the battery (this is a bit simplified for the actual AC condition, but for now I am just trying to make a point for discussion).
I believe the input power calculations are correct, that is; Vbatt=(A1-A4) and Pin(inst)=(Vbatt)x(A4/1), which is the formula you are using in you excel spreadsheet for input power.
As I said, print out the schematic and the slides 12 and 13, and at least read the supporting arguments given in my long post wherein I discussed the circuit under several static DC conditions.
PW
PW:
Is there any data on the duty cycle of this JT circuit? I have a scope but I am not that good with it. What is the duty cycle and can that be determined by the scope shots? On 50% and off 50% or some other variation? This always made a huge difference in our JT circuits that we experimented with in the JT topic here.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on April 14, 2013, 03:21:23 AM
PW:
Is there any data on the duty cycle of this JT circuit? I have a scope but I am not that good with it. What is the duty cycle and can that be determined by the scope shots? On 50% and off 50% or some other variation? This always made a huge difference in our JT circuits that we experimented with in the JT topic here.
Bill
Bill,
The duty cycle for the JT operating as depicted by slide 12 and 13 for Board 80 is pretty close to 55/45. That is, during a complete cycle, Q1 is on 55% of the tme and Q1 is off 45% of the time. The total width of one complete cycle is roughly 333 microseconds (for a rep rate of 3Kc). Therefore, during a complete cycle, Q1 is on for about 183us and Q1 is off for about 150us.
I highly recommend that anyone wishing to discuss this print out the schematic and slide 12 and 13 for board 80 from the locations given in my long post. It will make things a bit easier...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 03:13:08 AM
Lawrence,
The measurements you made for board 80 related to the slides 12 and 13 appear to be correct, the problem is in the math used to calculate Pout. If you priint out the schematic and the two sliides 12 and 13, it is a bit easier to follow along with my "long" post while referring to those printouts. However, I am confident that .99 was able to understand my points in that post and, after pondering it a bit, hopefuly he will arrive at a more elegant solution for a proper Pout equation than my present efforts.
Basically, the use of the formula Pout(inst)=(B1)x(B3/1) causes an error in the Pout calculation because some of the power in that expression is actually input power. This error causes the Pout calculations to be higher than than they really are.
Whenever B1 is less than Vbatt, there is no output current flow beyond that which the battery is supplying, and all currents flowing at that time are from the battery (this is a bit simplified for the actual AC condition, but for now I am just trying to make a point for discussion).
I believe the input power calculations are correct, that is; Vbatt=(A1-A4) and Pin(inst)=(Vbatt)x(A4/1), which is the formula you are using in your excel spreadsheet for input power.
As I said, print out the schematic and the slides 12 and 13, and at least read the supporting arguments given in my long post wherein I discussed the circuit under several static DC conditions.
PW
@PW
You accepted that the Input is correct. That means the calculation of
Average Input Power has no problem. Assume that P_in_avg is X watts.
We can take any
Branch of any circuit. If there were no other energy source, the Average Power through that Branch must be
less than X watts. Assume that P_branch_avg = Y watts. Do you agree that Y must be less than X with conventional physics?
Instead of thinking about Average Output Power, please look at the
B1 to B4 connections carefully. Can it be treated as a
Branch in the circuit. If the Average Power through this Branch is greater than X, does that mean we detected something strange? Does that strange thing mean more energy is
coming in from somewhere?
I can easily produce and reproduce "branches" with Y greate than X. The existing data on Board 80 are examples.
Hope that it clears your confusion. We can always wait for poynt99 to do his experiments and interprete his results. PhysicsProf should be ready to post his results in the near future as well.
I shall not post any more until poynt99 or PhysicsProf post their results. More posting is likely to cause more confusion. You have confused me already.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 14, 2013, 05:10:10 AM
@PW
You accepted that the Input is correct. That means the calculation of Average Input Power has no problem. Assume that P_in_avg is X watts.
We can take any Branch of any circuit. If there were no other energy source, the Average Power through that Branch must be less than X watts. Assume that P_branch_avg = Y watts. Do you agree that Y must be less than X with conventional physics?
Instead of thinking about Average Output Power, please look at the B1 to B4 connections carefully. Can it be treated as a Branch in the circuit. If the Average Power through this Branch is greater than X, does that mean we detected something strange? Does that strange thing mean more energy is coming in from somewhere?
I can easily produce and reproduce "branches" with Y greate than X. The existing data on Board 80 are examples.
Hope that it clears your confusion. We can always wait for poynt99 to do his experiments and interprete his results. PhysicsProf should be ready to post his results in the near future as well.
I shall not post any more until poynt99 or PhysicsProf post their results. More posting is likely to cause more confusion. You have confused me already.....
Lawrence,
Please don't stop posting, your OU results have bee both fascinating and puzzling for some time. I would like to undersand why your measurements produce results that demonstrate OU. If the measurements are all correct and OU remains, then that would be a good thing. OU or not, however, it is just a search for answers.
This has been a puzzler for some time and possibly I lhave ooked at the data too long until I was cross eyed.
In hindsight, I had forgotten that in the end we subtract the measured inpt power from the measured output power.
That is, we use Pout(avg)-Pin(avg)=Pnet , where Pnet, is expected to be zero.
So, the expression Pout(avg) should, contain all power derived from the input so that when the Pnet calculation is performed and Pin(avg) is subtracted from Pout(avg), Pnet should equal zero. Any Pnet that is a poitive number is "OU".
When analyzing the circut's operation, I lost track of the minus sign that is used in the end to calculate Pnet so much of what I said regarding the Pout calculation is very likely wrong.
So, in the end, it apears that I am now arguing against myself!
I do, however, have a favor to ask of you. If you would, I would like to see the results of an edit performed on your output excel file for board 80 (DSO analysis.xls of post 552).
First, delete all data points beyond line 5775.
Second, delete all data points between line 14 and line 735.
Then rerun the Pout(avg) calculation using just the remaining data.
If you could do this and post the results, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
PW
ADDED: Lawrence, hold off on the data edits until I look at the data sets a bit more. I see in the post 575 screen shot of the input power set that there is more data there than depicted in slide 12 that I was looking at.
Lawrence,
If you are willing to perform the excel file edits, here they are.
On the output data set used for post 575 (which I believe is the same as DSO analysis.xls from post 552) perform the following edits:
First, delete all data points beyond line 7020.
Second, delete all data points between line 14 and line 736
Considering the 14 line offset in the data list, what you should have left are sample points 722 to 7006.
Perform your Pout(avg) calculations using only those sample points.
Please post the result if you will.
Thanks again,
PW
Pw,
Please let me know why in your opinion the Pout computation will not be correct if done as follows:
Pout (avg)=avg ( iout (t) x vout (t))
No consideration for Q on time etc be necessary, is it?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 14, 2013, 01:43:33 PM
Pw,
Please let me know why in your opinion the Pout computation will not be correct if done as follows:
Pout (avg)=avg ( iout (t) x vout (t))
No consideration for Q on time etc be necessary, is it?
.99,
I now believe it is correct.
I stared at it too long yesterday and in the midst of it all forgot that in the end, Pin(avg) is removed from Pout(avg) when the net power calculation is performed.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 14, 2013, 01:43:33 PM
Pw,
Please let me know why in your opinion the Pout computation will not be correct if done as follows:
Pout (avg)=avg ( iout (t) x vout (t))
No consideration for Q on time etc be necessary, is it?
.99,
As for Q on time, no, I have never considered that an issue because of the averaging. Bill had asked about the duty cycle and the post I think you are referring to is my response to his question.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on April 14, 2013, 01:43:33 PM
Pw,
Please let me know why in your opinion the Pout computation will not be correct if done as follows:
Pout (avg)=avg ( iout (t) x vout (t))
No consideration for Q on time etc be necessary, is it?
.99
I am beginning to wonder if Lawrence's scopes need to have their input channel offsets checked. Looking at the raw output data listing, when Q1 is on, Vout is 80mV. At that same time, there is 12ma being indicated as the output current. I have checked the current flow through several LED's of various "colors" and cannot find any that indicate anywhere near 1ma at that applied voltage. Possibly his LED is different than those I have tested, but if that channel is applying a 12ma offset to all Pout calculations, that would be significant.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 04:09:24 PM
.99,
As for Q on time, no, I have never considered that an issue because of the averaging. Bill had asked about the duty cycle and the post I think you are referring to is my response to his question.
PW
You are now ok then with the Pout computation? My concern was that averaging was not being applied. As far as the Pout values being all over the map, I am pretty sure it is a combination of scope offset and inductive reactance between the scope probe tip and reference.
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 04:05:04 PM
.99,
I now believe it is correct.
I stared at it too long yesterday and in the midst of it all forgot that in the end, Pin(avg) is removed from Pout(avg) when the net power calculation is performed.
PW
@All
Now that both the Input and Output calculations on the Spreadsheet are
correct. We should give poynt99 time to hook up his 4-CH DSO and show us the
resulting waveforms. He can start with low Input barely lighting the LED and slowly work up to 1.5V. Approximately 5 points will do. He can also post the
raw data and I shall be happy to do the spreadsheet analysis for him. His 4-CH scope will resolve the problem of measuring
simultaneous Input and Output. (Which cannot be resolved with two separate 2-CH DSOs.)
The price of the Atten is US$200. The price of a 4-CH Tektronics is over US$2,500. With the
new excitement in Hong Kong and ShenZhen, that sum may not post an absolute roadblock. In any case, the Universities will have a
first crack at it. Poynt99's posts will help to get that happen.
A piece of Good News to share.
It looks like UNI-T has a 4-CH DSO that retails for less than USD 1,000. Mr. Zhou is a dealer for UNI-T. He does not carry that product for the moment as there are few customers requesting it.
There is a strong possibility that we can cntact UNI-T manufacturer and get them excited about the Lead-out Energy and why that a 4-CH DSO may turn out to be a winner.
Someone can contact Tektronics and do similar presentations. Then we shall have experts from the manufacturers doing the tests. There will be no questions on their capability in doing the calibration, setup and analysis. The posted OU results will be confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt. The Floodgate for research and development for Lead-out Energy technology is now open. When will the water "gush" gout???
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 03:55:55 AM
The oscilloscope analysis for Board 107.
Average Output Power
12.05105778 watt
Average Input Power
0.009865636 watt
COP = 1221.52
This Board 107 will be carefully studied and preserved.
Well, I see tremendous progress has happened while I've been away.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 12, 2013, 10:58:40 AM
@All,
It is now clear from the pictures on reply 562 that the Average Input Current can be tuned to 0. Since the Input Voltage is always positive, we can get Average Input Power close to zero. The Output Voltage and Output Current are always positive as seen in the many Output waveform graphs.
This means that we can tune the COP to almost any value. (from large positive to large negative). This fully explains the DSO analysis results. It also explains why a rechargeable battery used as Source Input can show increasing voltage (being recharged) and decreasing voltage (being drained).
Everything makes sense. The 200 Boards from Mr. Zhou are guaranteed to be OU if we tune them with the DC Power Supply!
Board 80 can definitely be demonstrated as OU in front of the Hong Kong Government.
All Glory and Honor to the Almighty.
@PhysicsProf:
You have the Atten and two boards. You are in the best position to confirm the discussed findings. Thank you in advance for your efforts.
@PW:
You can see that magic can be perrformed on Board 80 (or any of the Zhou boards). You can name a COP (positive or negative) and any person with a DC Power Supply can tune it for you. A lot more will be done on Board 80 in the coming weeks. Thank you for asking TK to reproduce the "equal" crossing graph. That triggered my thoughts on the Board 80 experiment.
Remember when Sean McCarthy of Steorn pointed out that he could "tune" the Orbo at Waterways by moving his pickup coil closer to his rotor? From COP 3 to COP 10 and even more?
Welcome to reality: Yet Another OU claim that only works when hooked up to, and tuned with, a power supply. Or a battery of just the right voltage ( a bit more plausible ).
Does PhysicsProf have a lot of experience doing power measurements with oscilloscopes? I'm just wondering why he's in the
best position to do the appropriate testing.
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 04:05:04 PM
.99,
I now believe it is correct.
I stared at it too long yesterday and in the midst of it all forgot that in the end, Pin(avg) is removed from Pout(avg) when the net power calculation is performed.
PW
Whew.... I was afraid we'd lost you there for a moment. I couldn't quite agree with (my interpetation of) your reasoning about the output power not including everything that was actually measured at the output.
Quote from: picowatt on April 14, 2013, 05:15:42 PM
.99
I am beginning to wonder if Lawrence's scopes need to have their input channel offsets checked. Looking at the raw output data listing, when Q1 is on, Vout is 80mV. At that same time, there is 12ma being indicated as the output current. I have checked the current flow through several LED's of various "colors" and cannot find any that indicate anywhere near 1ma at that applied voltage. Possibly his LED is different than those I have tested, but if that channel is applying a 12ma offset to all Pout calculations, that would be significant.
PW
Yep, I think I mentioned that possibility as well, even before seeing the present data. 1 mA at 80 mV is huge, for a good LED.
I've asked before that some measurements be taken of the voltage drop across the CVRs in DC conditions using ordinary DMMs on the millivolt or microvolt scale and comparing their voltage drop readings with those obtained by the scopes.
I don't know how the Atten scopes function in re DC offset/bias or if their power-on startup checks will detect out-of-spec conditions here. Some scopes do.
@Lawrence:
Cheap tools are no bargain.
@Lawrence: Congratulations on the measurement of COP vs. Input Voltage. That is an important bit of information. Your graph does not present the data correctly, though.
In graphing data one generally puts the "independent variable" on the horizontal axis and the "dependent variables" on the vertical axes. The IV is what the researcher is controlling and the DVs are what the researcher is measuring. In this case the Voltage Input is the IV and the COP is the DV. You have plotted "trial number" on the horizontal axis and both Vin and COP on the vertical axis and so your graph is garbled.
You could re-do this graph. It would display only the single COP line. The horizontal axis would be the voltage levels, and the vertical axis the calculated COP. Then your graph would display the relationship between Vin and COP properly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 15, 2013, 11:09:08 PM
@Lawrence: Congratulations on the measurement of COP vs. Input Voltage. That is an important bit of information. Your graph does not present the data correctly, though.
In graphing data one generally puts the "independent variable" on the horizontal axis and the "dependent variables" on the vertical axes. The IV is what the researcher is controlling and the DVs are what the researcher is measuring. In this case the Voltage Input is the IV and the COP is the DV. You have plotted "trial number" on the horizontal axis and both Vin and COP on the vertical axis and so your graph is garbled.
You could re-do this graph. It would display only the single COP line. The horizontal axis would be the voltage levels, and the vertical axis the calculated COP. Then your graph would display the relationship between Vin and COP properly.
I just made the seven minute video to show that when the Input Voltage drops, the average Input Current as detected on the Atten Oscilloscope can change from -14mV to +1.6mV in about 7 minutes. This change means that the Average Input Power can be very low and also can change from negative to positive. The Average Output Power was always positive and increased with increasing Input Voltage.
The end result is that a large range of COP is possible with the same Board 80!
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSfd8UeKDAg&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSfd8UeKDAg&feature=youtu.be)
Lawrence.
You should try shorting your current scope probe to itself and see what the average voltage is that it reads. One would expect 0mV correct?
Let us know the result of this simple test.
All I see is the capacitor discharging, just like the pile of dead batteries that you are not mentioning, to confuse us further. I'm not convinced, even though I believe that it is possible, but not from your low efficiency circuits.
Stefan has also had more than enough time to let us all know just how long it took to discharge the new AA that he is using on his test circuits that you sent him.
I think that I know why...
Quote from: poynt99 on April 16, 2013, 10:59:02 AM
Lawrence.
You should try shorting your current scope probe to itself and see what the average voltage is that it reads. One would expect 0mV correct?
Let us know the result of this simple test.
@poynt99,
Correct. Shorting the probes produced 0mV. When will you show us your results?
Quote from: NickZ on April 16, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
All I see is the capacitor discharging, just like the pile of dead batteries that you are not mentioning, to confuse us further. I'm not convinced, even though I believe that it is possible, but not from your low efficiency circuits.
Stefan has also had more than enough time to let us all know just how long it took to discharge the new AA that he is using on his test circuits that you sent him.
I think that I know why...
@NickZ
The main point of the video is that the Average Input Current reading changed from
-14mV to +2mV with dropping voltage.
The Input Voltage, the Output Voltage and the Output Current are all positive all the time. The Average Output Power -computed from the average of (Vout x Iout) sample points is always
positive and the absolute value is well
above that of the Average Input Power.
The Average Input Power can have very
low values especially near Iin (CH2 Vavg) = 0.0mV. This will give rise to relatively large
COP (both negative and positive) values.
Please watch the video again and focus on the
Iin (CH2 Vavg) display during the seven minutes. This result can be produced even with a
single channel analog Oscilloscope. TK has his own board and his Scope. I am not too sure what Stefan has but the above youtube experiment can be repeated with ease. Just use a capacitor if the tester does not have a DC Power Supply. That will save the trouble of finding depleted AA batteries with different remaining voltage values.
The best results will be from poynt99 with his 4-CH DSO and his DC Power Supply.
You are blind, or what? No need to answer me, I know that you are more than just blind.
The capacitor is dead, no matter what the readings are showing. Can't you see this???
There is not a single Joule Thief that you have shown or talked about in the last several years that has anything going for it. Not one. They all are just simple oscillators using up all the available CURRENT provided by the battery. Open your eyes...
You are not convincing me with your two oscillator readings, and PILE of dead batteries, that you won't talk about. Right!
What in Gods name are you raving about!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-a2BBPqik&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-a2BBPqik&feature=youtu.be)
Another video to confirm that Input Current (Iin on Ch2) can change from positive to negative value by varying the Input Voltage.
This means that we can vary the COP from 9.6mV to -16mV on Board 80 by increasing the Input Voltage Vrms from 360mV to 1.12V. The sero Ch2 Vavg occurred when the Input CH1Vrms was at around 440mV.
The experiment can be repeated easily. Board 80 can be guaranteed to be OU!!!
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 17, 2013, 01:14:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-a2BBPqik&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw-a2BBPqik&feature=youtu.be)
Another video to confirm that Input Current (Iin on Ch2) can change from positive to negative value by varying the Input Voltage.
This means that we can vary the COP from 9.6mV to -16mV on Board 80 by increasing the Input Voltage Vrms from 360mV to 1.12V. The sero Ch2 Vavg occurred when the Input CH1Vrms was at around 440mV.
The experiment can be repeated easily. Board 80 can be guaranteed to be OU!!!
So now you know the "resonant" voltage needed for that particular circuit to produce a high reactive current. ?
Next ..... put a 1000 Uf capacitor (or more) in parallel with the DC supply, connected as closely as possible to the board, allow the capacitor to fully charge to the running voltage value, then disconnect the DC supply. Time how long it takes to discharge, or not!
Then, it's either TAaa DAAaaaaaaaa .... look at the "majick" we have here!, or, cheese, please, with my humble pie, thank you.
Good luck, whichever way it goes.
Cheers
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 15, 2013, 11:09:08 PM
@Lawrence: Congratulations on the measurement of COP vs. Input Voltage. That is an important bit of information. Your graph does not present the data correctly, though.
In graphing data one generally puts the "independent variable" on the horizontal axis and the "dependent variables" on the vertical axes. The IV is what the researcher is controlling and the DVs are what the researcher is measuring. In this case the Voltage Input is the IV and the COP is the DV. You have plotted "trial number" on the horizontal axis and both Vin and COP on the vertical axis and so your graph is garbled.
You could re-do this graph. It would display only the single COP line. The horizontal axis would be the voltage levels, and the vertical axis the calculated COP. Then your graph would display the relationship between Vin and COP properly.
Graph redone.
Quote from: hoptoad on April 17, 2013, 03:37:14 AM
So now you know the "resonant" voltage needed for that particular circuit to produce a high reactive current. ?
Next ..... put a 1000 Uf capacitor (or more) in parallel with the DC supply, connected as closely as possible to the board, allow the capacitor to fully charge to the running voltage value, then disconnect the DC supply. Time how long it takes to discharge, or not!
Then, it's either TAaa DAAaaaaaaaa .... look at the "majick" we have here!, or, cheese, please, with my humble pie, thank you.
Good luck, whichever way it goes.
Cheers
One step at a time. We just want to
demonstrate OU here. Do not expect one jump and you can reach the top of Mount Everest.
Try the Lasersaber
Joule Ringer circuit if you want. Use the oscilloscope analysis technique on that Circuit. You will have much better
luck or
chance of success than this simple JT circuit.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 17, 2013, 04:51:24 AM
One step at a time. We just want to demonstrate OU here. Do not expect one jump and you can reach the top of Mount Everest.
snip...
Then demonstrate it with something that provides corroborating data from a differing measurement set to your pretty scope shots. Corroborating data from alternative / adjunctive measurements is a great start to "demonstrating OU".
What better way to show OU than a simple capacitor test showing extended rundown periods or no rundown at all. Connect a capacitor,
do the test. It's that simple. You've already got everything there in your lab. It ain't rocket science. Surely you have a capacitor lying around somewhere?
Cheers
Quote from: hoptoad on April 17, 2013, 05:09:53 AM
Then demonstrate it with something that provides corroborating data from a differing measurement set to your pretty scope shots. Corroborating data from alternative / adjunctive measurements is a great start to "demonstrating OU".
What better way to show OU than a simple capacitor test showing extended rundown periods or no rundown at all. Connect a capacitor,
do the test. It's that simple. You've already got everything there in your lab. It ain't rocket science. Surely you have a capacitor lying around somewhere?
Cheers
I am afraid that the experiments are
not that simple. With similar components, the FLEET boards could light up the LED for different length of time. The average was
20 minutes. But there were a few occasions that a Board lighted the LED for over
four hours. The longest I experienced was
nine hours. I never really understood why. One possible explanation was "some kind of
electromagnetic resonance".
The latest oscilloscope experiments suggested another possible explanation. The Average Input Power could be
positive – meaning energy was
drained from the battery. This would be the
normal thinking. But experiments also show that the Average Input Power could be
negative – meaning energy was
fed back to the Input Source. That could
recharge a battery or a capacitor. This recharging happened at the same time as lighting up the LED. Energy had to come from somewhere. This was evidence for
Lead-out Energy.
With the simple Joule Thief Circuit fluctuating around the "CH2 Vavg=0" position, positive COP and negative COP was clearly observed.
This meant alternative charging and draining. This fluctuating condition was not that stable. The hope was that this fluctuation could last forever and we could have achieved the Forever lighted Lamp with this simple circuit. The reality was – the circuit now could not guarantee such occurrence. The Lasersaber
Joule Ringer circuit appeared to be much better but I have not tested it yet.
The next improvement I tried was to use a
rechargeable battery in parallel with the capacitor. Sure enough, we could detect that the rechargeable battery could
go up in Voltage considerably (from 1.26V to 1.40V). But it could also drop from 1.4V back to 1.26V or lower. One manual procedure was to watch whether the battery was in the recharging or the draining state. On recharging state, left it alone. On draining state, took it out. Let the battery
rest and recharge another battery. Obviously, such a process could only be possible in a research environment.
It appeared that many people at this forum
did not have a DSO to observe what was really happening with the JT circuit and the variations. They experimented using only multimeters. It was like
shooting birds in the
dark. They hoped to fire and pick up some birds for
dinner. Lead-out Energy Technology is not that simple. God Bless.....
Lawrence,
As I've discussed in the past, using two voltage meters (one across the battery and one across the battery CSR) will provide a very accurate Pin measurement. Simply set the two meters on DC volts (or millivolts) and multiply the average battery voltage by the average battery current (assuming a 1 Ohm CSR).
Don't try this for Pout though, as it will not provide a correct result.
The only proof that we are looking for is that you make a video of your BEST PROVEN OU BOARD, only. Charge a capacitor, and let it run down to nothing. That is all you need to do.
Oh, you already did that, and it drained, in a few minutes, not hours, and DIED.
WOW!
If you let the capacitor rest, the bounce-back effect will charge it back up, not your FLEET lead out, bring-in energy BS. If you further connect it back into the circuit, if will again drain to nothing. Period.
The led bulb's load drain on the circuit is higher than what what the bounce back effect will provide, and there will always be a negative discharging voltage and current drain. Regardless of what your scope is showing you. The proof is the dead capacitor, or battery, in EVERY SINGLE CASE.
You should build the Lasersaber low draw circuit, or his Cross-over circuit, and test that on the capacitor. That is a much more economical circuit to use. Not the low perm iron powder toroid, with several resistors circuit, that you are now waisting your time on.
The point being: That what you are doing is worthless, as there is no bright useable light coming out of your led(s). A blinking, dim led, is not what anyone is looking for a proof of OU.
I would suggest that you STOP raving about what you have, or you will further discredit this forum.
What you have done in trying to confirm OU is great. It's the idiotic raving, and religious BS that goes along with it that has most of us perplexed at your attitude.
All this while showing nothing, at all, that proofs anything close to, or resembling OU.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2013, 11:29:23 AM
Lawrence,
As I've discussed in the past, using two voltage meters (one across the battery and one across the battery CSR) will provide a very accurate Pin measurement. Simply set the two meters on DC volts (or millivolts) and multiply the average battery voltage by the average battery current (assuming a 1 Ohm CSR).
Don't try this for Pout though, as it will not provide a correct result.
@Poynt99,
Sorry that I have to disagree with you on this point. Please see the attached two diagrams showing the "voltmeter" readings and the Input CSR waveform. The product of the two voltmeter readings cannot possibly give a correct Pin value. We have to rely on the DSOs.
*** The "feedback or Back EMF" from the Circuit will modify the simple DC conditions at Input.
When will you show us your results from your 4-CH DSO?
Lawrence,
The CSR wave form is a varying DC, and it DOES have an average DC value, which is what we want the meter to tell us.
It is telling us that you are using an average of 16mA supplied to the circuit, and that the average input power is 10.56mW.
I'd say that is very much in the ball park.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 17, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
Lawrence,
The CSR wave form is a varying DC, and it DOES have an average DC value, which is what we want the meter to tell us.
It is telling us that you are using an average of 16mA supplied to the circuit, and that the average input power is 10.56mW.
I'd say that is very much in the ball park.
@poynt99:
I expanded the Input waveform diagram for you. It is clear that the Iin values crossed the zero axis. Thus it
cannot be treated as varying DC. It is not a perfect AC. It is the "pulsed wave" with both positive and negative values. The Vavg is the
-8.80mV as indicated on the Scope and NOT the
16mV on the meter.
We have to rely on the formula:
Instanta
neous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current and use EXCEl on the sample points to get the correct Pin.
Hi All,
I read throught this webpage and found this piece of research eye opening.Notice amp drop and increase in frequency.I would also want to know about the duty cycle too.
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/LEDTorchCircuits/LEDTorchCircuits-P1.html
Ged
Lawrence,
It would be wise to check the DC offset of your scopes.
A simple test for this would be to connect all probe tips directly to their ground clips and then set all input channels to 20mV per division sensitivity.
Set the scopes to trigger on "line" and see what your scopes' DC measurements are. All channels should measure zero volts DC.
Also, do you you always use the same scope to measure input and the same scope to measure output?
Have you ever swapped the scopes to confirm your measurements are consitent regardless of which scope measures input or output?
PW
Lawrence,
Having read back a bit, I see .99 previously asked about your scope offset.
Could you post the raw data of your scope offset tests?
The raw data for slide 13 shows your LED drawing 12ma when only 80mv is applied to it. One would expect the LED current draw to be much less than that with 80mv applied.
PW
[quote author=gedfire link=topic=12686.msg357585#msg357585 date=1366254280]
Hi All,
I read throught this webpage and found this piece of research eye opening.Notice amp drop and increase in frequency.I would also want to know about the duty cycle too.
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/LEDTorchCircuits/LEDTorchCircuits-P1.html (http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/LEDTorchCircuits/LEDTorchCircuits-P1.html)
Ged
@GED:
I read through your website. It showed much great research was done on the LED torch. Most researchers do similar things – improve the circuit; light up more LEDs; increase the life of the battery or do some recharging.
My approach is somewhat different. I assume that there are extra energy lead-out or brought-in from the Environment. Thus the focus of the research is:
(1) Measure Pin and Pout and compare.
(2) The way to get Instantaneous Power is to capture the Instantaneous Voltage and Instantaneous Current. Then multiply them together. This can only be done on a Digital Storage oscilloscope(DSO).
(3) Apparently, very few researchers approach the research from this angle. Much time and energy is being spent in this forum on – whether the DSO was calibrated correctly; whether the connections were done properly; etc.
(4) Most of those who posted questions do not have DSOs to do the experiments themselves. They all have good experience in building Joule Thief circuits.
(5) My research focused on proving and confirming that the Average Output Energy can indeed be higher than the Average Input Energy (COP > 1).
(6) The posted experimental evidence is that the Input Current can be in the positive or negative direction – giving rise to positive or negative Average Input Power.
(7) That implied drawing energy from the Battery or recharging the battery.
(8) The COP can be very large (either positive or negative) because the Input Current can cross the zero axis. This means current flowing in both directions. It is NOT the conventional AC. It is pulsed in nature.
(9) A theoretical model assuming a "hidden" pulsing source in the circuit could explain all the experimental observations. This "hidden" pulsing source is the Lead-out Energy.
The value of the research is NOT in understanding or improving the Joule Thief Circuit. It is in the confirmation that Energy can be Lead-out. This opens the floodgate for many other circuits – Lasersaber Joule Ringer, Steven Mark TPU etc.
Continue your brilliant research. Get a DSO and DC Power Supply. God Bless.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 18, 2013, 07:18:43 PM
(3) Apparently, very few researchers approach the research from this angle. Much time and energy is being spent in this forum on – whether the DSO was calibrated correctly; whether the connections were done properly; etc.
Lawrence, I would disagree.
In my opinion, not nearly enough time and effort is spent by folks here on proper measurement procedures.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 18, 2013, 07:28:18 PM
Lawrence, I would disagree.
In my opinion, not nearly enough time and effort is spent by folks here on proper measurement procedures.
"... proper measurement procedures." .... YOU? ... amazing!
Quote"... proper measurement procedures." .... YOU? ... amazing!
I will vouch for Poynt and state that his measurement skills and overall electronics knowledge are excellent. I am very good at qualifying and I have known him for years now.
You are just trash talking, and in your heart you must know that yourself. You can't be that dumb to not sense the truth about Poynt.
S'matter with you MH? Don't you know who you are talking to? Why, between Gmeast, JLN and Fabrice Andre, the world will be swimming in overunity teapots and cooktops before you can say "Little Miss Mosfet". Everything they touch turns to OU, and "Pin Pout" measurement is totally unnecessary to prove it. Of course, extracting anything _useful_ from any of their systems has proven.... rather difficult..... and concurrent validity is lacking, just as it is in the present case. But that's just an engineering problem. Right?
You have just got to laugh at these people. Their idiocy knows no bounds.
QuoteThe self-proclaimed experts such as poynty-head have invested so much hate-driven resources into their "...PIN POUT measurement(s) ..." techniques, they have forgotten their 1st-year, high school physics. That goes for that TK loser. These people are so incredibly impressed with themselves it sickens me ... but it's laughable at the same time. (TK ... you can drive a MAC Truck through that sxxxx bxxxxxx yxxx fxxxx txxxx ... WOW!). Sorry for the cheap-shot.
And yet, gmeast sweetie ... you cannot refute me with facts, checkable outside references, or demonstrations of your own. You can only sling your filth, like a caged and insane little monkey. Nor can you present a coherent argument..... instead you say "TK ... you can drive a MAC Truck through that sxxxx bxxxxxx yxxx fxxxx txxxx ... WOW!)" Have you and Ainslie heard from Brian Little's lawyers yet, troll?
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 18, 2013, 07:18:43 PM
(snip)
(1) Measure Pin and Pout and compare.
(2) The way to get Instantaneous Power is to capture the Instantaneous Voltage and Instantaneous Current. Then multiply them together. This can only be done on a Digital Storage oscilloscope(DSO).
No, there are other ways too. A good idea would be to check your DSO results by using an INTEGRATING WATTMETER.
Please contact the following person and ask him if he can rent you a proper INTEGRATING WATTMETER or Power Meter for a few days. Similar companies may be closer to your location.
John Bahng
Test Equipment Connection Asia, Ltd.
Unit E4, 7/F Phase I, Kaiser Estate, No. 41 Man Yue Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Office: +852 2690 1360 Fax: +852 2690 0638 Mobile: +852 9379 7195
jbahng@teconnectionasia.com
www.teconnectionasia.com
Quote
(3) Apparently, very few researchers approach the research from this angle. Much time and energy is being spent in this forum on – whether the DSO was calibrated correctly; whether the connections were done properly; etc.
This is extremely important and it is not possible to spend too much time and energy on assuring that your instruments are working properly and are being used properly.
Do you recall the AC vs DC coupling issue? This is basic oscilloscopy and something that was causing large errors in your computations, and the issue itself showed that you didn't understand certain basic features of scopes or properties of signals.
Do you recall the probe compensation issues? Again, basic oscilloscopy, as basic as turning the unit on with the power button. But your probes were badly compensated and were introducing large errors in your measurements. And the voltage issue from the one probe has _still_ not been properly explained, nor have you shown unequivocally that it has been corrected.
Do you recall the sign issue involving the current direction? The issue of the input voltage probe's measurement needing to be corrected by subtraction of the reading of the other probe?
By my count that is at least 5 major issues regarding scope usage, calibration, connection, and interpretation. There are probably others that we have not yet uncovered. These issues add up, and had we here not found them and pointed them out, you would be standing in front of experts making these severe blunders in public for all to see.
Quote
(4) Most of those who posted questions do not have DSOs to do the experiments themselves. They all have good experience in building Joule Thief circuits.
Once again, you are saying that a DSO is necessary to observe your high COPs. On that we are agreed. It is really too bad.... and is really significant.... that you, or anyone else, cannot obtain the necessary high COPs by any other method than using a DSO in the manner that you are using it.
Quote
(5) My research focused on proving and confirming that the Average Output Energy can indeed be higher than the Average Input Energy (COP > 1).
(6) The posted experimental evidence is that the Input Current can be in the positive or negative direction – giving rise to positive or negative Average Input Power.
(7) That implied drawing energy from the Battery or recharging the battery.
( 8) The COP can be very large (either positive or negative) because the Input Current can cross the zero axis. This means current flowing in both directions. It is NOT the conventional AC. It is pulsed in nature.
(9) A theoretical model assuming a "hidden" pulsing source in the circuit could explain all the experimental observations. This "hidden" pulsing source is the Lead-out Energy.
The value of the research is NOT in understanding or improving the Joule Thief Circuit. It is in the confirmation that Energy can be Lead-out. This opens the floodgate for many other circuits – Lasersaber Joule Ringer, Steven Mark TPU etc.
Continue your brilliant research. Get a DSO and DC Power Supply. God Bless.
Contrariwise. You STARTED with your Lead-Out Energy Theory, and you have been trying to find proof of it ever since. You are not trying to DISPROVE your hypotheses, which is how science is actually done, you are trying to PROVE them. The distinction is very important. You are also engaging in circular arguments and begging the question: You are asserting things as "proven" and then using those conclusions as input to your arguments that the things are proven.
Hey TK, and All:
This thread was becoming very, very boring. Until now. But, it beats watching soap operas, maybe. I have to admit that I just had to laugh at some the comments posted.
How many years will it take to show without a doubt that the simple and inefficient Joule Thiefs that have been tested, (by you know who), even the best board tested, is nothing more than an overrated battery killer. Slow, but sure as the sun is coming up again tomorrow. It's not OU, it's OK, meaning OverKill. It's all good for a laugh, if nothing else.
I kind of miss Gadget, and his meltdown, runaway, JT reactor tests. Self runner, and all... As well as Kooler, and his "special diodes" 5 month non-stop running, backwards JTs. Those were the days... my friend, we thought they'd never end. But, they did end.
I'm still using my several Jt devices, as night lights. It's nice to be able to get up out of bed at night walk around the house, to take a pee, get something to drink, etz... and not trip over anything.
Thanks for your replies. Good to hear that you are trying to put some sense back into this thread. Although it may be falling on deaf ears, I'm afraid. As well as blind eyes.
As the only point he is making, are his own illusions.
NickZ
Advice from a Hong Kong Government Consultant (a Retired Former Senior Official).
"Send multiple Boards to different departments and Law Makers. They will find the experts and the high end DSOs. Tell them this will make Hong Kong the Leader of Energy Research. With multiple, competing groups aware of the information, serious action will be taken."
Here is Board 108 to one of the Political Parties.
*** added the full DSO analysis file with updated circuit diagrams.
Here is Board 109 for Hong Kong Groups.
I shall NOT post the diagrams for over 100 Boards. They will be similar. Thank you to all for the help in correcting the errors in my early analysis.
I sow seeds. Let others calibrate and set up their DSOs. Let them develop products. Groups in Hong Kong are in a privileged position - the cost of a Board including postage is less than USD5.00. I already have donations to cover the cost of 100 boards.
Hong Kong and China will now start on the race to mastering Lead-out Energy. God Bless.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 19, 2013, 05:11:31 AM
No, there are other ways too. A good idea would be to check your DSO results by using an INTEGRATING WATTMETER.
Please contact the following person and ask him if he can rent you a proper INTEGRATING WATTMETER or Power Meter for a few days. Similar companies may be closer to your location.
John Bahng
Test Equipment Connection Asia, Ltd.
Unit E4, 7/F Phase I, Kaiser Estate, No. 41 Man Yue Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Office: +852 2690 1360 Fax: +852 2690 0638 Mobile: +852 9379 7195
jbahng@teconnectionasia.com
[/font]www.teconnectionasia.com (http://www.teconnectionasia.com/)
[/font]
@TK Thank you for the information. Apparently, they have 4-CH high end DSOs and the experts to calibrate and use them. Instead of travelling to Shenzhen (a 2-hour journey), I can get to this place within 30 minutes. Instead of waiting for poynt99 for his 4-CH results, I shall work with this group before the Top Universities. They may be able to point out more errors and improve the experiments. Now I do not need to solder boards or set up complicated DSOs. I can focus on sowing seeds. God has HIS ways.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 20, 2013, 03:26:30 PM
@TK
Thank you for the information. Apparently, they have 4-CH high end DSOs and the experts to calibrate and use them. Instead of travelling to Shenzhen (a 2-hour journey), I can get to this place within 30 minutes.
Instead of waiting for poynt99 for his 4-CH results, I shall work with this group before the Top Universities. They may be able to point out more errors and improve the experiments. Now I do not need to solder boards or set up complicated DSOs. I can focus on sowing seeds.
God has HIS ways.
Indeed.
And indeed, TestConnectionAsia does have the very best topline DSOs and DPSOs. However, I asked you to see about using an INTEGRATING WATTMETER, not a DSO.
Mr. Bahng or his associates will be able to tell you which of their power meters might be most appropriate to use, given the frequency and power ranges of interest in your boards.
I have used the Clarke-Hess 2330 with very satisfactory results, but this is an old instrument and more modern technology now exists.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 20, 2013, 06:52:15 PM
Indeed.
And indeed, TestConnectionAsia does have the very best topline DSOs and DPSOs. However, I asked you to see about using an INTEGRATING WATTMETER, not a DSO.
Mr. Bahng or his associates will be able to tell you which of their power meters might be most appropriate to use, given the frequency and power ranges of interest in your boards.
I have used the Clarke-Hess 2330 with very satisfactory results, but this is an old instrument and more modern technology now exists.
@TK
Why not both DSO and integrating wattmeter? That will be collaborating evidence. They will have a FREE board to test and improve. Hong Kong and China will lead the World with actual research.
Will that be fertile soil?
Yes, Lawrence, of course you should use every bit of test equipment that is appropriate, and if you show up with your charts and graphs and your best board in Mr. Bahng's office one morning and explain to him what you need, he might be interested enough to put some of his considerable resources at your disposal. Take him to lunch! Sow seeds, but sow them on fertile ground.
Here is something upon which to meditate, a little koan for you:
Finding evidence that _confirms_ your theory or claim is very nice.
But _failing_ to find evidence that _falsifies_ your claim or theory..... is what is necessary for credible scientific proof. Look hard and well for contrary evidence. Failure means success!
Board 109 has been sent to Yau Lee Group in Hong Kong.
http://yaulee.com/eng/businessDomain/intro/buildingCon.htm (http://yaulee.com/eng/businessDomain/intro/buildingCon.htm)
This group has the necessary resources to influence the research and development of Lead-out Energy.
Board 106 went to Law Maker - Ms. Regina Ip. Her young assistant, Mr. Ho, can do the demonstration.
Her contact information:
www.reginaip.hk (http://www.reginaip.hk)
afredchan@reginaip.hk
Phone 2580-0065.
Boards 110, 111, 112 ready for Southampton University Alumni Meeting in Hong Kong.
More seeds on fertile soil?
Lawrence:
I really have to hand it to you. You have stuck with this and are being very proactive. Even if it does not work out, you have really demonstrated what can be done by believing in something and taking action on your beliefs. I take my hat off to you for that.
I wish you the best.
Bill
Indeed.
I really hope that Lawrence gets the help he needs.
Surely, by now there must be some results coming in. Where are the reports?
Quote
蒋振宁先生： 您好！ 为进一步加强两岸三地知识产权工作的交流与合作，特邀请您参与中国发明与专利杂志的专题报道。杂志社 余鹏 4月24日
Translated: Mr. Tseung, You are invited to have a special article to be published in the China Inventions and Patents Magazine.
@poynt99 When will you post the CH-4 DSO pictures?
Very soon. 8)
@poynt99
Just one Zhou picture will answer a lot. The Zhou technique is to use one 2-CH Oscilloscope for Input. He adjusts the DC Power Supply and see if the bottom (current) curve crosses the zero axis. If it crosses, he knows that he will get very low average Input Power values.
Since the average Output Power is always positive with reasonable values for such FLEET boards, a low average Input Power will give a high COP. Thus he only focuses on the Input Current waveform to make his task easy. He leaves the full DSO analysis to me.
Lawrence, the proper comparison isn't the "average" value of the current trace. Rather, it is the AREA "under" the current trace. It is this area, when carried through the calculations, that defines the area under the instantaneous power curve, which translates to the ENERGY moving in your circuit.
To simplify, consider the input voltage to be a simple constant value. Then the instantaneous power curve shape is entirely determined by the shape of the current curve. Right?
Ok.
So, power is measured in Watts, and energy is measured in Joules. Energy is conserved. If you take the value of the Watts, and multiply that by the duration in Seconds, you arrive at an energy value in Watt-seconds == Joules. Hence, the _area_ under the instantaneous power function is the energy value in Joules, because it is the sum of all the instantaneous watts values multiplied by the instantaneous duration values. Do you recall your calculus?
Or, to put it another way, analytically, it is the integration wrt time of the instantaneous power function.
Since your power function shape is mostly determined by your current trace shape, you need to examine the _areas_ defined by that current trace. Is the area defined by the "positive" current wrt baseline smaller or larger than the area defined by the "negative" current wrt baseline? Recalling all the while that "negative" current indicated here, due to the probe inversion required by your circuit, means current flowing +normally+ out of the battery and dissipating power in the load.
The answer is clear to me.
Boards 110, 111 and 112 sowed on Fertile Soil?
The seeds went to people with access to DSOs and experts. Some already accessed the overunity website. Fertile soil?
They have much better eyesight, hearing, soldering skills etc. They or their associates also have access to high end DSOs and electronics experts. Calibration and Scope setup should not be a problem.
More Divine Wine Servers?
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 24, 2013, 06:16:46 PM
@poynt99
Just one Zhou picture will answer a lot. The Zhou technique is to use one 2-CH Oscilloscope for Input. He adjusts the DC Power Supply and see if the bottom (current) curve crosses the zero axis. If it crosses, he knows that he will get very low average Input Power values.
Since the average Output Power is always positive with reasonable values for such FLEET boards, a low average Input Power will give a high COP. Thus he only focuses on the Input Current waveform to make his task easy. He leaves the full DSO analysis to me.
Lawrence, why do suppose the current wave form trace is both above and below thr 0 ref line?
Is it because of an offset in your scope? I wouldnt think that much offset would be possible. How about inductive reactance. Could that be playing a part. Let's assume for a moment that it is because current really is going in both directions. In your input current trace, wouldnt that indicate that the battery should last almost indefinitely since the average current is almost zero, or I assume could be tuned to appear as though it was zero?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2013, 02:54:16 PM
Lawrence, why do suppose the current wave form trace is both above and below thr 0 ref line?
Is it because of an offset in your scope? I wouldnt think that much offset would be possible. How about inductive reactance. Could that be playing a part. Let's assume for a moment that it is because current really is going in both directions. In your input current trace, wouldnt that indicate that the battery should last almost indefinitely since the average current is almost zero, or I assume could be tuned to appear as though it was zero?
[/font]
@poynt99 The theoretical answer was in reply 416 on page 28. Please read it carefully. We can discuss the theoretical model more in the coming posts. It explains clearly that with a "hidden" pulsing source, the current waveform trace can be both above and below the 0 reference line. The current is really going in both directions as can be seen on the oscilloscope trace. That is why I can demonstrate the recharging of a rechargeable AA battery for awhile – from 1.26V to 1.4V while lighting the LED. However, the recharging can change to draining. To maintain the recharging, I am doing the stupid manual procedure. Watch the Battery Voltage – if it goes up, leave it alone. If it goes down, take it out. Let it rest and recharge another rechargeable battery. Such a process works some of the time but no guarantee..... In other words, I have not mastered the exact mechanism controlling the recharging or draining. I sow seeds. I observed the phenomena. I shall let others do more research and find the answer. It looks like more resources from Hong Kong and China are likely.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 25, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
(snip) To maintain the recharging, I am doing the stupid manual procedure. Watch the Battery Voltage – if it goes up, leave it alone. If it goes down, take it out. Let it rest and recharge another rechargeable battery. Such a process works some of the time but no guarantee.....
In other words, I have not mastered the exact mechanism controlling the recharging or draining. I sow seeds. I observed the phenomena. I shall let others do more research and find the answer.
It looks like more resources from Hong Kong and China are likely.
In other words.... you are not letting any experiment run its course, you are fiddling and fooling around. Try this: use your boards to charge up a previously depleted battery
"from 1.26V to 1.4V while lighting the LED." Then take that battery and a second battery, hook them both up to simple circuits made from an LED and a 1k resistor. See which battery fails (dim LED) first.
The "second battery" should be a FRESH NEW battery of the same type, that you have prepared by _discharging only_, using a resistor + LED load, until it reads the same 1.4 volts open-circuit.
Here we are testing whether the "1.4 volts" attained on a Lead-Out-Charged battery represents the same ENERGY CONTENT as "1.4 volts" from a battery that is treated in an ordinary way.
Voltage is not energy, power is not energy, current is not energy. Energy is conserved. The others, not so much.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 25, 2013, 06:45:29 PM
(snip)
The current is really going in both directions as can be seen on the oscilloscope trace. That is why I can demonstrate the recharging of a rechargeable AA battery for awhile – from 1.26V to 1.4V while lighting the LED. However, the recharging can change to draining. To maintain the recharging, I am doing the stupid manual procedure. Watch the Battery Voltage – if it goes up, leave it alone. If it goes down, take it out. Let it rest and recharge another rechargeable battery. Such a process works some of the time but no guarantee.....
(snip)
Say the battery is at 1.32 volts. Will it be charging, or discharging? How can the circuit tell whether to charge or discharge? The waveform at 1.32 volts "charging" is the same as the waveform at 1.32 volts "discharging", isn't it? Can you show any difference?
For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zFOhTU-bt0
"I've found that of the hundred or more of the conventional JTs that I've made, the average efficiency is between 40 to 70 percent. I've not seen any above that. OLn the other hand, my Supercharged Joule Thief is about double the efficiency of the conventional JT."
Yellow toroid with 4cm diameter, 90 turn coil, low loss BY299 diode, 2N3055 or BD241 transistor. 40mA, 95% efficiency on 12V battery. Higher amp, lower eff.
Quote from: ingyenenergiagep on April 26, 2013, 11:02:00 AM
"I've found that of the hundred or more of the conventional JTs that I've made, the average efficiency is between 40 to 70 percent. I've not seen any above that. OLn the other hand, my Supercharged Joule Thief is about double the efficiency of the conventional JT."
Yellow toroid with 4cm diameter, 90 turn coil, low loss BY299 diode, 2N3055 or BD241 transistor. 40mA, 95% efficiency on 12V battery. Higher amp, lower eff.
How did you measure the efficiency? Did you use a DSO?
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 26, 2013, 09:50:23 AM
For your amusement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zFOhTU-bt0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zFOhTU-bt0)
I believe poynt99 will have the 4-CH pictures very soon.
Just to re-confirm that Board 80 actually have the input current crossing 0 axis behavior.
Raw data is presented. Note that in the 4th file, the scales were changed to display curve on screen.
The Input DC Power Voltage was adjusted until the LED was just turned ON. The 4 files showed the waveforms displayed at 4 Input voltage values.
Lawrence, when the probe compensation issue first came up, one of your probes showed a large _voltage_ discrepancy. I've asked you several times about this discrepancy. What caused it, how was it cured, what evidence is there that the discrepancy is cured?
Why not forget about the LED light output and just use the input voltage that you used for that first screenshot above.
The indicated current is "always" positive, which means it "always" is flowing INTO the battery or capacitor supply and should be charging it up. The COP value for this voltage input should be very large indeed.
Right?
Board 108 at Shenzhen
Input Waveform with capacitor providing energy to the LED.
Board 55 was used for the demonstration. It has a built-in capacitor (2.3V 10F). The Board was initially started by DC Power Supply. When the Input Voltage as indicated by CH1 Vrms = 600mV, the DC Power was turned OFF.
Three different waveforms were captured. They were at CH1 Vrms = 560, 500 and 480mV. These waveforms clearly showed the crossing of the 0 axis by the Input Current. (CH2 Vavg). The CH2 Vavg value changed from negative to positive. Such pictures were expected from all the testers.
@Poynt99
Did you get such pictures?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 25, 2013, 02:54:16 PM
Lawrence, why do suppose the current wave form trace is both above and below thr 0 ref line?
Is it because of an offset in your scope? I wouldnt think that much offset would be possible. How about inductive reactance. Could that be playing a part. Let's assume for a moment that it is because current really is going in both directions. In your input current trace, wouldnt that indicate that the battery should last almost indefinitely since the average current is almost zero, or I assume could be tuned to appear as though it was zero?
.99,
That does seem to be a lot of offset, but I believe that is likely the problem. The DC accuracy specs for these scopes is less than stellar to begin with.
At < 100mv, DC accuracy ifor the ADS1102CAL is given as:
±[3%X（|reading|+|offset|）+1% of |offset|+0.2div+2mv]
Although not specifically stated in the manual, I believe "offset" in the above relates to the setting of the the zero V baseline distance from the graticule center.
Also, in previous data dumps, the output current is given as 12ma when only 80mv is across the LED. That is more likely an indication of +12mv of offset in the scope channel used than actual current flow thru the LED at that applied voltage. As well, the more recent waveforms posted also tend to indicate +10 to +12mv of offset.
As the subject of scope input offset has been brought up before by you and others (as well as the wierd gain error in the compensation shots) with no response given, I doubt Lawrence will ever accept the challenge to verify his scopes with some easy to perform offset and DC accuracy measurements to prove to everyone that his scopes are reading properly.
PW
PW,
I'm going to crack open the new Tek scope today so hopefully I'll have an idea if that wave form is real or not.
The average current seems to vary about the 0-ref line as Lawrence varies the supply voltage. Do you think that is consistent with a fixed scope offset?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 10:55:05 AM
PW,
I'm going to crack open the new Tek scope today so hopefully I'll have an idea if that wave form is real or not.
The average current seems to vary about the 0-ref line as Lawrence varies the supply voltage. Do you think that is consistent with a fixed scope offset?
.99,
Look at the first waveform in post 661. With the oscillator apparently not even running, the scope says there is 12ma flowing into the battery. More likely, that indicated +12mv (+12ma) is the actual zero volts line.
Again, in the bottom most trace of post 665, the output current appears to be "clipping" at +12mv (+12ma) when it is more likely that the indicated +12mv is again the actual zero current point.
Combine that with the fact that the data dump for board 80 indicates that +12ma is flowing thru the LED when only 80mv is applied to it and yes, I would say that both scopes are demonstrating a consistently positive offset of about 10 to 12mv.
Possibly his LED's are something way different than anything I have around here, but I cannot find one LED, white, blue, green, red, or yellow, that draws 12ma at 80mv applied. However, his data dump for output power for board 80 shows just that, 12ma flowing thru the LED with 80mv applied (actually, it would be 68mv applied if the indicated 12mv across the CSR is accounted for). It is more likely that the measured 12ma is an indication of 12mv of offset in the scope channel.
As both scopes appear to demonstrate positive offset, that works out quite well for "demonstrating" OU with the way the measurements are being made (ie, the tendency to indicate less power drawn from or some actually returning to the battery, and an indication of more power being output than there really is).
Posting some shorted lead shots showing the true zero ref line and a measurement of 10 to 20mv using a known V source and couple resistors with the scopes at their typically used settings would clear all this up. But for some reason little response regarding this is given.
PW
.
PW.
Agreed. Stay tuned for some results today.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 12:06:00 PM
PW.
Agreed.
.99,
If one looks back at many of Lawrence's posted waveforms, and corrects for 10 to 12mv of offset, only his more distant past examples that had sharper transitions indicated positive current excursions significantly above zero on the input side, which would be consistent with inductive effects.
His more recent slower waveforms indicate no or only a little positive excursion when offset is corrected and these small excursions easily fall within the realm of the DC accuracy and DC gain error specs of the scopes.
PW
Lawrence,
Here are some results from my first crack at your board #33 measured with a brand new 500MHz Tektronix DPO4054 ($12k). The probes used are 4 brand new 500MHz Tektronix TPP0500's ($620ea).
Before I captured the screen shots, I let the scope warm up for 45 minutes, then ran a signal path calibration to minimize any offsets within the scope.
The test setup.
More...
The Input scope shots:
tek000 through tek005 illustrate how the Input Current trace (blue) changes with a changing Input Voltage (yellow). The input voltage is measured and noted in the bottom left of the screen (look at the "MEAN" value). For example, in tek000 the input voltage is indicated as 516.8mV.
The blue Input Current trace did not cross the 0-reference line through all 6 Input Voltages ranging from 0.51V to 1.35V.
More...
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 05:44:59 PM
The Input scope shots:
tek000 through tek005 illustrate how the Input Current trace (blue) changes with a changing Input Voltage (yellow). The input voltage is measured and noted in the bottom left of the screen (look at the "MEAN" value). For example, in tek000 the input voltage is indicated as 516.8mV.
The blue Input Current trace did not cross the 0-reference line through all 6 Input Voltages ranging from 0.51V to 1.35V.
More...
,99,
Talk about a Maserati of oscilloscopes... can we all say "test equipment envy"?
Beautifully clean captures.
Do you recall if and where Lawrence may have posted his scope shots for the board your testing? Possibly a date range if I have to look.
It would be interesting to see if his input measurement of that board crossed the zero line, and even moreso if by about 12mv.
PW
The Output scope shots:
tek006 through tek008 illustrate how the Output Voltage and Current wave forms vary as the Input Voltage is varied from 0.53V to 1.35V.
Not taking into account the drops in the CSR resistors, a rough COP can be calculated by dividing the average Output Power by the average Input Power for a corresponding Input Voltage.
Input Voltage (0.515V, and 0.53V)
Pout = 3.68mW
Pin = 5.66mW
COP = 0.65
Input Voltage (1.35V)
Pout = 39.8mW
Pin = 48.4mW
COP = 0.82
Short video of the Input Voltage sweep to follow...
Poynt:
You have some awesome new equipment. You know how computer-generated imagery in movies is now almost indistinguishable from the real thing... Well I assume that your DSO is from the latest generation and it looks awesome. So if I had a choice today I would take a high-end DSO over a high-end analog scope. Just pop your data onto a flash drive if you need more crunching.
If I was going to really scrutinize the data I would double-check how well the sharp spikes are being sampled. I assume that you could do that by simply stretching the time base out centered on the spikes and eventually the display will show you the true data and not the display-filtered data.
Have fun!
MileHigh
P.S.: No more floppy drive? lol
PW,
I'm not certain if Lawrence posted scope shots for this board #33. If he did, it would be several pages back I guess.
MH,
The spikes represent such a small magnitude and time component of the overall wave form that its value would have little affect on the results.
Yes, definitely nice having a USB drive. Too bad this scope isn't mine. But I still like mine, floppy drive and all. ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 06:03:33 PM
The Output scope shots:
tek006 through tek008 illustrate how the Output Voltage and Current wave forms vary as the Input Voltage is varied from 0.53V to 1.35V.
Not taking into account the drops in the CSR resistors, a rough COP can be calculated by dividing the average Output Power by the average Input Power for a corresponding Input Voltage.
Input Voltage (0.515V, and 0.53V)
Pout = 3.68mW
Pin = 5.66mW
COP = 0.65
Input Voltage (1.35V)
Pout = 39.8mW
Pin = 48.4mW
COP = 0.82
Short video of the Input Voltage sweep to follow...
.99,
The COP's are consistent with best guesses.
So far, the only scope shots I have found from Lawrence that reference board 33 are in reply #240 and #241 on page 17.
The captures referenced for board 33 are particularly noisey with waveforms different from your captures.
PW
.99,
It is looking safer to say that Lawrence's scopes have offset issues. Particularly his captures wherein the input current trace is clipping on the top edge. That clipped level is looking like the true zero ref line.
Damn that's a nice scope...
What's the vertical resolution bitwise?
PW
Poynt:
Indeed, I hadn't thought about the narrowest parts of the spikes not being too significant for the overall power calculation.
I guess you can call yourself an "old timer" when you look at one of these new scopes, and to your surprise there is very little front-to-back depth to them. I don't know if that's the case with your high-end model. We are so used to scopes being heavy and and at least 14 or 15 inches in depth.
They feel "chopped off" to me! What happened? lol
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 06:03:33 PM
The Output scope shots:
tek006 through tek008 illustrate how the Output Voltage and Current wave forms vary as the Input Voltage is varied from 0.53V to 1.35V.
Not taking into account the drops in the CSR resistors, a rough COP can be calculated by dividing the average Output Power by the average Input Power for a corresponding Input Voltage.
Input Voltage (0.515V, and 0.53V)
Pout = 3.68mW
Pin = 5.66mW
COP = 0.65
Input Voltage (1.35V)
Pout = 39.8mW
Pin = 48.4mW
COP = 0.82
Short video of the Input Voltage sweep to follow...
@poynt99,
Can you please take shots from the
lowest Vin that lights the LED - even dimly? Thank you.
.99,
I just read a portion of your new scopes manual. It looks like it has an 8 bit native resolution at full bandwidth/max sweep rates, and can do 11bits in hi res mode at lower sweep rates.
PW
A quick sweep of the input voltage and the resulting current trace.
Lawrence to answer your request, you can see in the video what the wave forms look like when the circuit just begins oscillating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-E7W8HGucg
Quote from: poynt99 on April 28, 2013, 06:41:33 PM
A quick sweep of the input voltage and the resulting current trace.
Lawrence to answer your request, you can see in the video what the wave forms look like when the circuit just begins oscillating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-E7W8HGucg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-E7W8HGucg)
@poynt99,
I can see a USB in the video. Can you capture the raw data in that USB?
Yes, I can.
Give me a couple hours to get that uploaded.
.99
Post #264 on page 18 is a better capture shot from lawrence regarding board 33. Still bit noisey and much more "spikey" than what your seeing.
PW
ADDED: Sorry, that was for board 38, never mind. My prior posts are for board 33 however.
Did not have the reading glasses on...
@.99.... beautyfull! You gotta love the new Tek scopes. The Digital Phosphor idea really makes for a nice looking display.
Two of those probes together cost more than what my car is worth!
Do you by chance have a differential voltage probe and a current probe for it?
I think that scope can probably do two live math traces, so you could display input voltage and current, instantaneous power, and the integral of the power all on one screen.
I also think that it's pretty clear that there is a DC offset issue happening with the Atten scopes at this very high sensitivity setting. 12 mV isn't much and wouldn't show up in most cases.... but there has to be a reason why there's nearly a two orders of magnitude price differential between Atten and Tek, too.
Lawrence,
3 uploads; 001 is for an Input Voltage of about 0.5V, just as the circuit began oscillating. 002 is for an Input Voltage of about 1.00V, and 003 about 1.36V.
Happy crunching.
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
@.99.... beautyfull! You gotta love the new Tek scopes. The Digital Phosphor idea really makes for a nice looking display.
Two of those probes together cost more than what my car is worth!
Do you by chance have a differential voltage probe and a current probe for it?
I think that scope can probably do two live math traces, so you could display input voltage and current, instantaneous power, and the integral of the power all on one screen.
I also think that it's pretty clear that there is a DC offset issue happening with the Atten scopes at this very high sensitivity setting. 12 mV isn't much and wouldn't show up in most cases.... but there has to be a reason why there's nearly a two orders of magnitude price differential between Atten and Tek, too.
TK,
Yes, but if one knew the low cost scope well, and compensated for its offset and any DC gain error after making a few cal tests, one could still acheive some accurate results (at least better).
I believe I read there was a firmware update for the Atten scopes regarding the "cal on power up" hanging during offset correction. Don't quote me, but I believe I bumped into that while searching for the DC specs.
But that Tek sure makes pretty outputs... And at only $9G used... (probes, taxes, dealer prep, wash wax and a tank of gas not included)
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 28, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
Do you by chance have a differential voltage probe and a current probe for it?
My boss forgot to order the current probe, and by mistake I ordered a High voltage diff probe.
Quote
I think that scope can probably do two live math traces, so you could display input voltage and current, instantaneous power, and the integral of the power all on one screen.
I'm not sure about that. I did try to see if I could get both Pin and Pout on screen at the same time, but it doesn't appear to be able to do that. Doing an integral of the power trace should not be a problem though.
Quote
I also think that it's pretty clear that there is a DC offset issue happening with the Atten scopes at this very high sensitivity setting.
Agreed. It's either the scope or the probes, or both.
Yah, that's right, you can display more than the 4 live probe traces, but only one live math trace, I guess. But the integral can be shown in the math trace easily enough.
Remember this blast from the past? Better "evidence" of "OU" than anything that Ainslie ever showed.
Lawrence,
Look at the first slide in this post of yours.
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356970/#msg356970
The input voltage is only 0.38V which is not enough to get the circuit oscillating. That means the circuit is OFF. In this state the output current probe should be reading 0V, yet the scope is clearly showing 13.6mV.
I would strongly urge you to short the current probe to itself and confirm that the reading is 0V. I don't believe it will show 0V. I believe you have a +13.6mV offset in that channel.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 29, 2013, 07:46:21 PM
Lawrence,
Look at the first slide in this post of yours.
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356970/#msg356970 (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356970/#msg356970)
The input voltage is only 0.38V which is not enough to get the circuit oscillating. That means the circuit is OFF. In this state the output current probe should be reading 0V, yet the scope is clearly showing 13.6mV.
I would strongly urge you to short the current probe to itself and confirm that the reading is 0V. I don't believe it will show 0V. I believe you have a +13.6mV offset in that channel.
@poynt99,
For Board 80, 0.38V just managed to turn the LED ON - dimly and flickering.
I shorted the Probes on CH1 and CH2 and the screen pictures are attached. Ch2 turned out to be the more quiet channel.
I am trying to get organizations with high end 4-CH scopes and expertise to help me in Hong Kong as suggested by TK. Your one probe costs more than my two Atten Oscilloscopes (USD$600 vs USD400)! I hope that we can always rely on you to do the double check with your Tek Scope and your expertise.
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 30, 2013, 05:21:56 PM
@poynt99,
For Board 80, 0.38V just managed to turn the LED ON - dimly and flickering.
I shorted the Probes on CH1 and CH2 and the screen pictures are attached. Ch2 turned out to be the more quiet channel.
I am trying to get organizations with high end 4-CH scopes and expertise to help me in Hong Kong as suggested by TK. Your one probe costs more than my two Atten Oscilloscopes (USD$600 vs USD400)! I hope that we can always rely on you to do the double check with your Tek Scope and your expertise.
Lawrence, I would recommend you try to find out why your scope consistently shows a 12-13mV offset when measuring the input current. I would like to see that scope shot duplicated and show the LED as well. It sure appears that the circuit is OFF.
Also, did you do any number crunching on my data from board #33? What were the results?
What is your comment on my scope results? How do you explain that the current never crosses the 0-ref line?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Lawrence, I would recommend you try to find out why your scope consistently shows a 12-13mV offset when measuring the input current. I would like to see that scope shot duplicated and show the LED as well. It sure appears that the circuit is OFF.
Also, did you do any number crunching on my data from board #33? What were the results?
What is your comment on my scope results? How do you explain that the current never crosses the 0-ref line?
@poynt99
I just checked with Board 108. I can turn the LED ON with 380mV.
May 1 is a big day in China. Some organizations and individuals use that period to have long holidays. They may go back to work on May 5.
I have not started on the number crunching yet. Some people attributed my ATTEN results as due to "cheap China made" scopes have restrictions. I am trying to get help from organizations with both high end scopes and expertise. When the ATTEN scope shots are different from yours, I have to find out the reason first before making any conclusions. I am by no means an oscilloscope expert.
Please wait at least 1-2 weeks so that I can locate the experts with the right resources in Hong Kong. Thanks for helping to solve the ATTEN Scope puzzles from half way around the World.
Lawrence,
Borrow, buy, or rent an analog scope of any description and perform the same observation test to see if the current trace crosses the 0-reference line at any time while the input voltage is varied. Use different scope probes, preferably the ones that come with the analog scope.
I pulled out my 25 year old 20MHz two-channel Hitachi V-212, and performed the same sweep as before. The current trace did not cross the 0-ref line. The circuit oscillated this time down to an input voltage of about 0.38V.
Check out the video of this sweep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2tETAwx3xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2tETAwx3xc)
Very nice clean analog waveforms Poynt. Even though your new high-end DSO is amazing, if I had a bench I would still have an analog scope to compliment the DSO. I know we have had this conversation before! For example, at the bottom of the "fang" in the current waveform, you can see some tiny vestigial spikes. So you crank up the intensity for a few seconds to make the vestigial spikes more visible. Then you can hunt down the source of those spikes if need be. You would have a hard time doing that with a DSO, you might note even realize that they were there.
I am not really following here but it would seem to me that the current only flows in one direction. When you look at the schematic and analyze it, one would suppose that the logical conclusion is that the current should only flow in one direction. So the bench and the circuit analysis are in accord. I fear that Lawrence is chasing rainbows but the sky is clearing up now.
See that little "B" next to the channel setting indication in the shot of the shorted probes? That means that "bandwidth limitation" is set for that channel, which is excessively noisy and shows a definite DC offset.
Lawrence, please DO NOT use the scope's "auto setup" or Default Setup function for these traces! Clearly your scope should be set to the EXACT same settings, including BW limit OFF, for the probe and DC offset tests as it is set when you are making your measurements on a board! Set your scope MANUALLY and use its functions to SAVE the setup, then use the SAME setup for your measurements and for your probe/offset testing. DO NOT USE BANDWIDTH LIMITING, unless you also are using it when making your live measurements !!
I think .99 has asked you to make some actual measurements of small DC voltages, KNOWN small voltages like those that come from a voltage standard source like a LM199 chip or this unit here:
http://www.voltagestandard.com/Home_Page_JO2U.html (http://www.voltagestandard.com/Home_Page_JO2U.html)
A test like this will be better than simply shorting the probe, as the degree of offset clearly depends on the voltage applied to the probe (from your own data which show this effect.)
And YET AGAIN, I am asking you to tell us the cause for the LARGE voltage discrepancy from one probe-channel combination that you illustrated when we first started exploring the probe compensation issue. You have never told us how that discrepancy happened, how it was resolved, and you haven't shown traces that prove that this issue has been fixed.
Also... high-end DSOs and DPSOs automatically detect the probe attenuation setting, but the Atten DSO does not. There is no way on the screen to tell whether or not the probe is set to 10x attenuation or 1x attenuation or that the scope's setting matches the probe setting. Are we quite assured that the scope and the probe have the same attenuation setting for that May 1 set of scopeshots?
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2013, 09:57:00 PM
Lawrence,
Borrow, buy, or rent an analog scope of any description and perform the same observation test to see if the current trace crosses the 0-reference line at any time while the input voltage is varied. Use different scope probes, preferably the ones that come with the analog scope.
I pulled out my 25 year old 20MHz two-channel Hitachi V-212, and performed the same sweep as before. The current trace did not cross the 0-ref line. The circuit oscillated this time down to an input voltage of about 0.38V.
Check out the video of this sweep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2tETAwx3xc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2tETAwx3xc)
This is in accord with my present results as well. I can only conclude that, for the one instance when I reported zero-crossing, I must have inadvertently flipped the channel coupling switch to "AC coupled" instead of DC coupled, after I switched the channel to Ground to check the reference zero level.
Quote from: MileHigh on May 01, 2013, 12:07:13 AM
Very nice clean analog waveforms Poynt. Even though your new high-end DSO is amazing, if I had a bench I would still have an analog scope to compliment the DSO. I know we have had this conversation before! For example, at the bottom of the "fang" in the current waveform, you can see some tiny vestigial spikes. So you crank up the intensity for a few seconds to make the vestigial spikes more visible. Then you can hunt down the source of those spikes if need be. You would have a hard time doing that with a DSO, you might note even realize that they were there.
I am not really following here but it would seem to me that the current only flows in one direction. When you look at the schematic and analyze it, one would suppose that the logical conclusion is that the current should only flow in one direction. So the bench and the circuit analysis are in accord. I fear that Lawrence is chasing rainbows but the sky is clearing up now.
Yah. A 400 dollar brand new DSO might be nice..... but that same 400 dollars will buy a _lot_ of power and bandwidth in a good used, analog scope.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 30, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Lawrence, I would recommend you try to find out why your scope consistently shows a 12-13mV offset when measuring the input current. I would like to see that scope shot duplicated and show the LED as well. It sure appears that the circuit is OFF.
Also, did you do any number crunching on my data from board #33? What were the results?
What is your comment on my scope results? How do you explain that the current never crosses the 0-ref line?
.99,
Lawrence's offset looks much better in his shorted probe shots. Please note however that he said he hit the "default settings" button first, and as well, the traces are positioned to the center of the graticule. Please recall that the DC offset specs I posted for the ADS1102CAL model scope used the "offset", i.e., the position of the trace relative to the graticule center (as I understood it), in the formula for the DC offset specification.
It would be intersting to have Lawrence use his scope as he usually does and demostrate that the input current swings above the zero line, and then perform the same measurement, but first pressing the "default setting" button, which I assume is what centered up his traces and whatever else I will have to read the manual.
Alternately, if he postioned the trace downward one full division (about where he normally positions the current traces), possibly the observed offset would increase.
I'll see what the manual says about the "default setting" when I get a chance...
PW
For sixty one dollars, you get 5 preselected/defined voltage levels of your choice, good to five or six significant digits of precision, with free recalibration for two years.
http://www.voltagestandard.com/PentaRef.html
http://shop.voltagestandard.com/product.sc?productId=4&categoryId=1
This seems like it would be a very good investment for someone who is claiming OU results that depend on voltage measurements of 20 mV or less, with a measurement system that has clear artefactual errors.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 01, 2013, 02:13:25 AM
See that little "B" next to the channel setting indication in the shot of the shorted probes? That means that "bandwidth limitation" is set for that channel, which is excessively noisy and shows a definite DC offset.
Lawrence, please DO NOT use the scope's "auto setup" or Default Setup function for these traces! Clearly your scope should be set to the EXACT same settings, including BW limit OFF, for the probe and DC offset tests as it is set when you are making your measurements on a board! Set your scope MANUALLY and use its functions to SAVE the setup, then use the SAME setup for your measurements and for your probe/offset testing. DO NOT USE BANDWIDTH LIMITING, unless you also are using it when making your live measurements !!
I think .99 has asked you to make some actual measurements of small DC voltages, KNOWN small voltages like those that come from a voltage standard source like a LM199 chip or this unit here:
http://www.voltagestandard.com/Home_Page_JO2U.html (http://www.voltagestandard.com/Home_Page_JO2U.html)
A test like this will be better than simply shorting the probe, as the degree of offset clearly depends on the voltage applied to the probe (from your own data which show this effect.)
And YET AGAIN, I am asking you to tell us the cause for the LARGE voltage discrepancy from one probe-channel combination that you illustrated when we first started exploring the probe compensation issue. You have never told us how that discrepancy happened, how it was resolved, and you haven't shown traces that prove that this issue has been fixed.
Also... high-end DSOs and DPSOs automatically detect the probe attenuation setting, but the Atten DSO does not. There is no way on the screen to tell whether or not the probe is set to 10x attenuation or 1x attenuation or that the scope's setting matches the probe setting. Are we quite assured that the scope and the probe have the same attenuation setting for that May 1 set of scopeshots?
TK,
Possibly that channel is noisey with or without the BW limit on, the BW filter is noisey, or he has a probe issue. One would normally expect less noise with the BW limit on.
I looked at default setup in the manual, he adjusted a few things after pressing default setup, such as vertical sensitivity, etc. Look in appendix C for the rather lengthy list of default settings.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 01, 2013, 02:30:39 AM
Yah. A 400 dollar brand new DSO might be nice..... but that same 400 dollars will buy a _lot_ of power and bandwidth in a good used, analog scope.
TK,
Once again, the romance with analog...
The digital scopes seem to be going thru "bandwidth" wars similar to the digital camera "pixel count" wars.
I'd gladly accept a 200MHz BW limit in exchange for 16 bits of native vertical resolution (and 18bit enhanced). Although 20-24bit would be, well, wow. The extra dynamic range would be great for looking at noise and the FFT's would go down into the dirt.
I can currently only go 5MHz with 16bit resolution, above that, I have to go analog.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on May 01, 2013, 03:16:10 AM
snip...
I can currently only go 5MHz with 16bit resolution, above that, I have to go analog.
PW
May Anna Log never die ! .... KneeDeep
Quote from: ltseung888 on April 30, 2013, 05:21:56 PM
@poynt99,
For Board 80, 0.38V just managed to turn the LED ON - dimly and flickering.
I shorted the Probes on CH1 and CH2 and the screen pictures are attached. Ch2 turned out to be the more quiet channel.
There is something wrong with that noisy channel Lawrence. There shouldn't be such a large difference in noise between the two. I'd suggest you get those probes checked out, and if they are OK, then the scope.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 01, 2013, 09:04:21 PM
There is something wrong with that noisy channel Lawrence. There shouldn't be such a large difference in noise between the two. I'd suggest you get those probes checked out, and if they are OK, then the scope.
@poynt99,
Thank you for your suggestion. Mr. Zhou is an ATTEN DSO retailer. I shall get him to check all my ATTENs sometime next week. I shall ask him to focus on the "DC Offset" puzzle.
I just came back from the Tektronics Dealer in Hong Kong. He said that there is sudder interest in the high end 4-CH versions. At least one customer has placed an order. He does not have these high end versions in stock. Seeds turning into ......
A rather obvious test would be to swap the probes between channels. If the noise follows the probe to the other channel, then you know the probe is bad. If it doesn't, then you know the scope's noisy channel is bad.
Yet again I ask. How was the large voltage discrepancy noted during the probe compensation discussion resolved? What caused it, how did you correct it, and can we be assured somehow that it is in fact now corrected?
Is there some reason why the DC offset issue can't be tested right now, at home, using a known low-voltage source?
For a first test, take a 10 megohm resistor and a 100K resistor and connect them in series. Hook both scope probes from one oscilloscope to the junction of the two resistors. Hook up a AA battery, positive pole to the 10 meg free end and negative pole to the 100K free end. All probe references to the negative pole. Use an accurate DMM to measure the voltage between the junction of the resistors and the negative pole.
Now look at the voltages seen by each probe/channel combination. Obviously they should all be the same, and the same as the DMM measures. If there is an offset problem it should show up as a difference in the readings of the channel vs. the DMM. Mark your probes and swap them around on the scopes and channels..... 4 probes and 2 channels per scope means 12 tests per scope. This might actually take you half-an-hour to perform the whole series.
(Check all probes are at 10x attenuation and that all channels are also set for 10x attenuation probes. Do not use the "default setup" or "auto" functions of the scope; set each channel for DC coupling, no BW limit, zero baseline on the center graticule (overlap both traces so that you can see any differences) and the appropriate vertical amp setting (20 mV/div if possible). The timebase setting shouldn't matter since you are measuring DC here. Set the trigger at the zero baseline.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2013, 07:52:59 AM
A rather obvious test would be to swap the probes between channels. If the noise follows the probe to the other channel, then you know the probe is bad. If it doesn't, then you know the scope's noisy channel is bad.
Lawrence, very easy to do as per TK's suggestion above.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2013, 07:52:59 AM
A rather obvious test would be to swap the probes between channels. If the noise follows the probe to the other channel, then you know the probe is bad. If it doesn't, then you know the scope's noisy channel is bad.
Yet again I ask. How was the large voltage discrepancy noted during the probe compensation discussion resolved? What caused it, how did you correct it, and can we be assured somehow that it is in fact now corrected?
@TK
I just followed your advice and swapped the probes. The result is the same. So the problem most probably lies with the
scope.
One of the boards you refered to showed unusual
high voltage output and hence high COP. My mistake was to return it to Mr. Zhou together with the
"rejects". His people "recycled" some components without a thorough investigation. The rejects were replaced by good ones.
Now I am
keeping the rejects. I do not have the expertise to indentify the problem. So they are just being stored until I can find the right person to check them out. If you are interested, I can send you some of these rejects and you can tell us what might be wrong with them.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
Is there some reason why the DC offset issue can't be tested right now, at home, using a known low-voltage source?
For a first test, take a 10 megohm resistor and a 100K resistor and connect them in series. Hook both scope probes from one oscilloscope to the junction of the two resistors. Hook up a AA battery, positive pole to the 10 meg free end and negative pole to the 100K free end. All probe references to the negative pole. Use an accurate DMM to measure the voltage between the junction of the resistors and the negative pole.
Now look at the voltages seen by each probe/channel combination. Obviously they should all be the same, and the same as the DMM measures. If there is an offset problem it should show up as a difference in the readings of the channel vs. the DMM. Mark your probes and swap them around on the scopes and channels..... 4 probes and 2 channels per scope means 12 tests per scope. This might actually take you half-an-hour to perform the whole series.
(Check all probes are at 10x attenuation and that all channels are also set for 10x attenuation probes. Do not use the "default setup" or "auto" functions of the scope; set each channel for DC coupling, no BW limit, zero baseline on the center graticule (overlap both traces so that you can see any differences) and the appropriate vertical amp setting (20 mV/div if possible). The timebase setting shouldn't matter since you are measuring DC here. Set the trigger at the zero baseline.)
TK,
This is a good idea, however, the divider resistance should be lower to reduce errors. With 10meg probes (10X probes and 1meg scope input) and using the 10meg/100K dividerstring, probe loading will produce way too much error. Better to use a 1K and 10R resistor in series with the free ends across the battery to minimize errors due to probe loading.
Better yet, using 100R and 1R would allow his test measurement to be made with the probe connected to a resistance similar to the CSR's and in a similar voltage range. A fresh AA battery can handle the ca. 15ma load of the 100R/1R string for an time adequate to make the measurement, or he could use his DC supply set to 1.5V.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 02, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
Is there some reason why the DC offset issue can't be tested right now, at home, using a known low-voltage source?.......
@TK
I do not have an accurate "known low voltage source " at home. Since the problem appears to be with the Atten Scope and at least one of them is still
under warranty, I shall get the manufacturer to check it out with their experts.
All my
three Atten Scopes showed the crossing 0 reference line behavior. If it were a bug, the manufacturer
would be and
should be interested. They need to fix it or provide a solution for their customers.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 02, 2013, 05:16:41 PM
All my three Atten Scopes showed the crossing 0 reference line behavior. If it were a bug, the manufacturer would be and should be interested. They need to fix it or provide a solution for their customers.
Can you borrow an analog scope? If so, check your current trace and let us know what you find.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2013, 05:34:05 PM
Can you borrow an analog scope? If so, check your current trace and let us know what you find.
.99,
Sorry. In my previous post I referred to that formula as the "DC offset spec".
I meant to say "DC measurement accuracy".
Here are the specs again:
DC measurement accuracy:
±[3%X（|reading|+|offset|）+1% of |offset|+0.2div+2mv]
DC gain accuracy:
≤±3.0%: 5mv/div to 5V/div in Fixed Gain Ranges
≤±4.0%:typical for 2mv/div and Variable Gain Ranges
There really is no "offset spec" per se, other than inferred by the DC measurement accuracy.
PW
PW,
For interest sake, the Tek DPO4054 spec sheet states "±1.5%, derated at 0.10%/°C above 30 °C" for DC Gain accuracy.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 02, 2013, 07:50:29 PM
PW,
For interest sake, the Tek DPO4054 spec sheet states "±1.5%, derated at 0.10%/°C above 30 °C" for DC Gain accuracy.
.99,
I saw that in your scope's manual.
In this spec:
DC measurement accuracy:
±[3%X（|reading|+|offset|）+1% of |offset|+0.2div+2mv]
Assuming the term "offset" is the distance the trace is positioned relative to the graticule center, and the way the above is written, would you read that last part "+0.2div+2mv" as separate from the preceding "1% of [offset]" expression?
That is, with the vert sensitivity set to 20mv/div, does "+0.2div+2mv" actually, all by itself, add +/-6mv to the accuracy spec? (.2x20mv+2mv). Possibly they dropped a bracket or two as a typo, but I checked several different manuals for a few models and all were written as above.
If that does indeed add +/-6mv by itself, by the time one adds in the rest of the expression and throws in the DC gain error spec as well, 12-14mv may not be all that far out of spec.
PW
ADDED: Also, Lawrence should check to see if he has the latest firmware installed. I read somewhere aout an issue with these scopes llocking up or doing something wierd when the "power on cal" reached the offset portion of that procedure. A firmware update was issued which was supposed to correct the problem.
Quote from: picowatt on May 02, 2013, 08:13:37 PM
.99,
I saw that in your scope's manual.
In this spec:
DC measurement accuracy:
±[3%X（|reading|+|offset|）+1% of |offset|+0.2div+2mv]
Assuming the term "offset" is the distance the trace is positioned relative to the graticule center, and the way the above is written, would you read that last part "+0.2div+2mv" as separate from the preceding "1% of [offset]" expression?
That is, with the vert sensitivity set to 20mv/div, does "+0.2div+2mv" actually, all by itself, add +/-6mv to the accuracy spec? (.2x20mv+2mv). Possibly they dropped a bracket or two as a typo, but I checked several different manuals for a few models and all were written as above.
If that does indeed add +/-6mv by itself, by the time one adds in the rest of the expression and throws in the DC gain error spec as well, 12-14mv may not be all that far out of spec.
PW
ADDED: Also, Lawrence should check to see if he has the latest firmware installed. I read somewhere aout an issue with these scopes llocking up or doing something wierd when the "power on cal" reached the offset portion of that procedure. A firmware update was issued which was supposed to correct the problem.
@PW,
Two ADS1062CA were purchased over 3 years ago. As far as I know, no firmware update was applied.
The ADS1062CAL was purchased in Dec 2012. It is still under warranty.
***
If that does indeed add +/-6mv by itself, by the time one adds in the rest of the expression and throws in the DC gain error spec as well, 12-14mv may not be all that far out of spec.
***
What does that really mean? The Atten Scope may be
unreliable when voltage drops to that level? :(
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 02, 2013, 11:40:08 PM
@PW,
Two ADS1062CA were purchased over 3 years ago. As far as I know, no firmware update was applied.
The ADS1062CAL was purchase in Dec 2012. It is still under warranty.
***
If that does indeed add +/-6mv by itself, by the time one adds in the rest of the expression and throws in the DC gain error spec as well, 12-14mv may not be all that far out of spec.
***
What does that really mean? The Atten Scope may be unreliable when voltage drops to that level? :(
Lawrence,
DC measurement accuracy:
±[3%X（|reading|+|offset|）+1% of |offset|+0.2div+2mv]
The above formula from the ADS1000 series manual specifies the accuracy of the scope when performing DC measurements. I am assuming that the expression [offset] means the distance in volts that the trace is set above or below the center of the graticule. Let's assume the scope is set to 20mv per division and the trace is offset from the center of the graticule by 20mv (one full division. Let us also assume the reading at a given point is 6mv.
The first part of the formula is [3%X(reading+offset), or .03X(6mv+20mv) whivh equals .78mv. To that we are to add 1% of the offset, which is .01X20mv or another .2mv. At this point we are at +/-.8mv, which is quite reasonable.
However, I am concerned with the manner in which the last expression is written. If it was written with additional brackets as "+1% of [offset+(0.2div+2mv)]", that last part would only bring the total error up to +/-1.04mv, which would be useable.
However, the way it is written, the expression "+0.2div+2mv" could amount to adding an additional 6mv to the total error, which would make the spec +/-6.78mv, which is pretty bad considering we would be measuring 6mv with an accuracy of +/-6.78mv. That would mean the measurement could be anywhere in between 12.78mv and -.78mv. That's pretty bad and also very difficult to believe.
It is very likely that a typo was made when this specification was printed and they did indeed mean to place additional brackets, which would make the DC measurement error of the 6mv in this example +/-1.04mv, that, while not great, is much better than the case where the brackets are eliminated (+/-6.78mv). It is just a bit strange that they did actually include similar brackets () in the first part of the formula to remove all ambiguity, yet did not do so in the second part. Also note that in the first part of the expression they use "+/-3%X()" as opposed to the second part that uses "+1%of [offset]+".
It might be worth emailing the factory to see if they did indeed mean to add the additional brackets into the formula. After looking at it a bit further, this specification would make way more sense if the additional brackets were indeed meant to be there, or at least if they intended the formua to be used as if they were there, so I would not yet "panick" regarding this until receiving further clarification from the factory.
DC gain accuracy:
≤±3.0%: 5mv/div to 5V/div in Fixed Gain Ranges
≤±4.0%:typical for 2mv/div and Variable Gain Ranges
DC gain error is basically how accurate the volts per division settings are, i.e., when at 20mv per division fixed gain, a division is somewhere between 19.4 and 20.6mv, which is pretty good.
Firmware:
I would get on the factory website and search for "firmware updates" and your model number to see what the latest rev. number is. Also, there is likely a way to poll your scopes to see what their current firmware versions are (possibly they display that as it boots). If yours is not the latest version, consider updating the firmware.
As I said, I read somewhere that there was an issue with the automatic "power on" calibration procedure during boot up regarding the offset correcting portion of that procedure. But, as I recall, it had more to do with the unit hanging up at that point. Still, the latest firmware is likely advisable.
In your recent shorted probe captures, your offset looked much better than it appeared in previous captures. You might try an input current measurement with CH2 (the CSR channel) positioned to the center of the graticule as it is in those shorted probe captures and after having pressed the "default settings" button as you said you did (I assume you adjusted Vert sensitivity, etc after you did that). It is possible you had something set strangely that may have looked like offset.
On that noisey channel, what happens if you turn off the bandwidth limit? Does it get worse or better?
To check measurement error and offst, as TK suggested, you could use a resistive divider. Solder one end of a 100ohm resistor to one end of a 1 ohm resistor. Connect the free end of the 100R to the battery plus terminal and the free end of the 1R to the battery minus terminal. Connect scope probe grounds to battery minus and the probe tips to the junction of the two resistors. Use !% resistors and a fresh AA battery. With exactly 1.5V at the battery, the junction of the two resistors should measure 14.8mv.
You can use a DMM to measure across at the resistors' junction as well to double check against what the scope reads. Use the DMM to measure the battery voltage, the junction of the resistors will measure (Vbatt divided by 101), or 14.8mv with 1.5V at the battery.
PW
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 02, 2013, 05:01:56 PM
@TK
I just followed your advice and swapped the probes. The result is the same. So the problem most probably lies with the scope.
Correct.
Quote
One of the boards you refered to showed unusual high voltage output and hence high COP. My mistake was to return it to Mr. Zhou together with the "rejects". His people "recycled" some components without a thorough investigation. The rejects were replaced by good ones.
The voltage discrepancy that I have been asking about was NOT with one of your boards. It was when you posted the traces from the scope's calibrator output. One of your probe/channel combos showed an excessively high voltage _From the Calibrator_ and so was introducing a large error. This could not have been a simple compensation issue, it was a discrepancy of several times the proper voltage level, IIRC.
I've attached the calibration traces you posted, before compensation adjustment, below. Each and every channel should be displaying the _same_ voltage level--- from the calibrator output. But as you can see... I hope.... the "Scope1 Channel 2" trace is indicating nearly 17 volts as the peak level of the square wave output.
For about the seventh time.... what caused this discrepancy, how did you resolve it, and can you PLEASE show a new set of calibration traces that are all properly obtained, and properly displayed, so that we may know that these basic calibration issues are resolved, or at least identified.
Quote
Now I am keeping the rejects. I do not have the expertise to indentify the problem. So they are just being stored until I can find the right person to check them out. If you are interested, I can send you some of these rejects and you can tell us what might be wrong with them.
You should have kept ALL your boards until all the problems we have identified are resolved. Your claims of OU are not supported by your data, which at this point seem to be indicating NOT OVERUNITY.... but rather, that a cheap tool is no bargain.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 02, 2013, 05:16:41 PM
@TK
I do not have an accurate "known low voltage source " at home. Since the problem appears to be with the Atten Scope and at least one of them is still under warranty, I shall get the manufacturer to check it out with their experts.
All my three Atten Scopes showed the crossing 0 reference line behavior. If it were a bug, the manufacturer would be and should be interested. They need to fix it or provide a solution for their customers.
As I posted and as PW corrected with proper resistor values, a simple voltage divider made of a couple of resistors in series, and connected to a AA battery or to your power supply set to 1.5 volts, will be just fine, as long as you have an accurate DMM for a crosscheck.
And I believe you have some kind of Platinum Visa card to draw upon. Please spend a few dollars and obtain a voltage reference, like the 35 or 61 dollar boards or the 3 dollar chip that I told you about earlier. Surely you can see that a person who claims OU based on small voltage measurements MUST be able to show that the voltage measurements are correct, and this requires measurement of a KNOWN STANDARD. The only known standard that we have seen is your scope's calibrator output... which cannot be trusted, apparently.
The ATTEN scopes are what they are. The manufacturer may be interested in the poor performance of the one channel on the one scope, but there are reasons why the ATTEN scopes are so cheap and the Tektronix scopes are so expensive.... and one reason is accuracy.
@PW,
I shall try to get in touch with the ATTEN Experts asap and resolve the issue. A 12-14 mV error will be too much when the reading is 6mV! The typical CH2 Vavg reads from 8mV to -30mV or more. The 8mV falls within the error range. There maybe no crossing the 0 reference line effect. (Even though the screen capture and the video both showed such effects.) Cannot believe what you see???
I shall wait for the Expert Comments before doing any more tests - playing with my grand daughters is much more enjoyable and less confusing.
You are getting lots of expert comments here already.
Let me review a few points.
1. The AC vs. DC input coupling issue. You didn't understand the significance or use of this setting and many of your initial experiments and data captures were made using an AC coupled channel, which invalidates that data for power measurements. Hopefully you now understand the coupling issue, how it's done in the scope, and the significance and usage of each input coupling mode.
2. The probe compensation issue. Evidently, much of your data was taken with large probe errors caused by improper compensation adjustment and some kind of large voltage discrepancy. This invalidates _all_ of the data taken up to the point when you checked and adjusted your probe compensation, and even afterwards if that probe/channel voltage problem.... which you _still_ haven't explained or even addressed.... isn't cured.
3. The issue of the directionality of current at the input current sensing resistor. It seems that the "negative" current values were being incorrectly interpreted by you to indicate reversed current flow and hence your "negative" COP numbers resulting. Now I think we've gotten that bit straight, and you realize that negative values here mean normal ordinary current, and power flowing out of the battery to dissipate in the circuit, not the other way around. Many of your recent experimental analyses claiming "negative COP" values, up to the point where this issue was understood by you, are invalid.
4. The issue of the need to adjust the input battery voltage value measured at the probe, by subtracting the (negative) voltage drop at the CVR. This required some review of basic algebra (subtracting a negative number is the same as adding its absolute value) and also means that your earlier, uncorrected data reflect an input battery voltage that is lower than the actual input battery voltage. The proper correction, when made, takes your measurements further away from OU because the true input power is greater than what you calculated and reported. Your data and conclusions up to the point of this correction are invalid because you don't have the correct input power figures.
5. The presently discussed issue of the DC offset, or rather the voltage measurement accuracy of the Atten scope/channel/probe combos. Apparently you shipped a board to .99 that DID show OU performance on your scopes and spreadsheet analysis, but when he tested it using a more accurate oscilloscope he found no OU indications, and particularly not the "reversed" current implied by a zero-crossing measurement. Do you have any reports at all from anyone you've sent your boards to, who have tested them on more accurate equipment than the Atten scopes? We are in the middle of this issue at present so one can't yet say just when or how this issue invalidates your experimental data..... but until we get some measurements from known accurate test kit, we have to take the position that your OU readings are likely due to the inaccuracy of your low-end DSOs. Precision and accuracy are not the same thing, but both are clearly needed to support any revolutionary claims.
Other issues regarding the spreadsheet data analysis are also relevant, but I haven't spent time analyzing them.... yet.
Lawrence,
On your ATTEN scope, can the bandwidth be set differently on each channel? On the Tek scope it can. As PW alluded to, the difference in apparent noise could be due to different BW settings on both channels. A 20MHz BW will most likely appear less noisy than the full 100MHz setting.
I would suggest you try the 20MHz setting on both channels. This is what I did on the Tek scope measurements. The reason I did this?; the triggering was much more stable this way, and it made no difference in the measurement results.
The channel BW limit can be set individually for each channel. But as you can see in the scopeshot below, it is the channel WITH bandwidth limit "on" that has the noisier signal, complete with some small positive DC offset.
The channel vertical settings are inside the red box, and the inverse highlighted "B" indicates BWL on.
I've also attached the Atten manual for easy reference.
Thanks for the info TK.
If the BW limit is already on, then that channel would seem even more suspect to me.
I'll try this with the Tek and see if there is a difference in the apparent noise floor.
BW level OFF for both channels.
Noisy channel behavior disappeared.
So now there is excessive noise on Ch2, and there is still a slight DC offset on Ch1.
Both channels, with probes shorted, should be reading a plain, straight, noisefree line, at exactly the level of the channel's baseline indicator.
BW Limit ON should definitely NOT add noise to a grounded channel.
If this is not the case, then there is something wrong somewhere.
Here are my DPO4054 BW vs. Noise results, with probe shorted and set on 20mV/Div.:
20MHz ~ 600uVrms
250MHz ~ 1000uVrms
500MHz (Full) ~ 1000uVrms
There is a noticeable visible difference (increase) in the noise floor going from a BW of 20MHz to a BW of 250MHz. This should be as expected.
Of the above readings, about 130uV is DC offset.
I just completed some Input Power tests with board #33 using the voltmeter method and scope method for comparison, and it seems the voltmeter measurement gives a result consistently about 8% higher than the scope. I tested a range from about 6mW to about 35mW Input Power.
As channel averaging and record length is increased, the scope begins to approach the voltmeter readings, but never quite reaches it.
So for example, down in the 6mW range, the meters will compute to about 6.6mW and the scope about 6mW. At a range of 35mW, the meters will compute to 35mW, and the scope about 32mW.
Lawrence,
I suggest the following:
1. Perfom another board test using your scopes just as you normally do. If your input scope continues to show the input current crossing above the zero line, save the capture and immediately do the following:
2. Without changing ANY scope settings, disconnect the battery B+ connection and perform another capture. If a trigger is required, select "line" or "free run" in trigger settings but make no other changes, particularly with regard to the vertical channel setings. The reading you receive at this point should be zero volts DC or very close to it. Any measured/displayed voltage would be DC offset.
3. Again, without changing any scope settings, and while the battery B+ remains disconnected as in the previous step, clip a 100 ohm resistor between the battery B+ terminal and the end of the input CSR opposite the battery B- terminal. If necessary, move the channel 1 probe which is measuring input voltage to the end of the 100 ohm resistor that is connected to B+ so that channel 1 continues to measure the battery voltage. The voltage measured on channel two, the input CSR, should be equal to -Vbatt divided by 101 (that is, -14.8mv with 1.5V Vbatt). This test allows a determination of any channel 2 gain error.
Perform these three tests and then post screen captures of your results.
PW
Conversation with the Church Members whom I gave some Boards to.
Tseung: "There are some doubts on my DSO analysis. The Input Current may never cross the 0 reference line. The much more expensive Tektronics DSO does not show that crossing."
Member 1: "We have been following the overunity.com postings."
Member 2: "You have defined a procedure based on Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current. You have the circuit diagram and the analysis steps. Are those still correct?"
Tseung: "Yes. That equation can be applied to DC, AC or pulsed systems. It cannot be wrong."
Member 3: "If the Atten cannot provide the accuracy at the 10mV level, you have nothing to be ashamed of. The researchers in this field now know that the cheaper tool does not work. They must have a high end DSO."
Member 1: "They can still rely on the Atten for comparison purposes. For example, a 5-inch one- thousand turn toroid may generate much higher Output Power than the existing one. Every tool has a limitation."
Member 2: "We can help you to find organizations or universities with high end DSOs in Hong Kong. Just look at our weekly donation figures. God helps those who help themselves."
Member 3: "You have done the right thing. If you hide in the closet and never post anything or give us any boards, we never know how to help. Now it is easy. You need high end DSOs and experts who know how to use them."
God Bless.
God may help those who help themselves... but You, Lawrence, have received a LOT of help, real help, from the people on this thread, notably PicoWatt, .99, and me. Who helps us?
I myself have actually spent a few dollars of my own money and quite a bit of time helping you to understand your own tools and measurements. Imagine your position had we here not pushed and prodded and pleaded and explained and reproduced and tested your claims here in this thread. You would be claiming your extraordinary results, based on uncompensated, uncalibrated, error-prone and inaccurate measurements, obtained incorrectly and analyzed incorrectly, and as soon as anyone competent who received your board hooked it up to a proper oscilloscope they would know your errors.
It's too bad that you already have all these boards out there in the wild.... every one with your name on it, every one with your claims attached to it, and every one of them NOT overunity in any way. Some of us urged caution and restraint, you may recall, but you in your enthusiasm wanted to sow your seeds. It is really a shame that your seeds are all rotten, not what they are claimed to be, and in the final end-- are an expensive waste of time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2013, 06:30:46 AM
It is really a shame that your seeds are all rotten, not what they are claimed to be, and in the final end-- are an expensive waste of time.
spot-on
Lawrence,
You seem to have forgotten this post:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg359036/#msg359036 (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg359036/#msg359036)
where I clearly show that a high-end scope IS NOT REQUIRED to demonstrate that the input current trace does not ever cross the 0-reference axis.
This of course would confirm that recharge current never goes back to the battery or capacitor as you have suggested.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2013, 10:19:08 AM
Lawrence,
You seem to have forgotten this post:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg359036/#msg359036 (http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg359036/#msg359036)
where I clearly show that a high-end scope IS NOT REQUIRED to demonstrate that the input current trace does not ever cross the 0-reference axis. *** But it is still required to show reliable Input and Output analysis results.
This of course would confirm that recharge current never goes back to the battery or capacitor as you have suggested.
@poynt99
Buying a
new analog oscilloscope in Hong Kong is not that easy. It is like buying a DOS based PC. Retailers just do not carry them anymore.
Another piece of good news from this work is:
(1) A wealthy individual (not interested in financial returns) is willing to
donate the necessary funds to get a high end DSO.
(2) A group of "poor" inventors are willing to
work together on this Lead-out Energy field. Some of them are working on Joule Ringer and other circuits. They are happy to have the use of high end DSOs and share the experience and expertise.
(3) A Lawmaker is willing to
discuss the possibility of Public Fund Support for "research centers" open to the General Public. He feels that it constitutes "meaningful economic activities". Hong Kong should not depend on finance (stock and property speculation?) totally for its long term future.
Thanks for showing the results on your high end 4-CH Tektronics. It helped all researchers.
God works in mysterious ways.
The cheap (no oscilloscope) video seems to indicate charging and draining of battery with capacitor in the circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBR9lO2ISGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBR9lO2ISGs)
What does that mean?
Lawrence,
I did not say you had to use a NEW analog scope. There is a China version of ebay; so surely you could buy a used one there for $100 or less.
http://www.ebay.cn/ (http://www.ebay.cn/)
Also, you do not have to use an analog oscilloscope to verify your findings. Borrow anyone's scope, as long as it is NOT an ATTEN brand, nor one made by the same manufacturer.
What about Mr. Zhou? Does he not have several different brands of scope for sale? Could you ask him to verify the current trace with a different model?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 05, 2013, 05:58:25 PM
The cheap (no oscilloscope) video seems to indicate charging and draining of battery with capacitor in the circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBR9lO2ISGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBR9lO2ISGs)
What does that mean?
It means that your DMM is trying to "lock on" to a signal that is actually a pulse train instead of a steady signal. The meter has a time constant over which it averages its instant input values for display. It does not mean that your system is "charging and draining" its battery, it means that you are looking at a flag flapping in the wind, by blinking your eyes rapidly. Sometimes you see the flag on one side of the pole, sometimes the other, but the flag remains attached even when your eyes are completely closed.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2013, 06:26:57 PM
Lawrence,
I did not say you had to use a NEW analog scope. There is a China version of ebay; so surely you could buy a used one there for $100 or less.
http://www.ebay.cn/ (http://www.ebay.cn/)
Also, you do not have to use an analog oscilloscope to verify your findings. Borrow anyone's scope, as long as it is NOT an ATTEN brand, nor one made by the same manufacturer.
What about Mr. Zhou? Does he not have several different brands of scope for sale? Could you ask him to verify the current trace with a different model?
Based on what we've seen in this thread, I am skeptical about Lawrence's ability to interpret a graphical display at all. When we were discussing probe compensation, for example, he did not seem to realize what the traces from the calibrator were showing, or why they were incorrect.
I don't want to seem insulting, but Lawrence has his hands full with this most simple DSO. I shudder to think of the problems that might arise when he starts trying to use a good analog scope with features like delayed triggering, but with no onscreen display of numerical values and no way to dump data to a spreadsheet for mashup.
(And he STILL hasn't answered the questions about the one probe/channel combo that was indicating 15 volts or more when it should have indicated 3 1/2 or so. Is this because he simply cannot interpret the graphical display, so he doesn't understand that there is an issue there?)
I'm trying to encourage Lawrence to use any other oscilloscope, including any analog scope he may come across. The goal being of course to verify that current trace. Most 20MHz scopes I have come across are fairly basic in their operation, and shouldn't be too difficult to manage. If there are problems, we can help.
Here's this, though. For under 600 USD (4500 HKD) you can get a high-quality 60 MHz digital oscilloscope, along with the spectrum analyzer/measurement module, with serial port for data output to computer.
http://hongkong.craigslist.hk/ele/3702060042.html
I would be more than proud to have an instrument setup like this in my laboratory. I would be ecstatic.
Awww.... it's got a monochrome screen though.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 05, 2013, 06:48:07 PM
I'm trying to encourage Lawrence to use any other oscilloscope, including any analog scope he may come across. The goal being of course to verify that current trace. Most 20MHz scopes I have come across are fairly basic in their operation, and shouldn't be too difficult to manage. If there are problems, we can help.
I agree, of course.... I have been trying to get him to use other forms of measurement for some time now, even finding the contact information for a local HongKong test equipment rental company for him. I've lost a lot of faith in the last few days though, since he's not willing to do the simple tests that PW, you and I have asked for using his present gear. And especially since the real progress that has occurred has been all in this thread, identifying his errors and the scope's inaccuracies, yet the benefits from this work are not coming to us... rather, his church seems to want to use its member donations to buy still more fancy equipment, which will only tell him the same things that we have been telling him for weeks. Yes, I resent it somewhat when someone else benefits financially from my freely donated efforts, and they don't even acknowledge that fact.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2013, 07:06:07 PM
I agree, of course.... I have been trying to get him to use other forms of measurement for some time now, even finding the contact information for a local HongKong test equipment rental company for him. I've lost a lot of faith in the last few days though, since he's not willing to do the simple tests that PW, you and I have asked for using his present gear. And especially since the real progress that has occurred has been all in this thread, identifying his errors and the scope's inaccuracies, yet the benefits from this work are not coming to us... rather, his church seems to want to use its member donations to buy still more fancy equipment, which will only tell him the same things that we have been telling him for weeks. Yes, I resent it somewhat when someone else benefits financially from my freely donated efforts, and they don't even acknowledge that fact.
I hereby acknowledge the contribution of TK, PW, Poynt99 and others to bring out the scientific truth in this thread. The simple JT is unlikely to show OU. But their efforts have help to identify a
procedure and the use of a
high end DSO to get correct Input and Output Power measurement. This will benefit all researchers.
I shall let Mr. Zhou and the Atten Technical Support to work on the issues related to the Atten and they can read this thread. l shall take Poynt99's advice and use
another Brand of DSO being sold by Mr. Zhou. (I may even get the 4-CH tektronics in a few weeks and the properly trained people in Hong Kong to help.)
I should have started these postings three years ago when I first got the Atten. I
never mastered all its functions (just like I never mastered those on my mobile phone). The students read the instruction manual and helped to set it up. Poynt99 may still remember that I used Voltage Vrms and Current Vrms to get the Tseung Comparison index for my different badly soldered prototypes.....
Deliberately
exposing one's limitations for all to see and learn has its benefits.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 05, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
I hereby acknowledge the contribution of TK, PW, Poynt99 and others to bring out the scientific truth in this thread.
The simple JT is unlikely to show OU. But their efforts have help to identify a procedure and the use of a high end DSO to get correct Input and Output Power measurement. This will benefit all researchers.
I shall let Mr. Zhou and the Atten Technical Support to work on the issues related to the Atten and they can read this thread. l shall take Poynt99's advice and use another Brand of DSO being sold by Mr. Zhou. (I may even get the 4-CH tektronics in a few weeks and the properly trained people in Hong Kong to help.)
I should have started these postings three years ago when I first got the Atten. I never mastered all its functions (just like I never mastered those on my mobile phone). The students read the instruction manual and helped to set it up. Poynt99 may still remember that I used Voltage Vrms and Current Vrms to get the Tseung Comparison index for my different badly soldered prototypes.....
Deliberately exposing one's limitations for all to see and learn has its benefits.
I have nothing useful to contribute, I just want to quote (above) incase he decides to recant. "The simple JT is unlikely to show OU."
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 05, 2013, 07:59:43 PM
I hereby acknowledge the contribution of TK, PW, Poynt99 and others to bring out the scientific truth in this thread.
(snip)
That's great, thank you, I feel so much better now.
But who is picking up the tab for all that Divine Wine?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2013, 04:40:32 AM
That's great, thank you, I feel so much better now.
But who is picking up the tab for all that Divine Wine?
@TK
Do not worry about "who" picks up the tab. Poynt99's 4-CH Tektronics costs LESS than one bottle of his fine wine. His family fortune is within Forb's wealthiest 100. More money does not mean much to him or his family. ***Many tourists from China now buy luxury items. Some handbags or watches cost more than the Tektronics. Which one is more useful? Which one is likely to create more "meaningful economic activities"?
*** Had a pleasant dinner with Ms. Forever Yuen and her boyfriend. Forever is the one who introduced the students to help me a few years back. They will help as needed.
I am sure of one think about the joule thief, that there is no OU, in fact it is rather than a economizer of energy, the more you are in the resonance frequency, the lesser energy is consumed, And as it is impossible to arrive at the exact resonance it is impossible to have 0 watt consumed.
I hope I'm not mistaken. :-\
If you want proof , just run JT from a charged capacitor of less then 1 farad for a week duration. Possible ? No ? So, you have nothing..... >:(
Step back to the "energy saving" part of the demonstration.
1. Put the 2.3V 1 Farad Capacitor in parallel with the Battery or DC Power Supply. Let the initial charging be about 1 minute.
2. Disconnect the Battery for 2 minutes. The LED should be brightly ON at the end of the 2 minutes.
3. Connect the Battery back for about 10 seconds. The LED appeared to be brightly ON with no dimming.
4. Repeat Step 2 and Step 3 a couple of times. Convince yourself that the LED appeared to be equally bright from the naked eye.
5. Hook up the DSO (may need the Tektronic 4-CH to be accurate). Get the Average Input Power during the 10 Second Interval. Get the Average Output Power during the 2 Minute Interval.
6. The Input Energy can be estimated as the Average Input Power x 10 seconds. The Output Energy can be estimated as the Average Output Power x 120 seconds.
The Atten gives a much higher Output Energy value but since its accuracy is in doubt, I shall delay posting the figures. I hope Poynt99 can do this above experiment with his Scope.
An end user used an automatic timer to implement the above and claimed considerable energy savings compared with supplying energy all the time. Is this a better energy saving lighting system?
The setup may not be OU but is it energy saving???
No. The process of charging a capacitor from a battery is a lossy process.
However, using a capacitor as an input power source is a good way to check your claim of overunity or excess efficiency, because the energy in a capacitor can be known precisely, unlike the energy in a battery. The energy in a cap in Joules is simply (CV2)/2 where C is capacitance in Farads and V is the charged voltage in volts.
So you can charge a cap to some voltage. Then you know the total input energy Ein available from the formula. Then you can let your JT run, monitoring the output as usual. The average power output in Watts times the time in seconds is the energy output Eout. Does Eout > Ein? (More properly the energy is equal to the time integral of the instantaneous power curve.)
More properly, you would charge your capacitor to a known precise voltage V1, then run the system until the capacitor voltage decreased to V2 and stop. The total energy input to the system is then (CV12)/2 - (CV22)/2, and this can be compared to the total Eout measured in your usual manner.
Lawrence,
It is highly unlikely that this is an energy saving setup. In fact it may be more wasteful than just leaving the battery connected all the time.
Every time the battery is connected to the capacitor, about half the energy is lost due to heating in the connection.
Lawrence,
Have you attempted to measure one of your boards using your scopes, and as you normally do, since pressing the "default settings" button? If not, you might consider doing so.
Before doing any tests, press "default settings" and then adjust settings as required (sweep, vertical sensitivity, trigger level and source, etc).
I am curious as to whether or not pressing "default settings" may have corrected some measurement errors (based on recent scope shots).
I continue to suggest that you perform the "3 step test" I recently proposed and post the results.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on May 06, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
Lawrence,
It is highly unlikely that this is an energy saving setup. In fact it may be more wasteful than just leaving the battery connected all the time.
Every time the battery is connected to the capacitor, about half the energy is lost due to heating in the connection.
@TK and poynt99,
I shall repeat the following experiment.
(1) Use a rechargeable AA battery with known voltage as source to the Board with
NO capacitor. The LED will be ON for a long time. The Battery will be connected all the time.
(2) Use a rechargeable AA battery with same known voltage as source to the Board with the capacitor. A twin timer will be connected. The AA battey will be connected 10 seconds and disconnected for 2 minutes. We can then compare the drop in voltage of the two batteries from time to time.
As I recall, case (2) Battery showed a much lower voltage drop - indicating an energy saving? But I should not rely on my memory. A new experiment is in order. I shall do it without the DSO first. I shall swap the boards to ensure validity. Will this be a conclusive experiment?
Quote from: picowatt on May 06, 2013, 01:04:34 PM
Lawrence,
Have you attempted to measure one of your boards using your scopes, and as you normally do, since pressing the "default settings" button? If not, you might consider doing so.
Before doing any tests, press "default settings" and then adjust settings as required (sweep, vertical sensitivity, trigger level and source, etc).
I am curious as to whether or not pressing "default settings" may have corrected some measurement errors (based on recent scope shots).
I continue to suggest that you perform the "3 step test" I recently proposed and post the results.
PW
@PW,
Yes. I have done more measurements since pressing the "default setup" button. I also deliberately press the "default setup" button first after warming up the scope for 1 hour and then do the usual experiment.
The crossing 0 reference behavior is still there. I shall meet Mr. Zhou this afternoon. I shall leave the Atten issue with the Atten Experts.
Lawrence,
As you described your experiment, of course it will be easy to extend the life of the battery's charge that way, but you are not measuring output power and energy and comparing.
With the battery, the LED load will be at a relatively high output power and will slowly decline as the battery voltage declines. This is normal. But by only charging the cap for 10 seconds every 2 minutes, you are allowing the output power to drop quite a bit in that 2 minute span of time, so in effect you are simply stretching out the time the battery will last and still have the LED put out a decent amount of light.
There is no OU in this scheme, but you may indeed extend the life of the battery on its single charge.
If you looked at this from the Energy perspective, both cases will be very close, with possibly less total energy going to the load in the case with the capacitor. If you could somehow turn down the voltage on the battery and leave it connected at all times, it would deliver less average power to the LED, and this would be accomplishing the very same thing you are doing with the cap.
What you have with your capacitor scheme, is a very crude step-down convertor.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 06, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
Lawrence,
It is highly unlikely that this is an energy saving setup. In fact it may be more wasteful than just leaving the battery connected all the time.
Every time the battery is connected to the capacitor, about half the energy is lost due to heating in the connection.
Really half the energy is lost due to heating? Really? What kind of wire you using resistive heating wire?
"If there's no resistance (even the smallest parasitic) in the circuit, with an inductor and capacitor, the oscillations will go on forever, and in that case the resistor-capacitor equation doesn't apply. But then how can we say that the capacitor reaches a final state of charge?
I've attached an analysis of the problem for the R-C and the R-L-C cases.
But, the fact that the energy that ends up in the capacitor in these two cases is only half the energy provided by the voltage source doesn't mean that every method of charging the capacitor loses half the energy from the source. I described two methods that don't suffer from that loss in a previous post."
So I would have to believe that not all the ways to charge a capacitor end up with 50% loss. As real technicians know not every circuit conforms to the ideal computations we present sometimes.
The previous post:
"As near as I can tell, the link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...capeng.html#c1
merely gives the classical formula for the energy stored in a capacitor, c*v^2/2, or q*v/2 which is the same thing. This formula is correct no matter how the capacitor gets charged.
However, it isn't correct to say that whenever a capacitor is charged from some kind of energy source, without exception, only half the energy provided by the source ends up in the capacitor.
Sometimes it is true, as in the case where a source of constant voltage is suddenly connected to a series combination of a resistor and capacitor.
If the circuit consists of an inductor in series with a capacitor, with negligible parasitic resistance, then suddenly connecting this circuit to a constant voltage source will transfer almost all of the energy provided by the source to the capacitor, IF the voltage source is disconnected at the right time, namely when the current goes to zero at the end of one half cycle of oscillation. A simple diode can provide this disconnect.
Another way to ensure that all the energy provided by the source ends up on the capacitor is to connect the capacitor to a variable voltage source initially set to zero, and then gradually turn up the voltage to some final value.
Even if there is a resistor of non-negligible size in series, if the voltage is turned up slowly so that the charging current remains small at all times, most of the energy ends up in the capacitor, with very little dissipated in the resistor.
This is what is described in your original third reference, in the vicinity of equations 13 and 14. By making the voltage steps smaller and more numerous, the effect is the same as turning up a variable voltage source gradually."
Post reference http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=292838
So we are agreed, apparently, that the energy on a capacitor, in Joules, is (CV2)/2, no matter how lossilly or ideally the capacitor is charged. (C in Farads, V in volts).
Why, then, is everyone avoiding doing the correct test of the JT's performance using a charged capacitor?
The circuit's output power can be monitored, and the total electrical energy output to the load can be easily calculated from the instantaneous power curve and the duration of the test run. The input energy over the test run can be known precisely, by knowing the voltage on the capacitor at the beginning and at the end of the timed test run interval. The input energy can then be directly compared to the output energy. What is so hard about this test? What does it matter how the capacitor is charged, as long as the output energy is greater than the input energy? Or is it......? We will never know, as long as those with the proper equipment (and an alleged OU device to test) refuse to perform it.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 06, 2013, 07:35:10 PM
Lawrence,
As you described your experiment, of course it will be easy to extend the life of the battery's charge that way, but you are not measuring output power and energy and comparing.
With the battery, the LED load will be at a relatively high output power and will slowly decline as the battery voltage declines. This is normal. But by only charging the cap for 10 seconds every 2 minutes, you are allowing the output power to drop quite a bit in that 2 minute span of time, so in effect you are simply stretching out the time the battery will last and still have the LED put out a decent amount of light.
There is no OU in this scheme, but you may indeed extend the life of the battery on its single charge.
If you looked at this from the Energy perspective, both cases will be very close, with possibly less total energy going to the load in the case with the capacitor. If you could somehow turn down the voltage on the battery and leave it connected at all times, it would deliver less average power to the LED, and this would be accomplishing the very same thing you are doing with the cap.
What you have with your capacitor scheme, is a very crude step-down convertor. *** But it can save electricity costs!
@poynt99,
In this case, I am not talking about OU. I am talking about savings in electricity bills.
It is possible that the same energy is "stretched out". The energy is pulsed to light the LED. So some of the time is idle (no electricity) time. The pulsing is so fast that the naked eye cannot see the difference. The LED appears to be of equal brightness. That is good enough for the end user. I also believe less energy is converted to heat.
*** The oscilloscope showed that the voltage at the capacitor dropped to 1.1V approximately at the end of the 2 minutes. So you are right in saying that we are actually supplying less energy to the LED as the NO capacitor case is almost a constant at 1.5V.
Trying to resolve the DC Offset Problem at Zhou's Shop.
(1) A UNI-T brand DSO was used as suggested by Poynt99. The display line was very thick and some crossing of the 0 ref line was seen.
(2) Mr. Zhou does not have the Tektronics in stock but he can order it at a relatively low price but the condition is that money has to be paid in full up front and there is no refund.
(3) Another new Atten was calibrated using the normal procedure recommended by Atten (pressing Default button and then the Auto buttorn etc.) The crossing of the 0 reference line was still seen but the actual value appeared less.
(4) Mr. Zhou believes that a 5-6mV variance or DC offset error is within the specification or limitation of the Atten. Using the 4-Ch tektronics may be the solution. (There were many requests for quotes with such high end equipment in the last few days. One Indian group asked for quotes while I was there.)
(5) Mr. Zhou suggested that I use different Atten Scopes on the same Board and check the variation. I have three in my bedroom. I have access to another two in Hong Kong. Mr. Zhou has dozens in stock. That may show clearly why the Tektronics is worth its price.
(6) Supporters' first reaction is - use the right equipment. The cost is small compared with the potential benefits. The "demonstrated" savings in electricity bills using the capacitor may already justify such expense.
More work but we are learning more. God Bless.
Lawrence,
I believe Instek is a fairly decent scope and I see Mr. Zhou sells those too. Could Mr. Zhou try one and see if there is an improvement?
Quote from: poynt99 on May 07, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
Lawrence,
I believe Instek is a fairly decent scope and I see Mr. Zhou sells those too. Could Mr. Zhou try one and see if there is an improvement?
@poynt99.
I am sure he will try if I ask. He is already making money on this "Lead-out energy" project.
First result from "Demonstrating longer battery life" with Demo Boards.
The results are as follows:
(1) Board 116 barebone JT with no capacitor.
Initial Battery Voltage = 1.318V
Battery Voltage after 24 hours = 1.252V
(2) Board 124 JT with capacitor and twin timer set to 10 seconds ON 2 minutes OFF
Initial Battery Voltage = 1.317V
Battery Voltage after 24 hours = 1.261V
This experiment will be continued for a few days/weeks until the LED is off?
The initial results indicate longer battery life. Does that translate to saving in electricity bills when properly implemented?
1. Where do those voltage numbers come from? What is the accuracy of your voltage measurement? Have you calibrated your voltage measurements against a known standard? This is absolutely necessary if you are reporting a claim that depends on a few milliVolts difference, as you are here.
2. "Apparent" brightness here is no good as a criterion for several reasons, not the least being observer bias. You absolutely need to have a reliable and accurate _instrumental_ measure of light output, especially if you are making a claim based on "similar" light outputs and voltage levels that differ by a few milliVolts.
I've already given you links for local experts with good test equipment, links for affordable and accurate voltage standards, and so on. Should I now find you a suitable method of measuring light intensity, or can you handle that search yourself?
3. We need to see the schematic for your timer in the black box. Many people have made the error of allowing power from their timer/clock/control electronics to make it through and add power to the system under test. Please show the exact schematic and hookup for your timer so that we can evaluate whether or not it might be also acting as a power supply to the circuit under test.
9 mv / 1250 mv == less than one percent. A result that is not different from noise, being smaller than the voltage measurement error of your oscilloscope, anyway.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2013, 02:26:02 AM
1. Where do those voltage numbers come from? What is the accuracy of your voltage measurement? Have you calibrated your voltage measurements against a known standard? This is absolutely necessary if you are reporting a claim that depends on a few milliVolts difference, as you are here.
2. "Apparent" brightness here is no good as a criterion for several reasons, not the least being observer bias. You absolutely need to have a reliable and accurate _instrumental_ measure of light output, especially if you are making a claim based on "similar" light outputs and voltage levels that differ by a few milliVolts.
I've already given you links for local experts with good test equipment, links for affordable and accurate voltage standards, and so on. Should I now find you a suitable method of measuring light intensity, or can you handle that search yourself?
3. We need to see the schematic for your timer in the black box. Many people have made the error of allowing power from their timer/clock/control electronics to make it through and add power to the system under test. Please show the exact schematic and hookup for your timer so that we can evaluate whether or not it might be also acting as a power supply to the circuit under test.
9 mv / 1250 mv == less than one percent. A result that is not different from noise, being smaller than the voltage measurement error of your oscilloscope, anyway.
Experoment will last for many days/weeks. If the difference is 1% per day. 10 days will be 10%. We can have multiple teams verifying the results. The cost of DMM and Twin Timer are much lower than DSOs.
Lawrence, you are very difficult to work with. I know that your command of written English is very good. Why, then, do you continually ignore the actual points that I and others make concerning your experimentation?
I did not ask you for a photograph of your instruments. I asked you for some evidence that they are reporting correct values ! You absolutely need a precisely known voltage source with which to calibrate your voltmeters and scopes! Absolute accuracy-- and repeatability-- is indeed important, even if you are merely comparing magnitudes -- you are claiming something extraordinary, and so your "proofs" must rise to the challenge.
I did not ask you for a photograph of your dual timer. I asked you for a schematic !
And you are likely incorrect that longer runs would result in greater percentage difference in the final voltages. You are also incorrect in your statement that accuracy of the timer is not important. And your subjective evaluation of light brightness is worth nothing at all -- please research "observer bias" also known as "experimenter bias" -- you absolutely do need repeatable, accurate and precise instrumental measurements of this parameter.
And you still have not answered the questions concerning the great voltage discrepancy that one of your probe/channel combos showed when reading the calibrator's output. The output should have read around 3.5 v but your scopeshot shows nearly FIVE TIMES that voltage. This calls into question all data obtained with that probe/channel combo, from the very beginning up until the time that you show that the problem is resolved, which you have not yet done, in spite of at least a half dozen requests.
Quote from: TinselKoala
...you are very difficult to work with.
...Why, then, do you continually ignore...
...I did not ask you for a photograph...
And you still have not answered the questions...
...which you have not yet done, in spite of
at least a half dozen requests.
Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?
How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.
Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?
I am putting the problems related to the DC offset on the Atten aside. It is very probable that I may have access to a 4-CH Tektronics in the near future.
The focus is on the energy saving aspects with twin timer 10 second ON and 2 minutes OFF. The experiment continues into day 2.
I do not think high accuracy or expensive equipment is needed in this case. Poynt99 has a demo board that can easily be ON without the battery for over 10 minutes. He can confirm that the LED hardly dims in the first 2 minutes. This is the "requirement" to develop a solution for at least 3 real organizations.
God Bless.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 09, 2013, 12:13:06 AM
Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?
How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.
Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?
What I have asked for is nothing more or less than basic requirements to support the claims being made, and would take a dedicated experimenter about half an hour to do. Voltage standards for calibration are basic. Understanding one's tools is basic. Schematics and/or detailed specifications of apparatus used are basic. Obtaining concurrently valid measurements by using different systems is basic. Calibrating your tools is basic.
Are we better off today? Apparently not, because it is still true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. However, anyone with the backing can evidently make all sorts of claims and pretend to support them with bad data, incorrectly obtained, while studiously avoiding any actual tests of the claims.
A capacitor can provide a known amount of input energy to the circuit over a known period of time. The output power can be monitored and the output energy can be calculated. The input energy can be compared to the output energy. A comprehensive series of experiments using this method might take a day or two to perform and would add real knowledge. Further, comparing two close brightness levels "by eye" in order to support some kind of overunity or enhanced efficiency claim is just silly. Lawrence has financial backing. Let him buy some proper test kit with it! A suitable light level meter of some kind. A voltage standard for calibration purposes. Let him rent a decent oscilloscope and an integrating power meter from the local test equipment rental company that I found for him. Even a simple paper chart recorder to monitor voltages over a long period of time would be nice to use on this kind of testing.
But instead we are running around HongKong providing fun and entertainment for a discount electronics broker and sending off NON_OU test boards to department secretaries all around the world.
Are we better off today?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 09, 2013, 12:53:34 AM
I am putting the problems related to the DC offset on the Atten aside.
Then you must also put "aside"... by retraction... all the data obtained from these inaccurate and improperly used bottom-end oscilloscopes until and unless the accuracy and precision issues are addressed and corrected. An honest scientist would make a public statement withdrawing conclusions based on faulty data from faulty test equipment.
QuoteIt is very probable that I may have access to a 4-CH Tektronics in the near future.
The focus is on the energy saving aspects with twin timer 10 second ON and 2 minutes OFF. The experiment continues into day 2.
I do not think high accuracy or expensive equipment is needed in this case. Poynt99 has a demo board that can easily be ON without the battery for over 10 minutes. He can confirm that the LED hardly dims in the first 2 minutes. This is the "requirement" to develop a solution for at least 3 real organizations.
God Bless.
If a timer is required to produce these results.... then the power used by the timer must be included in the input power to the system.
Plus, the "requirement" to show extra efficiency is to show that the electrical energy input is converted to light output with more efficiency. That means brighter light, and/or longer runs at the same light level. Since you have no instrumental measurements of light level, you have no data. Confirming visually that "the LED hardly dims in the first two minutes" is an anecdote, not a measurement that proves anything.
The following was sent to Mr. Zhou and the Atten Technical Support. I may have missed some firmware updates etc.
Both scopes showed crossing 0 ref line characteristics. But the values were very different. Both Scopes were re-calibrated according to the Instruction manual. (The comparison may not be fair as I used CH1 Vrms as the common point. The frequencies were clearly different).
That is why I prefer to wait for the Tektronics before doing more DSO analysis. My advice to researchers is - get access to a high end DSO. If you cannot have one in your lab, make sure you have acess to one somewhere.
God Bless.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 09, 2013, 12:13:06 AM
Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?
How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.
Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?
@SeaMonkey
Do not worry about the comments from TK. It is just his style. Once you get used to it, you can pick out the
valuable points and ignore the negative aspects. The good thing about internet posting is that you can just ignore certain points.
Appearing rude is acceptable in heated scientific discussions.
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.
Internet posting is different from publishing a top scientific paper. A top scientific paper takes months to prepare. Internet posting takes minutes. The standards are different. I just post results as I understand them at the moment of posting. Some mistakes or misunderstandings will be inevitable. But I had to admit that I learned much in this process. I think we are much better off today.....
God Bless.
Unfortunately TK is right. Charge capacitor, do what TK is asking and face the music.... ;D
Quote from: forest on May 09, 2013, 05:45:09 AM
Unfortunately TK is right. Charge capacitor, do what TK is asking and face the music.... ;D
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.
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?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 09, 2013, 08:19:00 AM
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?
QuoteI 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?
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
Quote from: TinselKoala
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...
Quote from: SeaMonkey on May 09, 2013, 03:15:03 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Void on May 09, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
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
The various JT threads on this forum document much more efficient JT circuits than this one here. The circuit under test here is the "JTBasic" circuit using a toroid and a 2n2222 transistor. Other transistors in this same circuit work "better" in the sense of being more efficient still, and slight modifications to the circuit, such as placing a 70 nF capacitor in parallel with the base resistor, make it even more efficient. If you get into optimizing the transformer, you can reach incredibly low levels of current input while still making appreciable light in a low voltage LED JT, and I've shown several times my HVJT which lights up six 90-volt NE-2 neons in series, from a single AAA battery, or even wirelessly without an onboard battery at all.
You can look thru the forum for Pirate's and Groundloop's and LaserSaber's and some other circuits for JTs that are amazingly efficient and powerful. There are many variations depending on what you want to test. My personal favorite is still my HVJT. It's not especially efficient, I optimized for high voltage, but it's cute, you have to admit that much.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 04:05:27 PM
The various JT threads on this forum document much more efficient JT circuits than this one here. The circuit under test here is the "JTBasic" circuit using a toroid and a 2n2222 transistor. Other transistors in this same circuit work "better" in the sense of being more efficient still, and slight modifications to the circuit, such as placing a 70 nF capacitor in parallel with the base resistor, make it even more efficient. If you get into optimizing the transformer, you can reach incredibly low levels of current input while still making appreciable light in a low voltage LED JT, and I've shown several times my HVJT which lights up six 90-volt NE-2 neons in series, from a single AAA battery, or even wirelessly without an onboard battery at all.
You can look thru the forum for Pirate's and Groundloop's and LaserSaber's and some other circuits for JTs that are amazingly efficient and powerful. There are many variations depending on what you want to test. My personal favorite is still my HVJT. It's not especially efficient, I optimized for high voltage, but it's cute, you have to admit that much.
Thanks for the info. That's a nice looking build you made there. I was looking for the most optimized/recent version of the JT circuit that Lawrence is saying he believes is over unity. I wanted to test with Lawrence's exact schematic and torroid winding method, if possible. I am inclined to think that it is not over unity, but want to build it and do some measurements to see how it performs. Lawrence, do you have a link to your most recent schematic?
Why not ask Lawrence to send you one of his boards for testing? One that he already has tested and found to be OU.
This is better than building your own, because there is "always something" that might keep your build from ever being OU. For instance, the Kapanadze device depends on old Russian TV yokes to work, and these are not available anywhere outside Russia. You might use the wrong color wire, or solder of the wrong composition, and either one of these things could prevent you from getting OU results.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 09, 2013, 04:56:58 AM
The following was sent to Mr. Zhou and the Atten Technical Support. I may have missed some firmware updates etc.
Both scopes showed crossing 0 ref line characteristics. But the values were very different. Both Scopes were re-calibrated according to the Instruction manual. (The comparison may not be fair as I used CH1 Vrms as the common point. The frequencies were clearly different).
That is why I prefer to wait for the Tektronics before doing more DSO analysis. My advice to researchers is - get access to a high end DSO. If you cannot have one in your lab, make sure you have acess to one somewhere.
God Bless.
@TK
On reply 771, both scopes showed CH1 Vrms = 500mV because I adjusted the DC Power Supply so that such values are shown. The moment I touched the DC Power Supply, I would have most probably changed the actual Input Power going into the circuit.
I and other researchers in Hong Kong have come to the view that
spending money on the 4-Ch Tektronics is worthwhile. We may not be able to have one each. But having one to share is worthwhile. TK, try to have access to one. Spending 4 hours with you old scope may not be the best use of your time and energy. (The getting wealthier Chinese Attitude is - if money can solve the problem, spend it. The Government is printing money to match the rate of USA!)
Mr. Zhou will be happy if we order the Tektronics from him. I and my group of researchers bought 7 Atten from him. The cost of all of them add together is less than Poynt99's scope!
Continuing the experiment into Day 3. It is only 5 am now. I should take the reading at 9am. But I plan to be out this morning and shall not be back until the afternoon. Thus I post the result now.
Note that the voltage on Board 116 showed a big drop with the LED still ON.
The Voltage on Board 124 with capacitor and timer is still quite high.
Adding the capacitor and timer appears to make a big difference.
@testers, please try this test. If you need more boards or capacitors, email me.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 09, 2013, 05:22:05 PM
On reply 771, both scopes showed CH1 Vrms = 500mV because I adjusted the DC Power Supply so that such values are shown.
I see. Thank you for the explanation. But do you have any independent confirmation that you were actually supplying 500.0 mV from the power supply?
I have found that the meters on power supplies are generally not all that accurate and should be supplemented by DMMs right at the input to the device under testing.
But since you are no longer relying on your Attens, the question is moot, I suppose. Still, it's curious that the DC signal from the power supply gave readings that agree, but the JT readings disagree so much.
You should rent a scope from Mr. Bahng's company before you buy one. Why throw good money after bad, even in China? You may find that the rental gives you all the data you need, and you won't have money tied up in an expensive scope that sits on the shelf and gets very little use after this.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 05:35:51 PM
I see. Thank you for the explanation. But do you have any independent confirmation that you were actually supplying 500.0 mV from the power supply?
I have found that the meters on power supplies are generally not all that accurate and should be supplemented by DMMs right at the input to the device under testing.
But since you are no longer relying on your Attens, the question is moot, I suppose. Still, it's curious that the DC signal from the power supply gave readings that agree, but the JT readings disagree so much.
You should rent a scope from Mr. Bahng's company before you buy one. Why throw good money after bad, even in China? You may find that the rental gives you all the data you need, and you won't have money tied up in an expensive scope that sits on the shelf and gets very little use after this.
Mr. Bahng's company has the same terms as Mr. Zhou but much more expensive. There is NO renting for the Tektronics but he can order it for me. I do not worry about money - since it does not come out from my pocket.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 04:05:27 PM
The various JT threads on this forum document much more efficient JT circuits than this one here. The circuit under test here is the "JTBasic" circuit using a toroid and a 2n2222 transistor. Other transistors in this same circuit work "better" in the sense of being more efficient still, and slight modifications to the circuit, such as placing a 70 nF capacitor in parallel with the base resistor, make it even more efficient. If you get into optimizing the transformer, you can reach incredibly low levels of current input while still making appreciable light in a low voltage LED JT, and I've shown several times my HVJT which lights up six 90-volt NE-2 neons in series, from a single AAA battery, or even wirelessly without an onboard battery at all.
You can look thru the forum for Pirate's and Groundloop's and LaserSaber's and some other circuits for JTs that are amazingly efficient and powerful. There are many variations depending on what you want to test. My personal favorite is still my HVJT. It's not especially efficient, I optimized for high voltage, but it's cute, you have to admit that much.
TK is correct. Gadgetmall has a JT circuit that will light an led off an AA battery for over a year. So does Lasersaber. Nothing against Lawrence's efforts here but his JT's are at least 2-3 years behind the work shown in the main JT topic area. Oh, and those are not claimed to be O.U.
Nice circuit TK.
Bill
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 09, 2013, 05:34:48 PM
Continuing the experiment into Day 3. It is only 5 am now. I should take the reading at 9am. But I plan to be out this morning and shall not be back until the afternoon. Thus I post the result now.
Note that the voltage on Board 116 showed a big drop with the LED still ON.
The Voltage on Board 124 with capacitor and timer is still quite high.
Adding the capacitor and timer appears to make a big difference.
@testers, please try this test. If you need more boards or capacitors, email me.
It is 3 pm in the afternoon now. I came home. Both the LEDs are ON but now Board 124 (with the capacitor and timer) LED is much brighter. I know that we are still in the middle of the experiment. What can we do with such results? What should the next set of experiments be?
I sow seeds. Are these rotten seeds???
1. You have no instrumental measurement of light output. Your subjective evaluations of "brightness" do not equal an output power measurement.
2. You have no assurance that the batteries had the same amount of energy in them to begin with. Voltage is not energy; the starting energy content is not known. You should repeat this experiment with capacitors as the power sources.
3. Just as your oscilloscopes have been shown to be inaccurate, it is possible that your DMMS are as well. You need a voltage standard for comparison. I have shown you how to obtain a reasonably cheap (65 dollars US, iirc) standard of high accuracy delivering 5 voltages of your choice. Do you understand the process of instrument calibration? One plots the instrument reading (the dependent variable, vertical axis) against the actual supplied voltage from the standard (the independent variable, horizontal axis). Five points allow you to interpolate a line, and then when you read your instrument you can look up the corresponding _actual_ voltage on the graph.
4. You have not given any assurance that your timer is not supplying power to the circuit under test. I have asked you for a schematic and other technical details of the timer so that this matter can be evaluated. A _tiny_ amount of power leakage from the timer could be more than enough to fool you into thinking you have some advantage. This issue must be addressed, not ignored.
5. Finally (for now) if your timer is necessary to achieve the effect.... then you must include the power _supplied TO_ the timer as part of your total input power to the system, whether or not any of this leaks through to power the LED.
Since no seeds that you have sown have borne sweet fruit, it is important to find out why, don't you think? We already have identified major problems with the Atten scopes that would seem to poison all fruit harvested with their aid. The Divine Wine is going off, turning to vinegar, and your seeds are wasting the Gardener's time and effort. You need to concentrate on pulling up the weeds before you can tell if your fruit is going to be sweet or sour.
Directly across the street from where I live there is a large orange tree. Every year this tree is heavily laden with beautiful large oranges; they fall to the ground and the children use them as balls, or throw them at each other in mock combat. Nobody can eat these large, beautiful oranges, because they are as sour as lemons and as juicy as a dry sponge. Fruit is not always what it appears to be, as the taster often finds out to his chagrin.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2013, 07:08:10 AM
You should repeat this experiment with capacitors as the power sources.
That's the only way to go!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2013, 04:56:48 PM
Why not ask Lawrence to send you one of his boards for testing? One that he already has tested and found to be OU.
I didn't get any reply from Lawrence about whether he has a link to schematic or not, so I will probably just experiment with some other JT circuits instead. I do already have the schematic for the basic 2N2222 JT circuit.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 09, 2013, 10:22:43 PM
Gadgetmall has a JT circuit that will light an led off an AA battery for over a year.
Sounds pretty good, but not all LEDs are created equal however. I have some blue LEDs that start to light up visibly at about 18 micro amps! They only require very little power (low micro watts) to light up fairly brightly. Some other types of LEDs may consume a lot more power to light up to an equivalent brightness.
Quote from: Void on May 10, 2013, 12:28:55 PM
I didn't get any reply from Lawrence about whether he has a link to schematic or not, so I will probably just experiment with some other JT circuits instead. I do already have the schematic for the basic 2N2222 JT circuit.
The basic schematic is what is used. If you look back in the thread you'll find the last time Lawrence posted a schematic, and IIRC it will give the number of turns on the toroid, and also maybe the toroid material. The locations of the current-viewing resistors and probe locations are also given in the schematic.
One simple variation that has given me good results is to place a 70 nF capacitor in parallel with the base resistor. I'm sorry that I can't remember who suggested this to me, perhaps it was Gadgetmall or Conradelectro. There is a wealth of information earlier in this thread (before LTseung started posting) and also in the other JT threads here.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 10, 2013, 12:52:30 PM
The basic schematic is what is used. If you look back in the thread you'll find the last time Lawrence posted a schematic, and IIRC it will give the number of turns on the toroid, and also maybe the toroid material. The locations of the current-viewing resistors and probe locations are also given in the schematic.
One simple variation that has given me good results is to place a 70 nF capacitor in parallel with the base resistor. I'm sorry that I can't remember who suggested this to me, perhaps it was Gadgetmall or Conradelectro. There is a wealth of information earlier in this thread (before LTseung started posting) and also in the other JT threads here.
Thanks.
Day 4 of the experiment. There is excitement with the results.
Note that the voltage on Board 116 has dropped to 0.352V but the LED was still ON. The voltage on Board 124 was 1.175V and the LED was still brightly ON. The contrast of the brightness was unmistakeable even to an old man with poor eyesight.
Why should the addition of the Capacitor and the Twin Timer made so much difference? The timer was bought at a local electric components store and no schematics or circuit diagram of the timer was provided.
While I waited for the possible purchase of the Tektronics, I used the Atten to find out what was going on. There was still the crossing of the 0 reference line. But there were sharp voltage spikes in both directions well exceeding 20mV. That would imply positive and negative Input Power or pulse charging and draining of the battery.
@Poynt99
Can you check this out with your Tektronics now? Otherwise, we have to wait a few weeks. Thanks. For this part of the experiment, you do not need the Timer. You just need to get a rechargeable AA battery and hook it up to Board 33 with NO capacitor. Wait for 3-4 days until the battery voltage drops to below 400mV. Then take scope pictures. All other testers can do the same.
This "spike crossing 0 reference line" may explain the long life of some JTs - over 1 year? Amen.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 10, 2013, 03:05:51 PM
Day 4 of the experiment. There is excitement with the results.
Note that the voltage on Board 116 has dropped to 0.352V but the LED was still ON. The voltage on Board 124 was 1.175V and the LED was still brightly ON. The contrast of the brightness was unmistakeable even to an old man with poor eyesight.
Why should the addition of the Capacitor and the Twin Timer made so much difference? The timer was bought at a local electric components store and no schematics or circuit diagram of the timer was provided.
While I waited for the possible purchase of the Tektronics, I used the Atten to find out what was going on. There was still the crossing of the 0 reference line. But there were sharp voltage spikes in both directions well exceeding 20mV. That would imply positive and negative Input Power or pulse charging and draining of the battery.
@Poynt99
Can you check this out with your Tektronics now? Otherwise, we have to wait a few weeks. Thanks. For this part of the experiment, you do not need the Timer. You just need to get a rechargeable AA battery and hook it up to Board 33 with NO capacitor. Wait for 3-4 days until the battery voltage drops to below 400mV. Then take scope pictures. All other testers can do the same.
This "spike crossing 0 reference line" may explain the long life of some JTs - over 1 year? Amen.
One would expect the LED will soon be
OFF with a 0.352V AA battery supplying energy. It is at least 3 hours since my last post. The LED is still ON on Board 116.
The most surprising thing was that LED on Board 124 with the capacitor and the timer
is still ON brightly. The Brightness is always on the high side.
This experiment is easy to perform and repeat. Highly accurate instruments are not needed.
Are the Zhou Boards OU in this environment???
The Input waveform expanded. The time scale was changed to show more detail on the spikes.
It was clear that the spikes go above and below the main horizontal trace. The values are approximately the same. If we take the main horizontal trace as the "presumed 0 ref line", we have positive current and negative current.
Now it is a matter of waveform and NOT accuracy. Will the Tektronics or other reliable DSOs produce the same or similar waveform?
Can the up and down spikes explain the long lighting of a 0.352V rechargeable battery?
Another result 2 hours later. I hope to have more results before the LED on Board 116 goes OFF completely.
So far, it appears that the LED will still be ON for several hours more. The up and down spikes may actually mean charging and draining of the rechargeable battery. Additional energy (Lead-out energy?)must come in to do that.
The encouraging part is that Board 124 LED is still brightly ON. We do not have to work with dim LEDs.
This particular experiment will be repeated with multiple Boards and Parties in Hong Kong and Shenzhen first - with 4-CH Tektronics when available. It may open the door to the mystery of lighting many LEDs for months or years with just a rechargeable AA battery. I am sure that Lead-out energy is responsible.
May 11, 11:05 am. LED on Board 116 still ON.
Shall go out for 3 hours. Not bad for a battery reading less than 360mV.
LED on Board 124 is still brightly ON. I shall meet a couple of researchers for lunch. I shall ask them to do the same experiment on their boards. Just purchase rechargeable AA batteries. They already have DMMs. This experiment is definitely worth repeating and spreading to multiple groups.
May 11 3:40pm. LED on Board 116 still ON dimly.
Spike on both side of 0 ref line for Input Current clearly shown by Atten.
Board 124 LED still ON brightly. TS Lau working on normal AA battery comparison. (one board has capacitor and the other has none.) Will publish results when the LED is OFF.
Started six more boards to ensure no experimental errors.
(1) Board 121 by TS LAU - simple JT with no capacitor, normal new AA battery.
(2) Board 122 by TS Lau - simple JT with capacitor, normal new AA battery.
(3) Board 118 by Tseung - simple JT with capacitor, rechargeable AA battery
(4) Board 125 by Tseung - simple JT with no capacitor, normal AA battery already drained down.
(5) Board 119 by Tseung - simple JT with no capacitor, normal AA battery already drained down.
(6) Board 108 by Tseung - simple JT with no capacitor, rechargeable AA battery
More will be started by other testers in the next few days/weeks. Let us make no mistakes on this one. This one single experiment will confirm that the Zhou boards are guaranteed OU under the specific situation.
God works in mysterious ways. There may have been false alarm due to DC offset. But this is waveform requiring little accuracy.
Day 5 results. LED on Board 116 still ON. How can a rechargeable AA Battery reading 0.352V keep the LED ON for a full 24 hours and more?
Energy must come in from somewhere else. Lead-out Energy? Confirmed OU?
Photos of Board 116 on May 12, 2013 at 5:00am.
Mother's day gift to the World.....
I have done some testing with a standard joule thief circuit which Lawrence's boards are apparently based on, and I want to post some scope shots. However, I don't see an option in the editor to insert an image. I have the images up on photobucket. Is there a way to put an image from another website such as photobucket inline in my reply, or is the only way to use the file attachment feature? It seems there should be a way to put images inline in my message text.
Try to use the first icon on the left above the smiley line when you are in Reply, it is "insert hyperlink" (includes a small blue Earth globe). Maybe it makes inserting that image possible, I have not tried.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula. It looks like the hyperlink feature doesn't work for inline images. It seems that maybe the only way to do it is to attach the images.
Ok, I have run some power tests with the 'standard' joule thief circuit. I used whatever parts I happened to have handy. I didn't have a smaller ferrite toroid, so I used a larger one I had available. Each winding on the ferrite core has 28 turns.
I am attaching images of the schematic of the circuit I used, my proto board layout, and scope shots of my voltage and current measurements taken for average input and output power measurement.
Since the scope waveforms were all pretty stable and quite consistent over time, I am using the RMS measurement feature on my scope to determine average input and output power. It may not be super accurate, but should be close enough to actual, I would think.
I used 1 ohm, 5%, 2W resistors in series to make input and output current measurements.
Here are my measured results:
Average Input Power:
Vin = 508mV
Iin = 8.55mA
Input Power = 4.34mW
Average Output Power:
Vout = 897mV
Iout = 3.66mA
Output Power = 3.28mW
Efficiency = 3.28mw/4.34mW x 100 = 75.58%
My next step will be to try to improve on the efficiency of this circuit.
Tinselkoala has suggested a 70nF capacitor in parallel with the 1k base resistor, so I will try that.
Does anyone have any other suggestions for improving efficiency while still keeping close to this circuit design?
Lawrence, do you have any suggestions for me to make my circuit closer to your boards? My circuit should be fairly close to your circuit except for the ferrite core I used, and possibly my winding method. Do you think that the ferrite core is an important factor here, or do you think my coil winding method is making a difference here? If I am correctly interpreting the scope shots you have been posting recently (it would help if you mentioned what each scope trace is representing in your scope shots), your input current waveforms look a lot different than mine?
- void -
In the scope shots below, yellow are the voltage traces, and green are the current traces.
I tried another test with the exact same Joule Thief circuit that I used in my previous test (see me previous post above), except this time I placed a capacitor in parallel to the 1k ohm base resistor. I didn't have all that many capacitor values in the low nF range to try with, but I tried 100nF, 20nF, and 10nF. The 10nF nominal value (12.5nF measured value) capacitor seemed to give the highest efficiency of these three values. With the 12.5nF capacitor in parallel to the 1k ohm base resistor, efficiency increased to 95.2%, however the LED glows dimmer for about the same input voltage due to less current flowing in the circuit. At any rate, adding a parallel capacitor across the 1k ohm base resistor appears to have increased efficiency a fair bit with my circuit setup. Thanks Tinselkoala for the suggestion. If you compare the scope shots from the previous test to the scope shots from this new test, it appears that the parallel base capacitor limits the amplitude of the current spike peaks quite a bit, which for some reason seems to increase efficiency a fair bit. This also caused the frequency of oscillation to increase a fair bit as well. I am attaching the scope shots which I used to make the input and output measurements with the 12.5nF cap across the base resistor.
Average Input Power:
Vin = 510mV
Iin = 1.84mA
Input Power = 938uW
Average Output Power:
Vout = 921mV
Iout = 970uA
Output Power = 893uW
Efficiency = 893uW/938uW x 100 = 95.2%
- void -
In the scope shots below, yellow are the voltage traces, and green are the current traces.
@void: Thanks for performing your tests. I think that the toroid that LTseung is using has more turns on the "secondary" winding; this could make a difference in your basic results (and also your result with the extra capacitor across the base resistor.) May I suggest that you try 25 and 50 turns? Also, when a core is assembled from pieces there can be small gaps at the mating surfaces that affect the magnetic field in the core. While JTs will work with almost any transformer core design, even straight rods, to give Lawrence's system a fair trial you really should consider using a one-piece toroid for the transformer. Old PC power supplies will have usable toroids in them. Toroids aren't that hard to wind if you use a long skinny spindle-type bobbin that will hold your wire and fit through the hole in the toroid. Wind the wire onto the spindle then "unwind" the spindle through the hole in the toroid, it makes things a lot easier.
I'm not sure about your calculations using RMS values. I'd like to hear PW and .99 weigh in on that topic. You didn't include your current-viewing resistors or your probe locations in your diagram, so I'm assuming you are using them in the same positions that Lawrence showed on his last posted schematic. Looking forward to more results, thanks! Is your scope capable of integrating?
@Lawrence: How can you be absolutely sure that your timer device is not supplying any power at all to your circuit under test? How can you be sure that you have indeed accounted for all power inputs to your circuit? As I've shown, the circuit you and void and I are using is capable of picking up power from the environment very easily, and can produce bright light in the LED without even being connected to anything with any wires at all, if there's sufficient ambient power floating around. And power supplies and instrument probe leads can trick you by supplying power through ground loops and other wiring infecilities.
Day 5 (Mother's Day) at 3:30pm. LED on Board 116 is still ON.
@void
I can see that you are using the breadboard. I stopped using the breadboard because the results from different breadboards by different individuals were very different. In particular, we tried to place the hand over the board and the scope shots changed significantly.
For a fair comparison, please give me your snake mail address and I can send you two Zhou boards FREE. The passing test for the Zhou board is "crossing the 0 ref line" on the Atten.
The simplest test with the Zhou board at present is - just use a rechargeable AA battery as Input and hook up to Vin+ and Iout-. (previous boards use A1+ and A4-) Use a DMM to measure the voltage (also connected across Vin+ and Iout-). The Voltage will drop from 1.4V to 0.4 volt in 2-3 days. Then at around 0.4V, strange things start to happen. The expectation is that it will die (LED OFF) within hours.
The experimental result will show that the LED will be ON dimly for at least 2 or more days. The Input waveform will have spikes as shown. Not all JT circuits will show such characteristics. Only the Zhou Boards are "guaranteed to have such characteristics because if a board does not pass this test, it is NOT a Zhou Board.....
Welcome to this lead-0out energy research. TK. PW and Poynt99 will teach you on how to use your DSO. Each DSO is different and thus every one goes on a different learning curve. The good thing at present is - I do not even need a DSO to show that a rechargeable AA battery reading 0.352V can light up the LED for days dimly (Board 116). If I add a capacitor and a timer, a similar AA battery reading 1.317V at beginning can light up a similar LED brightly for a much longer time.
*** Poynt99 taught me three years ago NEVER to use the Vrms value for analysis. The correct way is to use Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current.
The experiment is still on-going. More independent teams are welcome. You can be one of them.....
Quote from: Void on May 12, 2013, 12:19:51 AM
I tried another test with the exact same Joule Thief circuit that I used in my previous test (see me previous post above), except this time I placed a capacitor in parallel to the 1k ohm base resistor. I didn't have all that many capacitor values in the low nF range to try with, but I tried 100nF, 20nF, and 10nF. The 10nF nominal value (12.5nF measured value) capacitor seemed to give the highest efficiency of these three values. With the 12.5nF capacitor in parallel to the 1k ohm base resistor, efficiency increased to 95.2%, however the LED glows dimmer for about the same input voltage due to less current flowing in the circuit. At any rate, adding a parallel capacitor across the 1k ohm base resistor appears to have increased efficiency a fair bit with my circuit setup. Thanks Tinselkoala for the suggestion. If you compare the scope shots from the previous test to the scope shots from this new test, it appears that the parallel base capacitor limits the amplitude of the current spike peaks quite a bit, which for some reason seems to increase efficiency a fair bit. This also caused the frequency of oscillation to increase a fair bit as well. I am attaching the scope shots which I used to make the input and output measurements with the 12.5nF cap across the base resistor.
Average Input Power:
Vin = 510mV
Iin = 1.84mA
Input Power = 938uW
Average Output Power:
Vout = 921mV
Iout = 970uA
Output Power = 893uW
Efficiency = 893uW/938uW x 100 = 95.2%
- void -
In the scope shots below, yellow are the voltage traces, and green are the current traces.
@Void,
Please do what TK asks - include the resistors and probe connections in your circuit diagram. Poynt99 has clearly explained that the current values should be
negative for DSO analysis. Your shots showed positive. Did you use the Invert function? If not, your shots may be measuring something totally different. Please check.
@TinselKoala, @Lawrence:
A quick reply for the moment.
I am attaching a schematic which includes the placement of the two 1 ohm current sense resistors I used, as well as the scope probe leads placement I used to make my measurements.
Regarding my using the RMS measurement feature on my scope to make my voltage and current measurements for these tests, as I mentioned I am aware that using the RMS feature (equivalent to what a True RMS voltage meter does, I believe) is not the most accurate way to make measurements for input and output power with these types of waveforms. There are certainly limitations there, and I am aware of this.
From what I have observed, my scope appears to only use the positive portion of a waveform to do the RMS calculations (I am not certain of this, but the scope appears to do it this way), so if you have an AC waveform in which the positive and negative swings of the waveform are not really close to being symmetrical, then using the RMS feature is not going to give very accurate results at all. However, in my measurements here I observed that the waveforms were all pulsating DC (i.e. no negative swings to the waveforms for the most part) so I think my using RMS measurements here should give at least ballpark results. I agree that using this measurement technique for these type of waveforms is potentially not very accurate, so I would definitely want to confirm the measurements using a better measurement method before attempting to draw any definite conclusions. :) These tests I did so far were just preliminary to get an approximate idea of the efficiency of the circuit. I plan to do more careful measurements later.
I am quite familiar with the use of oscilloscopes, but my experience is fairly old school with basic analog scopes, so I will have to familiarize myself with using some of the other capabilities my DSO has, such as data logging and math and calculation features.
@TinselKoala, I will check what other calculation/math features my DSO has.
@Lawrence, I would like to take you up on your offer to run tests/measurements on your joule thief board. I will email you later today with my mailing address. Thank you.
@Lawrence, since I am using a 2 channel DSO and I measure the input and output power separately by moving the scope probes over, I can connect in my scope probes as shown in the attached schematic when measuring the input voltage and current, and there is no need to invert the current channel when attaching the scope probes this way, I believe. At any rate I was using RMS values to calculate the average input power, so if the input waveform was inverted it shouldn't matter when using the RMS value for the current (my waveform was pulsating DC). For instantaneous power measurements, I agree that it is important to make sure that no waveforms are inverted.
Thanks for the feedback guys!
- void -
Quote from: Void on May 12, 2013, 01:31:15 PM
@TinselKoala, @Lawrence:
A quick reply for the moment.
I am attaching a schematic which includes the placement of the two 1 ohm current sense resistors I used, as well as the scope probe leads placement I used to make my measurements.
*** Try to use the same circuit as mine. My circuit will cater for both 2-CH and 4-Ch scopes. It will also be a closer comparison.
Regarding my using the RMS measurement feature on my scope to make my voltage and current measurements for these tests, as I mentioned I am aware that using the RMS feature (equivalent to what a True RMS voltage meter does, I believe) is not the most accurate way to make measurements for input and output power with these types of waveforms. There are certainly limitations there, and I am aware of this.
*** Poynt99 will probably repeat his explanation once more or point you to the past posts.
From what I have observed, my scope appears to only use the positive portion of a waveform to do the RMS calculations (I am not certain of this, but the scope appears to do it this way), so if you have an AC waveform in which the positive and negative swings of the waveform are not really close to being symmetrical, then using the RMS feature is not going to give very accurate results at all. However, in my measurements here I observed that the waveforms were all pulsating DC (i.e. no negative swings to the waveforms for the most part) so I think my using RMS measurements here should give at least ballpark results. I agree that using this measurement technique for these type of waveforms is potentially not very accurate, so I would definitely want to confirm the measurements using a better measurement method before attempting to draw any definite conclusions. :) These tests I did so far were just preliminary to get an approximate idea of the efficiency of the circuit. I plan to do more careful measurements later.
I am quite familiar with the use of oscilloscopes, but my experience is fairly old school with basic analog scopes, so I will have to familiarize myself with using some of the other capabilities my DSO has, such as data logging and math and calculation features.
*** Make sure that you are 100% efficient and confident on the EXCEL analysis of the captured results. The captured results will reproduce the displayed waveforms and much more.
@TinselKoala, I will check what other calculation/math features my DSO has.
@Lawrence, I would like to take you up on your offer to run tests/measurements on your joule thief board. I will email you later today with my mailing address. Thank you.
@Lawrence, since I am using a 2 channel DSO and I measure the input and output power separately by moving the scope probes over, I can connect in my scope probes as shown in the attached schematic when measuring the input voltage and current, and there is no need to invert the current channel when attaching the scope probes this way, I believe. At any rate I was using RMS values to calculate the average input power, so if the input waveform was inverted it shouldn't matter when using the RMS value for the current (my waveform was pulsating DC). For instantaneous power measurements, I agree that it is important to make sure that no waveforms are inverted.
*** Please continue your experiments with the Board you built. I shall send you Board 118 and Board 119. The test result for these two boards will be posted here first with all test details. Please pay special attention to the test results of these two boards. Raise any questions or doubts. Once you receive them, you can repeat the tests and compare them with your own boards.
Thanks for the feedback guys!
- void -
Day 6 results on Board 116. LED still ON dimly.
LED on Board 124 still ON brightly (but not as bright as beginning of Day 1).
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 12, 2013, 03:41:21 AM
@Lawrence: How can you be absolutely sure that your timer device is not supplying any power at all to your circuit under test? How can you be sure that you have indeed accounted for all power inputs to your circuit? As I've shown, the circuit you and void and I are using is capable of picking up power from the environment very easily, and can produce bright light in the LED without even being connected to anything with any wires at all, if there's sufficient ambient power floating around. And power supplies and instrument probe leads can trick you by supplying power through ground loops and other wiring infecilities.
@TK,
Try to do the Board 116 experiment with a
rechargeable AA battery. The voltage of the battery should run down to approximately 0.4V and then remain there for a few days. Capture the Input Waveform then and see if your waveforms show the spikes crossing the 0 reference line.
The experiment is simple enough - no capacitors and no twin timers to confuse the issue.
You can then eliminate the various other effect at your site. If you prefer, I shall be happy to send you two Zhou boards just like with void. More
independent confirmation, the better.
Spreadsheet comparison of Board 116 and Board 124.
LED on Board 124 is still very bright even in day time or with other lights on. Board 116 is dim but is still ON - turn off other lights and the effect is unmistakable.
One of the main potential problems I see already when making measurements at low supply input voltages (for example at Vin < 0.5V), is the current magnitudes start to go down much closer into the noise levels. This can no doubt skew measurements and introduce a degree of error into the measurements results. However, it seems you say that you start to see the unusual results at these lower input voltages so we will have to take noise levels into account as best we can.
There is a technique of using a differential probe (or using two matched and calibrated probes) to take more accurate measurements at lower magnitude levels, but I have not used this method before so I am not familiar with the details. That may be a measurement method that might possibly improve measurement accuracy at lower input voltages, so it may be worth looking into. I am not certain that the differential probe measurement method would help here, but I think that it may. However if you are sending your boards to some universities for testing, they would probably be familiar with the differential probe measurement technique, and would likely use that method if it will give more accurate measurements.
- void -
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 12, 2013, 05:36:35 PM
Spreadsheet comparison of Board 116 and Board 124.
LED on Board 124 is still very bright even in day time or with other lights on. Board 116 is dim but is still ON - turn off other lights and the effect is unmistakable.
Those are interesting test results. Definitely worth investigating further, IMO.
- void -
@Lawrence. Here's an overview on using a differential oscilloscope probe when making low power measurements with a scope. The author of the article also recommends a current probe for low power current measurements as well.
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/scope-guru-on-signal-integrity/4403528/Low-power-measurement-techniques (http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/scope-guru-on-signal-integrity/4403528/Low-power-measurement-techniques)
However, any testing I am going to do will just be with regular single-ended scope probes, so I will have to work within those limitations with the understanding that the margin of error will be higher. I do have a current probe for my scope, but it is cheaper quality one and it has poor shielding and is very susceptible to EM fields. I don't find it is any much more accurate than my regular scope probes.
Quote from: Void on May 12, 2013, 08:26:58 PM
@Lawrence. Here's an overview on using a differential oscilloscope probe when making low power measurements with a scope. The author of the article also recommends a current probe for low power current measurements as well.
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/scope-guru-on-signal-integrity/4403528/Low-power-measurement-techniques (http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/scope-guru-on-signal-integrity/4403528/Low-power-measurement-techniques)
However, any testing I am going to do will just be with regular single-ended scope probes, so I will have to work within those limitations with the understanding that the margin of error will be higher. I do have a current probe for my scope, but it is cheaper quality one and it has poor shielding and is very susceptible to EM fields. I don't find it is any much more accurate than my regular scope probes.
Do not worry about the low current/power input for now. We can always use the 2n3055 and much higher Input Voltage such as 12V Car batteries. The load can easily be 1,000 LEDs. The present experiment is to iron out the bugs and do simple proof of concept.
It looks like the use of rechargeable batteries for Board 116 or similar makes a difference in battery life (or LED lighting time).
After the batterry hits the 0.4V mark, the LED with rechargeable battery continued for at least 3 days. The LED with normal batteries died within 12 hours. I now have 8 rechargeable AA batteries to try.
Board 119 results posted here first. The Board will be sent to void for verification after all tests are done. The process will guarantee to have at least one independent verification.
1. Your trigger is set out of the range of your signal on CH1. This means that your scope will not be triggering accurately on some known and consistent portion of the signal waveform. This may be the root cause of the frequency error, or that error may be independent of trigger setting.
2. Your scope is reporting values that do not correspond to the trace indications, as I have noted in the diagram below. The discrepancy is most marked in the frequency error.
3. The "average" value of "zero" for the current trace is clearly incorrect, does not agree with the trace position, and most importantly IS SMALLER THAN THE KNOWN VOLTAGE ERRORS of your oscilloscope. This entire trace does not represent data at all; it is impossible to know, with your equipment as shown, whether it is noise, or represents a + 3 mV or a -3 mV true average. It looks to me like the trace is indicating about -2 mV average, but as I said, this is an unreliable measurement, beneath the noise and accuracy floors of the instrument, and thus meaningless.
Lawrence, the combination of your low level of scoposcopy skills and your inaccurate Atten scopes results in a lot of wasted time and effort, for yourself and everyone else interested in your work. Please put those miserable Atten oscilloscopes on a high shelf and refrain from using them in attempts to claim "overunity" or high COP results. Also, you might like to do a little bit of homework on the use and abuse of oscilloscopes. There are many good references, university lab class lecture notes, YouTube tutorials, and other sources of information on the use of scopes to make measurements, and how to avoid the pitfalls that have already entrapped you many times over.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2013, 09:08:47 AM
1. Your trigger is set out of the range of your signal on CH1. This means that your scope will not be triggering accurately on some known and consistent portion of the signal waveform. This may be the root cause of the frequency error, or that error may be independent of trigger setting.
2. Your scope is reporting values that do not correspond to the trace indications, as I have noted in the diagram below. The discrepancy is most marked in the frequency error.
I find the frequency determination routines in these type of scopes is not very reliable over all. In the scope shots I posted previously for my second test the frequency readings were all over the place. When I want to get a frequency reading from my scope I usually just determine the waveform period myself from the scope trace and then determine the frequency that way. I have found that the frequency reading calculations my scope does are usually not very reliable unless you have fairly simple and clean waveforms. As far as Lawrence's other readings being off, that may be because of the trigger setting being off and/or because the signal is quite a bit in the noise level, and this may be throwing off the scope's auto measurements.
@Lawrence, if there is a way that you can run these same tests at higher input voltages so that your signal to noise ratio is higher, then your measurements should be a lot less prone to error.
@Tinselkoala, it seems my scope does not have a waveform integration feature. The user manual is pretty poor however, but it seems my scope does not have that feature. It may be only higher end scopes that have that feature? I think the best method for trying to determine power with the type of DSO I have would be to log the voltage and current data points to a file and then do the instantaneous power calculations in Excel like Lawrence is doing now.
@Tinselkoala, @Lawrence:
Is the method used to determine the average power from the data points, to calculate the instantaneous power for each voltage/current data point set, and then take the average of all the calculated instantaneous data points by summing all the calculated instantaneous power values and dividing by the number of data points? Or is there more to it than that?
Is this method considered to be a fairly accurate way (within the accuracy limitation of the scope) to determine average power?
- void -
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 13, 2013, 01:08:25 AM
It looks like the use of rechargeable batteries for Board 116 or similar makes a difference in battery life (or LED lighting time).
After the batterry hits the 0.4V mark, the LED with rechargeable battery continued for at least 3 days. The LED with normal batteries died within 12 hours. I now have 8 rechargeable AA batteries to try.
That may possibly just be a characteristic of the discharge pattern of the type of rechargeable battery you are using. To see if that might be the case, you could set up a control test where you put maybe two rechargeable batteries in series with a LED and a resistor, and monitor the discharge pattern of the batteries this way as a comparison. You would want to choose a resistor value that limits the LED current to a comparable level to what your joule thief circuit runs at when the battery is fully charged. It won't be an exact comparison as in this case you would have two rechargeable batteries in series, but it might still be a valid comparison. Just an idea.
Yes, pretty much, if your time slices are equal in duration.
Really, you are using the spreadsheet to perform a numerical approximation of an integral. The instantaneous power value is multiplied by the "duration" or the interval to the next pair of samples. This gives a tall skinny rectangular area. Then all the areas are added together to approximate the actual area "under" the smooth instantaneous power curve. This is a numerical integration and the time durations of the individual rectangles can be variable, but should obviously be as small as possible. This corresponds to the total energy in Joules (Watts x Seconds) that pass your measuring point in the total time interval. Then you divide this value by the time in seconds and you get an average power value in Watts (Joules / second) for that entire interval.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 13, 2013, 04:15:31 PM
Yes, pretty much, if your time slices are equal in duration.
Really, you are using the spreadsheet to perform a numerical approximation of an integral. The instantaneous power value is multiplied by the "duration" or the interval to the next pair of samples. This gives a tall skinny rectangular area. Then all the areas are added together to approximate the actual area "under" the smooth instantaneous power curve. This is a numerical integration and the time durations of the individual rectangles can be variable, but should obviously be as small as possible. This corresponds to the total energy in Joules (Watts x Seconds) that pass your measuring point in the total time interval. Then you divide this value by the time in seconds and you get an average power value in Watts (Joules / second) for that entire interval.
Ok, thanks. I will see if I can figure out how to do this with my scope, but the user manual for my scope is almost useless. I think I can figure out how to get the scope to log a channel's waveform data to a data file, but the manual doesn't explain how to set up to log both channels to a data file at the same time, nor how to start and stop data logging on demand. I will play around with it and see if I can figure it out. :)
Quote from: Void on May 13, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
Ok, thanks. I will see if I can figure out how to do this with my scope, but the user manual for my scope is almost useless. I think I can figure out how to get the scope to log a channel's waveform data to a data file, but the manual doesn't explain how to set up to log both channels to a data file at the same time, nor how to start and stop data logging on demand. I will play around with it and see if I can figure it out. :)
Does your scope have a USB that allows the capture/save of the CSV file? If so, that CSV file should contain the Instantaneous Voltage and Current at the many sample points.
Day 7 of the experiment. LED on Board 116 OFF totally when checked at 8:30pm on Day 6.
LED on Board 124 still ON but dimly. The experiment will be continued until the LED is OFF totally.
@TK
I am aware of my poor DSO skills. That is why I sow seeds and let others do the "proper job". One good happening is the poynt99 scope shots and the subsequent interest in getting the 4-CH Tektronics in Hong Kong. I shall NOT be the owner but may have access to it with experts helping me. So just consider my Atten Scope shots in the past, present and future as trash if you like. For me, the lighting of the LED for 3 days with a rechargeable AA battery reading 0.352V and the spike waveforms is worth further research (especially by others with the resources and skills).
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 13, 2013, 05:31:13 PM
Does your scope have a USB that allows the capture/save of the CSV file? If so, that CSV file should contain the Instantaneous Voltage and Current at the many sample points.
Yes, I think my scope is at least somewhat similar to your scope. I just need to experiment with it to see if I
can get everything to work OK. I may have to wait until the weekend to find time to try it though.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 13, 2013, 05:56:39 PM
I am aware of my poor DSO skills. That is why I sow seeds and let others do the "proper job". One good happening is the poynt99 scope shots and the subsequent interest in getting the 4-CH Tektronics in Hong Kong. I shall NOT be the owner but may have access to it with experts helping me. So just consider my Atten Scope shots in the past, present and future as trash if you like. For me, the lighting of the LED for 3 days with a rechargeable AA battery reading 0.352V and the spike waveforms is worth further research (especially by others with the resources and skills).
Hi Lawrence. I think you are doing fine, but just make sure your trigger level setting is always set below the lowest peaks of the waveform you are triggering on. The other issue to watch out for is that the smaller the current waveform amplitude gets (the more the current waveform amplitude gets closer to the noise level amplitude), the more the error in your current measurements will increase. In general once your current or voltage waveform amplitudes get close to the noise level (low mV amplitude) then you can't really rely on those measurements as being really accurate. Any tests you can do that keep the current and voltage waveforms a fair bit larger than the noise level will reduce error in your measurements.
Another thing that you can do is to have everything connected in your circuit including your scope probes, except have one of the input voltage power leads disconnected, and then take a scope screen shot of the noise level that your circuit and scope leads are picking up as a sort of a base line measurement. Take note of the Max + and - voltage readings on the noise. This will give you an idea of how much error noise can be contributing to your measurements. For example, if the noise maximum at noise peaks is +/- 5mV, and your waveform being measured is lets say 10 mV max, you could have very large errors in your measurements of this waveform. Your signal to noise ratio is too low to make reasonably accurate measurements. You may already be aware of this, but just pointing it out anyway as no doubt if you present your circuit and experimental data to a university for review, they may quickly dismiss your measurements if some of the measurements are made with the waveform being too close to the noise level. Showing a scope screen shot of the noise level with all the probes and circuit components connected, except for one of the battery or capacitor power leads, establishes an approximate baseline for the noise level to help determine what the level of error in your measurements due to noise might be. Again, just another idea.
By the way, measuring very low signal levels is where the differential oscilloscope probe becomes very useful. This type of scope probe measures only the difference in signal voltage between its two leads, and any electrical noise that is picked up and which is common to both of the leads on the differential probe gets ignored. For any tests that have to be done at very low waveform amplitudes, you may have to consider using differential probes if you want to have more reliable measurements. I am not sure if they are expensive or not, but if you use Tektronix probes then they are probably not cheap. :)
Quote from: Void on May 13, 2013, 07:14:38 PM
Hi Lawrence. I think you are doing fine, but just make sure your trigger level setting is always set below the lowest peaks of the waveform you are triggering on. The other issue to watch out for is that the smaller the current waveform amplitude gets (the more the current waveform amplitude gets closer to the noise level amplitude), the more the error in your current measurements will increase. In general once your current or voltage waveform amplitudes get close to the noise level (low mV amplitude) then you can't really rely on those measurements as being really accurate. Any tests you can do that keep the current and voltage waveforms a fair bit larger than the noise level will reduce error in your measurements.
Another thing that you can do is to have everything connected in your circuit including your scope probes, except have one of the input voltage power leads disconnected, and then take a scope screen shot of the noise level that your circuit and scope leads are picking up as a sort of a base line measurement. Take note of the Max + and - voltage readings on the noise. This will give you an idea of how much error noise can be contributing to your measurements. For example, if the noise maximum at noise peaks is +/- 5mV, and your waveform being measured is lets say 10 mV max, you could have very large errors in your measurements of this waveform. Your signal to noise ratio is too low to make reasonably accurate measurements. You may already be aware of this, but just pointing it out anyway as no doubt if you present your circuit and experimental data to a university for review, they may quickly dismiss your measurements if some of the measurements are made with the waveform being too close to the noise level. Showing a scope screen shot of the noise level with all the probes and circuit components connected, except for one of the battery or capacitor power leads, establishes an approximate baseline for the noise level to help determine what the level of error in your measurements due to noise might be. Again, just another idea.
By the way, measuring very low signal levels is where the differential oscilloscope probe becomes very useful. This type of scope probe measures only the difference in signal voltage between its two leads, and any electrical noise that is picked up and which is common to both of the leads on the differential probe gets ignored. For any tests that have to be done at very low waveform amplitudes, you may have to consider using differential probes if you want to have more reliable measurements. I am not sure if they are expensive or not, but if you use Tektronix probes then they are probably not cheap. :)
I now know why that the Lord chose me to
sow the seeds. I had two strokes, poor eyesight and hearing, shaky hands, cannot master the options on the mobile phone and unskilled at the DSO. With someone more talents, there will be the
temptation to "claim credit as ones work". Once that temptation comes, one would hide the findings and try to develop products for one's benefit.
I do not mind showing the "bad and poor" results to
any group. The moment they look at the old man with slow reactions and faulty presentations, they know that they have to do the
actual work themselves. Some groups will automatically
dismiss the entire lead-out energy concept. But there are groups willing to give it a try. Seed falls on fertile soil.
Thank you for all the good suggestions. I am sure the groups getting the 4-CH Tektronics in Hong Kong will continue to monitor this thread and hopefully will develop products to benefit the World.
I am attaching the results for Board 119 with relatively high Input Voltage of 1.1V for your reference.
@Void,
With the previous post diagrams and analysis, one can see that the use Vrms for analysis could be totally wrong. For example, the COP calculated from
Output (Ch1 Vrms * Ch2 Vrms)/ Input (Ch1 Vrms *Ch2 Vrms) = 1.27.
The COP from EXCEL gives COP = -19.54. The negative sign came from Input.
*** If you have a DC Power Supply, lower the Input Voltage to around 0.4V and see if you can observe the crossing of the 0 ref line and/or the spikes on both sides of the 0 ref line for Input Current. If you do not have a DC Power Supply, find and drain a rechargeable AA battery to around that voltage and observe the waveform.
Board 124 can no longer maintain continued lighting of LED.
LED was lighted only when the Battery was connected.
The Atten may not be too bad after all. The Offset problem may be due to not enough warm up time.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 13, 2013, 08:30:23 PM
@Void,
With the previous post diagrams and analysis, one can see that the use Vrms for analysis could be totally wrong. For example, the COP calculated from
Output (Ch1 Vrms * Ch2 Vrms)/ Input (Ch1 Vrms *Ch2 Vrms) = 1.27.
The COP from EXCEL gives COP = -19.54. The negative sign came from Input.
*** If you have a DC Power Supply, lower the Input Voltage to around 0.4V and see if you can observe the crossing of the 0 ref line and/or the spikes on both sides of the 0 ref line for Input Current. If you do not have a DC Power Supply, find and drain a rechargeable AA battery to around that voltage and observe the waveform.
Ok, that is interesting. However, something doesn't look right with your input current waveform. It is showing as mostly negative when it should be positive current pulses, at least for the most part. That could be where the problem is. Can you confirm that you had channel 2 set to DC coupling? It looks like the coupling was set to AC?
I believe the RMS readings will not be useable if your waveform is not completely positive (pulsating DC) or if the waveform has both positive and negative swings and the positive and negative swings are not very symmetrical. In the scope shots you posted it looks like you didn't have your channel 2 probe set to DC coupling when you measured the input current. If the current waveform were showing as pulsating DC (all positive), I think the RMS reading would provide you with a quite different result.
I did a quick test with the input voltage set at 0.4V, and I do not get much noticeable negative swing on the input or output current waveforms. The output current is starting to get down fairly close to the noise level at this input voltage however. I also tried setting the input voltage to 0.36V, and although my LED still glows dimly at this input voltage, the output current is just barely detectable as very tiny blips on the scope trace, so the output current is unmeasurable on my scope at this input voltage. The output current is right in the scope's noise level at this input voltage.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 14, 2013, 10:56:35 AM
The Atten may not be too bad after all. The Offset problem may be due to not enough warm up time.
Yes, if you find that letting your scope warm up for 20 minutes gives less offset then that is probably a good idea. After your scope has warmed up for twenty minutes you can then maybe try running the scope's self-calibration routine and see how everything looks then. You should connect each of your scope probe tips to your scope's ground lug connection when running your scope's self-calibration function.
Well, chalk that up to another item of scoposcopy that is as basic as using the "ON" switch to turn it on.
Allowing sufficient warmup time --- usually arbitrarily defined as at least 30 minutes --- is a basic operational requirement for any instrumental measurements. We haven't mentioned it here before -- except that .99 did -- because it is so basic a concept. But in every text about making measurements, and in every scope manual I have ever seen (with the exception of the Atten) the proper warm-up time interval is mentioned, before making quantitative measurements or internal scope calibrations.
And "note bene"..... it was Rosemary Ainslie's practice, throughout her long series of measurements, to turn on her oscilloscope, make a quick measurement as soon as it booted up, then turn the scope off again, until she was ready to make another measurement.
...
Quote from: Void on May 14, 2013, 11:16:33 AM
Ok, that is interesting. However, something doesn't look right with your input current waveform. It is showing as mostly negative when it should be positive current pulses, at least for the most part. That could be where the problem is. Can you confirm that you had channel 2 set to DC coupling? It looks like the coupling was set to AC?
*** There was no problem with CH2. It was set to DC. Please read the poynt99 explanation related to the circuit diagram allowing common connection for all 4 probes.
I believe the RMS readings will not be useable if your waveform is not completely positive (pulsating DC) or if the waveform has both positive and negative swings and the positive and negative swings are not very symmetrical. In the scope shots you posted it looks like you didn't have your channel 2 probe set to DC coupling when you measured the input current. If the current waveform were showing as pulsating DC (all positive), I think the RMS reading would provide you with a quite different result.
I did a quick test with the input voltage set at 0.4V, and I do not get much noticeable negative swing on the input or output current waveforms. The output current is starting to get down fairly close to the noise level at this input voltage however. I also tried setting the input voltage to 0.36V, and although my LED still glows dimly at this input voltage, the output current is just barely detectable as very tiny blips on the scope trace, so the output current is unmeasurable on my scope at this input voltage. The output current is right in the scope's noise level at this input voltage.
*** I am not surprised that your results do not show the Zhou Board effects. Two thirds of the Boards I built myself did not show that - even though they all lighted the LEDs. The passing test of the Zhou Boards is the crossing of the 0 ref line. I shall send you Boards 118 and 119 after the tests on them are done in here. Take your time. Be parepared to find a 4-CH Tektronics to do the final confirmation.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 14, 2013, 06:55:04 PM
Please read the poynt99 explanation related to the circuit diagram allowing common connection for all 4 probes.
I am not surprised that your results do not show the Zhou Board effects.
Two thirds of the Boards I built myself did not show that - even though they all lighted the LEDs.
The passing test of the Zhou Boards is the crossing of the 0 ref line.
I shall send you Boards 118 and 119 after the tests on them are done in here.
Take your time. Be prepared to find a 4-CH Tektronics to do the final confirmation.
Hi Lawrence. Ok, if the scope probe was set to DC then I believe that the problem with the input current waveform is that your input current waveform is inverted. Looking at the way you have your scope probes connected for the 4 channel scope measurement method (based on a diagram you posted earlier this year), it seems to me that this will invert your input current waveform. I believe this will throw off your instantaneous power calculations unless you set channel 2 for the input current measurement to the Inverted setting in your scope. The input current waveform should be pulsating DC, but I do see that it does go a bit negative in your waveform (when viewed inverted from what you showed in your scope screenshot). I can explain further if you like, but it has to do with the direction that the current is flowing and the way you have the channel 2 scope probe connected for the input current measurement in your 4 channel scope measurement method.
Void,
It does not really matter which way the current-measuring probe is placed, as long as there is not a grounding issue (i.e. placing the probe grounds at different points in the circuit).
The real issue is not whether the current trace is positive or negative (we know the battery loses energy), but if it is BOTH. I have shown, using two different scopes, a 4-CH Tek, and a 20MHz analog Hitachi, that the current trace does NOT cross the zero reference line while measuring board #33 that Lawrence sent me.
The ATTEN scopes seem to have a serious issue with DC offset when making this measurement, as there is a relatively significant 12mV or so causing the apparent "bipolar" current trace.
@void: I think we've been over the meaning of the negative value for the current trace as detected by the probes in use according to the schematic posted earlier. Lawrence understands that a negative value for the current detected here means normal, conventional current flowing from positive to negative, moving power from the battery to be dissipated in the circuit. Not only that, the spreadsheet recorded values do not respect the "channel invert" function, so as long as the probes are positioned as they are, the spreadsheet will have negative values when the current is "normal", no matter whether the _displayed_ trace is inverted or not.
As .99 says, the important issue is the zero-crossing behaviour. I thought briefly that I had detected zero-crossing on my system but I had accidentally selected AC coupling for that measurement and didn't notice it... there's no indication on my analog screen of the coupling setting, like there is on the Atten screen. It's easy to see that Lawrence is using DC coupling for all his recent measurements, although he didn't appreciate the difference until we pointed out that his earlier use of AC coupling was an error. All my more careful measurements do not show this zero-crossing with my boards after all; the current is always "negative" meaning normal conventional current flowing out of the battery to dissipate power in the circuit.
The Atten scopes would appear to be not suitable for these measurements, and should be put away. They simply are not precise and accurate enough to support claims of overunity or unusually high COP in electrical circuits of such low absolute power.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2013, 08:22:40 PM
Void,
It does not really matter which way the current-measuring probe is placed, as long as there is not a grounding issue (i.e. placing the probe grounds at different points in the circuit).
The real issue is not whether the current trace is positive or negative (we know the battery loses energy), but if it is BOTH. I have shown, using two different scopes, a 4-CH Tek, and a 20MHz analog Hitachi, that the current trace does NOT cross the zero reference line while measuring board #33 that Lawrence sent me.
The ATTEN scopes seem to have a serious issue with DC offset when making this measurement, as there is a relatively significant 12mV or so causing the apparent "bipolar" current trace.
Hi Poynt99. Ok on that. I wonder if Lawrence has ever run the self-calibration routines on his Atten scopes?
However, I would think that if the current waveform is inverted it will give errors in the instantaneous power calculations, as many of the input current waveform data points will be recorded as negative when they are actually positive, and vice versa if there is any actual negative component to the current waveform. This would make the instantaneous power calculations and average power calculation invalid, no?
Quote from: Void on May 14, 2013, 08:43:46 PM
Hi Poynt99. Ok on that. I wonder if Lawrence has ever run the self-calibration routines on his Atten scopes?
That's an unknown.
Quote
However, I would think that if the current waveform is inverted it will give errors in the instantaneous power calculations, as many of the input current waveform data points will be recorded as negative when they are actually positive. This would make the instantaneous power calculations and average power calculation invalid, no?
It's not a problem. The only affect would be a reverse in polarity. The magnitude is most important, and it would remain intact.
Quote from: poynt99 on May 14, 2013, 09:12:17 PM
Not a problem. The only affect would be a reverse in polarity. The magnitude is most important, and it would remain intact.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Lawrence is planning on sending me a couple of his boards for testing so we can compare my measurement results to his measurement results on those boards and see if there is a difference.
@Lawrence, based on the offset issue that Poynt99 suspects with your scope, I think that it would be a good idea to run the self-calibration routines on your Atten scopes if you have not done this previously. This could potentially correct any offset error in your scopes if there is some.
@Tinselkoala, Ok, on that. If Lawrence has not run the self calibration function on his scopes recently, then I will see if Lawrence is willing to do this and then re-do his measurements on his two boards before he sends them to me. The self-calibration may help correct any offset error his scopes have now.
Quote from: Void on May 14, 2013, 09:37:08 PM
@Tinselkoala, Ok, on that. If Lawrence has not run the self calibration function on his scopes recently, then I will see if Lawrence is willing to do this and then re-do his measurements on his two boards before he sends them to me. The self-calibration may help correct any offset error his scopes have now.
No problem. I have run the Atten self califbration procedure many times now. I shall redo it before any serious measurements.
@Poynt99
The Atten is not only showing "cross 0 reference line" that can be explained by DC Offset. It is also showing the voltage spikes crossing the 0 reference line. When that happens, the LED can be ON for days (Board 116 lasted for 3 days at 0.352V). I shall try to repeat it for Board 118 and 119.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 15, 2013, 12:08:58 AM
No problem. I have run the Atten self califbration procedure many times now. I shall redo it before any serious measurements.
@Poynt99
The Atten is not only showing "cross 0 reference line" that can be explained by DC Offset. It is also showing the voltage spikes crossing the 0 reference line. When that happens, the LED can be ON for days (Board 116 lasted for 3 days at 0.352V). I shall try to repeat it for Board 118 and 119.
Thanks Lawrence. I actually have two DSO scopes. A 50MHz Hantek USB peripheral plug in type scope, which is what I used on my previous tests on my joule thief circuit here, and a 100MHz Siglent 1102CNL scope, which is what I am going to use to run tests on your boards, since the Siglent should be a better scope overall, and it can be set down to 2mV/div, whereas my Hantek can only be set down to 10mV/div.
I did some testing with my Siglent scope yesterday. I warmed up my scope for 20 minutes and then configured each probe/channel to DC, x1, and 2mV/div, and then grounded the probe tips to their ground clips. There was some DC offset showing on each channel, so I ran the self-calibration function on my scope. (My Hantek scope instructs connecting the scope probe tips to the ground lug on my scope when running the self-calibration, but my Siglent scope instructs to disconnect the probes from the scope when running the self-calibration). With the scope probes again connected to the scope, I then double checked that each probe/channel was still configured for DC, x1, and 2mV/div, and then grounded the probe tips to their ground clips. Channel 1 was showing no offset, but Channel 2 was still showing about + 0.6mV of offset on the 2mV/div setting with the scope tip grounded to its ground clip. I then left my scope turned on overnight and then re-ran the self-calibration function on my scope in the morning, and then rechecked the Channel 1 and Channel 2 DC offsets with the probe tips grounded. Both channels are now showing very close to zero offset (with settings: DC, x1, and 2mV/div). Just wanted to mention this in case it helps with your scopes. I am not sure if leaving the scope to warm up a lot longer helped, or if you just sometimes have to run the self-calibration a few times and keep checking for the least amount of DC offset.
By the way Lawrence, I read that Siglent is actually the manufacturer of Atten scopes, so our scopes should be very similar. The self-calibration method I describe above should be very similar if not exactly the same for your Atten scopes. What model of Atten scopes do you have?
Quote from: Void on May 15, 2013, 10:32:33 AM
Thanks Lawrence. I actually have two DSO scopes. A 50MHz Hantek USB peripheral plug in type scope, which is what I used on my previous tests on my joule thief circuit here, and a 100MHz Siglent 1102CNL scope, which is what I am going to use to run tests on your boards, since the Siglent should be a better scope overall, and it can be set down to 2mV/div, whereas my Hantek can only be set down to 10mV/div.
I did some testing with my Siglent scope yesterday. I warmed up my scope for 20 minutes and then configured each probe/channel to DC, x1, and 2mV/div, and then grounded the probe tips to their ground clips. There was some DC offset showing on each channel, so I ran the self-calibration function on my scope. (My Hantek scope instructs connecting the scope probe tips to the ground lug on my scope when running the self-calibration, but my Siglent scope instructs to disconnect the probes from the scope when running the self-calibration). With the scope probes again connected to the scope, I then double checked that each probe/channel was still configured for DC, x1, and 2mV/div, and then grounded the probe tips to their ground clips. Channel 1 was showing no offset, but Channel 2 was still showing about + 0.6mV of offset on the 2mV/div setting with the scope tip grounded to its ground clip. I then left my scope turned on overnight and then re-ran the self-calibration function on my scope in the morning, and then rechecked the Channel 1 and Channel 2 DC offsets with the probe tips grounded. Both channels are now showing very close to zero offset (with settings: DC, x1, and 2mV/div). Just wanted to mention this in case it helps with your scopes. I am not sure if leaving the scope to warm up a lot longer helped, or if you just sometimes have to run the self-calibration a few times and keep checking for the least amount of DC offset.
By the way Lawrence, I read that Siglent is actually the manufacturer of Atten scopes, so our scopes should be very similar. The self-calibration method I describe above should be very similar if not exactly the same for your Atten scopes. What model of Atten scopes do you have?
I have Atten ADS1062CA and Atten ADS1062CAL. Previously, I always thought that the warm up time is to get the Atten to normal room temperature of around 20 degrees C. In cold countries, the warm up time may take longer. But I can easily turn it on overnight.
Did you detect any spikes at all with your tests? I can easily detect them. Example - see reply 835.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 15, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
I have Atten ADS1062CA and Atten ADS1062CAL. Previously, I always thought that the warm up time is to get the Atten to normal room temperature of around 20 degrees C. In cold countries, the warm up time may take longer. But I can easily turn it on overnight.
Did you detect any spikes at all with your tests? I can easily detect them. Example - see reply 835.
Hi Lawrence. Warm up time is to allow time for all sensitive components in the circuitry to reach their steady state operating temperature. 30 mins. to 1 hour should be long enough. After sufficient warm up time, if you test the DC offset for each scope channel as I described in my previous post, and then try the self-calibration, and then retest the DC offset, I would be interested to hear what kind of DC offsets you are measuring on each channel.
I am not detecting current spikes like you show in those scope shots in my circuit.
I also tried another couple of informal tests where I changed the collector winding turns count to 18 turns and also to 39 turns, and I did not see any AC current spikes (or any zero crossing at all to speak of on the current waveform), and the efficiency of the circuit also did not change more than about 1% with these different collector winding turns count changes as well. Efficiency stayed within +/- 1% or so of about 70% with collector winding turns counts of 18, 28, and 39 turns. Changes to the collector winding turns count does noticeably change the frequency of oscillation however.
18 turns - 71.53 kHz, efficiency = 70.93%
28 turns - 57.14 kHz, efficiency = 68.93%
39 turns - 43.48 kHz, efficiency = 71.29%
I was surprised to see that the circuit efficiency seems to have remained about the same for these different collector winding counts.
Note: I was using the RMS measurement feature on my scope to make these measurements as it was just an informal test to see what effect changing the collector windings turn count might have on circuit performance. I will use data logging and instantaneous and Average power calculations when doing any tests on your boards. I made the above measurements using my Siglent scope, which may be somewhat more accurate than my Hantek scope. That may account for the difference of measuring around 70% efficiency this time and measuring around 75% efficiency previously with my Hantek scope. It might also be that my ferrite core which is in two halves and is just taped together, has separated a little bit more than before. I really should bolt the two halves together tight so they can't move, but these tests I am doing right now are just informal to get a general idea.
I turned on the Atten for over an hour before doing anything. The first thing is to press the default setup button and do the calibration. I then set the reading to the ones normally used.
The five boards were tested:
Board 89, 124, 125, 118 and 119.
The Input Power supply was adjusted so that the LED was just turned on. Here are the results. All five boards showed current crossing 0 ref line.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 16, 2013, 02:25:55 AM
I turned on the Atten for over an hour before doing anything. The first thing is to press the default setup button and do the calibration. I then set the reading to the ones normally used.
The five boards were tested:
Board 89, 124, 125, 118 and 119.
The Input Power supply was adjusted so that the LED was just turned on. Here are the results. All five boards showed current crossing 0 ref line.....
That is very interesting Lawrence. Thanks for checking the calibration on your scope. I don't really understand what is causing those AC current spikes in your scope shots. Your input current traces are very different from what I see in my circuit. I look forward to running tests with your boards to see if I see the same sort of results.
This is getting rather ridiculous, don't you think?
Are you really looking for, and trying to reproduce, some kind of OU evidence that only shows up with the cheapest possible DSOs used incorrectly? With absolutely NO concurrent validation (a technical term meaning evidence of OU from some OTHER experimental or measurement technique running alongside the Atten measurements)?
Note again, that after all this time, the definitive experiment is still not being done. Charge a known capacitor to a known voltage. Then you know precisely the energy available for whatever. Use this capacitor to run the JT circuit while monitoring its voltage and the time accurately. Monitor the output power in your favourite manner. When the capacitor has dropped by a known voltage increment, you will KNOW just how much energy you have put into your circuit, and you will KNOW for how long.... thus you will KNOW, not guess or interpret, just how much input ENERGY you are dealing with during that time. This figure can be directly compared to the output power, or more precisely to the integrated output power over the time interval concerned (the output ENERGY).
It will do no one any good if I do this measurement. It must be done on several boards that Lawrence claims do show OU behaviour, preferably by Lawrence himself, but anyone who has an "approved" board, an oscilloscope, a stopwatch, an accurate voltmeter, and a bunch of capacitors can do the work in a day or two with enough runs for statistical significance to result IF there is anything to see.
When you see that every capacitor you try results in efficiencies of under 100 percent, then you can start resorting to your special pleading that "the robust and confirmed OU effect only happens with batteries. No, not those batteries, or those, not just any batteries, but only rechargeable batteries of specific chemistry and manufacturer, and only when they are between 0.341 and 0.351 volts".... and only when they are pointed northeast, on Tuesday mornings, when the weather is clear......
Whatever, dudes.
Why would a 0.4V rechargeable AA battery continue to light the LED for 3 full days?
More experiments needed???
The spikes on all Boards tested on the Atten showed crossing 0 ref line. Could that be the explanation???
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2013, 05:18:53 AM
This is getting rather ridiculous, don't you think?
Are you really looking for, and trying to reproduce, some kind of OU evidence that only shows up with the cheapest possible DSOs used incorrectly? With absolutely NO concurrent validation (a technical term meaning evidence of OU from some OTHER experimental or measurement technique running alongside the Atten measurements)?
Note again, that after all this time, the definitive experiment is still not being done. Charge a known capacitor to a known voltage. Then you know precisely the energy available for whatever. Use this capacitor to run the JT circuit while monitoring its voltage and the time accurately. Monitor the output power in your favourite manner. When the capacitor has dropped by a known voltage increment, you will KNOW just how much energy you have put into your circuit, and you will KNOW for how long.... thus you will KNOW, not guess or interpret, just how much input ENERGY you are dealing with during that time. This figure can be directly compared to the output power, or more precisely to the integrated output power over the time interval concerned (the output ENERGY).
It will do no one any good if I do this measurement. It must be done on several boards that Lawrence claims do show OU behaviour, preferably by Lawrence himself, but anyone who has an "approved" board, an oscilloscope, a stopwatch, an accurate voltmeter, and a bunch of capacitors can do the work in a day or two with enough runs for statistical significance to result IF there is anything to see.
When you see that every capacitor you try results in efficiencies of under 100 percent, then you can start resorting to your special pleading that "the robust and confirmed OU effect only happens with batteries. No, not those batteries, or those, not just any batteries, but only rechargeable batteries of specific chemistry and manufacturer, and only when they are between 0.341 and 0.351 volts".... and only when they are pointed northeast, on Tuesday mornings, when the weather is clear......
Whatever, dudes.
Relax Tinselkoala. You are not stating anything that is not already obvious to me, anyway. :) At this point I have agreed to test a couple of Lawrence's boards to see what shows up in my own measurements. I make no assumptions at all in regards to what is happening in Lawrence's boards. Once I get a couple of boards to test with, I will make measurements and see if there is anything unusual going on there. I will report all my results back here anyway. Anyone who has any concerns with my measurements will be free to provide whatever feedback they like. The world is still safe. :)
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 16, 2013, 07:27:50 AM
Why would a 0.4V rechargeable AA battery continue to light the LED for 3 full days?
More experiments needed???
The spikes on all Boards tested on the Atten showed crossing 0 ref line. Could that be the explanation???
I was thinking more about this and here is something you could try to see if this is just a normal discharge characteristic of your particular type of rechargeable battery:
Take the exact type of rechargeable battery (or, if possible, the exact same battery which you used in your test that you described here) and connect, say, a 220 ohm resistor across it terminals. Start with the battery fully charged. Place your scope probe across the battery's plus and minus terminals and monitor what happens when the battery discharges down to 0.4V. See if the battery shows the same sort of slow discharge characteristic at 0.4V with just a resistor for its load. If the discharge pattern is similar to what you saw when connected to your joule thief circuit at 0.4V, then it is likely just a characteristic of how that type of rechargeable battery discharges when it gets to around 0.4V (for a comparable load). For example, once the battery drops to about 0.4V, observe if the battery discharges at about the same rate with just the 220 ohm resistor connected, as it did with the joule thief circuit connected over a period of three days.
Important:
I am just using 220 ohms above as an example, which will give you an input current of 1.8mA when the battery is at 0.4V. If your input current when connected to your joule thief circuit was less than 1.8mA at 0.4V input, then you should use a larger value resistor for the test. You would want the input current draw at 0.4V with the resistor to be about the same as it was when the joule thief circuit was connected with 0.4V input. So, if your input current was closer to 1.2mA at 0.4V input, then use a 330 ohm resistor for the test. If you are not certain, then try using the 330 ohm resistor.
Lawrence, I think I see how you may be getting that ringing now on your input current waveform. I connected a super capacitor charged to just over 0.4V as the input voltage source for my joule thief circuit, and at 408mV input voltage I am starting to see some ringing on the input current waveform with a little bit of zero crossing. This sort of ringing on the current waveform would not be unusual in itself when you are driving an inductive load with a capacitor. The combination of capacitance and inductance can certainly produce ringing, so that in itself certainly does not imply anything unusual or imply over unity. However, it will be interesting to conduct tests to see if this ringing does reduce power consumption or increase efficiency at all, and if so, by how much.
I have attached a screen shot of the ringing on the input current waveform (blue trace) that I am seeing using a capacitor as my DC power source for my joule thief circuit. The capacitor is currently at 408mV. You can see a little bit of zero crossing on the larger negative peaks of the ringing pattern. Again, the ringing pattern seen would not be unusual in a circuit with capacitance and inductance, and the zero crossing certainly doesn't necessarily imply that there would be an increase in efficiency or over unity. Measurements of input and output power at different input voltages with a capacitor used as the input voltage source could be used to see if efficiency increases by any measurable amount when this sort of ringing with zero crossing occurs at some given input voltage, as opposed to say using a regulated DC power supply set to the same input voltage, if no ringing occurs on the input current waveform when using the regulated power supply. If possible, I will try to run some tests of this sort to see if the ringing has any measurable effect on performance.
Quote from: Void on May 16, 2013, 10:52:37 AM
Lawrence, I think I see how you may be getting that ringing now on your input current waveform. I connected a super capacitor charged to just over 0.4V as the input voltage source for my joule thief circuit, and at 408mV input voltage I am starting to see some ringing on the input current waveform with a little bit of zero crossing. This sort of ringing on the current waveform would not be unusual in itself when you are driving an inductive load with a capacitor. The combination of capacitance and inductance can certainly produce ringing, so that in itself certainly does not imply anything unusual or imply over unity. However, it will be interesting to conduct tests to see if this ringing does reduce power consumption or increase efficiency at all, and if so, by how much.
I have attached a screen shot of the ringing on the input current waveform (blue trace) that I am seeing using a capacitor as my DC power source for my joule thief circuit. The capacitor is currently at 408mV. You can see a little bit of zero crossing on the larger negative peaks of the ringing pattern. Again, the ringing pattern seen would not be unusual in a circuit with capacitance and inductance, and the zero crossing certainly doesn't necessarily imply that there would be an increase in efficiency or over unity. Measurements of input and output power at different input voltages with a capacitor used as the input voltage source could be used to see if efficiency increases by any measurable amount when this sort of ringing with zero crossing occurs at some given input voltage, as opposed to say using a regulated DC power supply set to the same input voltage, if no ringing occurs on the input current waveform when using the regulated power supply. If possible, I will try to run some tests of this sort to see if the ringing has any measurable effect on performance.
@Void
The Zhou Boards showed much ringing - heard by the many
young ears. (I could not hear any but that was probably due to my poor hearing.) I shall use different time scale to show the ringing waveforms.
I noticed that the display of your DSO is exactly like Atten. That will make our communication much easier. You can use the save/recall button to save the CSV file on the USB. I can analyze one of your measurements for you (both Input and Output) as sample. You do not need to rely on Vrms values any more. You can use the vigorous Instantaneous Values.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 16, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
@Void
The Zhou Boards showed much ringing - heard by the many young ears. (I could not hear any but that was probably due to my poor hearing.) I shall use different time scale to show the ringing waveforms.
I noticed that the display of your DSO is exactly like Atten. That will make our communication much easier. You can use the save/recall button to save the CSV file on the USB. I can analyze one of your measurements for you (both Input and Output) as sample. You do not need to rely on Vrms values any more. You can use the vigorous Instantaneous Values.
Yes, your boards seem to show a lot more ringing than my circuit, and they also show some unusual pulses/noise superimposed on the waveforms as well, which may be just due to electrical noise of some sort, but I don't know. It might be something else causing those pulses. My super capacitor is actually 3000 Farads nominal value, so it is going to take a fair bit of time for the input voltage to drop down much below 0.4 volts. :) It is the only super capacitor I had available however. My joule thief circuit has been running all day and the input voltage is still at 400mV from 408mV yesterday evening. :) It might be a day or two before the voltage has dropped down much below 400mV. The ringing that can often be heard on a joule thief circuit is generally due to the frequency of oscillation being in the audio frequency range, which causes the ferrite to ring at that frequency for some reason, and probably not so much to do with the type of ringing pattern that can be seen on the input current waveform. My joule thief circuit seems to operate mainly above the audio frequency range, at least at the lower input voltages I have been testing it at, so I don't hear any ringing noise from my ferrite toroid. I will see if I can get the data logging working on the weekend. If I can do it using a USB flash drive, I would prefer that because hooking up to a laptop will likely increase the electrical noise in the test circuit. Laptops and their switching power supplies tend to produce a fair bit of electrical noise.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 16, 2013, 04:27:09 PM
@Void
The Zhou Boards showed much ringing - heard by the many young ears. (I could not hear any but that was probably due to my poor hearing.) I shall use different time scale to show the ringing waveforms.
I noticed that the display of your DSO is exactly like Atten. That will make our communication much easier. You can use the save/recall button to save the CSV file on the USB. I can analyze one of your measurements for you (both Input and Output) as sample. You do not need to rely on Vrms values any more. You can use the vigorous Instantaneous Values.
Lawrence:
If your students can hear the ringing, then your JT's are operating under 20,000 cycles/sec. (Possibly a little higher, but not much) Some of the JT lights I have built made that annoying high pitched buzz so I simply placed a small neo on the ferrite toroid and it raised the HZ above my hearing level...and also made the lights a little brighter.
Note that Void's frequencies are much higher and that is why he can't hear them.
Just my 2.1175 cents.
Bill
Analyzing the Noise. Look at the following 5 slides. The noise is relatively systematic.
What can it be???
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 01:45:24 AM
Analyzing the Noise. Look at the following 5 slides. The noise is relatively systematic.
What can it be???
I am not sure, as your input current waveforms look a lot different from mine.
Would you mind showing a scope shot with everything else still connected the same,
but with one of the input power wires disconnected, or with the power turned off?
This will give an indication of what kind of electrical noise the circuit is picking up
when the circuit is turned off, so we can see what sort of noise remains.
Here is a scope shot of the input waveforms of my joule thief circuit with the super cap now at about 384mV.
The input current waveform still looks fairly similar to the way it looked at 408mV, but the frequency
slowly increases as the input voltage drops. The frequency is now around 294kHz at this input voltage.
Quote from: Void on May 17, 2013, 08:26:39 AM
Here is a scope shot of the input waveforms of my joule thief circuit with the super cap now at about 384mV.
The input current waveform still looks fairly similar to the way it looked at 408mV, but the frequency
slowly increases as the input voltage drops. The frequency is now around 294kHz at this input voltage.
Channel 2 is the current trace? Is your current trace display inverted, or are you using different probe positions than are given in the last complete diagram?
I see you have also overlapped the baselines of the two traces, putting them both on the center graticule marker. And you are using bandwidth limiting on the current trace.
(Edited, Channel 2 is the greenish one).
Lawrence, it should be clear to you by now that the term "ringing" has two different meanings. First, the common meaning, an audible tone like a high-pitched bell ringing, that your students with young ears can hear. This is caused by loose windings on the toroid and perhaps the toroid itself, vibrating at the frequency of oscillation of the JT circuit, which as we know is a function of voltage as well as the toroid and transistor characteristics. When the oscillation frequency is in the range of human hearing you hear the parts vibrating.
The second, more technical meaning is the _inductive ringdown_ and this can be seen very clearly in your last, highest-speed scopeshot. This is the "bounce" in a signal that is seen when some energy is sloshing back and forth between an inductor and a capacitance. As you can see, I hope, from careful examination of that last scope shot, this energy sloshes back and forth (the ringing) and dissipates (the decrease in amplitude of the cycles during each ring) but most importantly: IT AVERAGES TO ZERO, or slightly below zero since there is always a little bit of current flowing in addition to the ring. The frequency of this inductive ringdown is very high, as you can see, and is clearly out of the range of hearing. The inductances and capacitances participating in this high-frequency ringing are simply the wires and spacings in your circuit. This is why tight construction and short wires are used in high frequency circuit layout: to reduce this kind of ringing noise, which usually is considered detrimental to circuit performance.
Another feature to note from your series of shots is the difference between the first and second shots. You can clearly see that the first shot is missing a lot of the action, due to the "picket fence" effect of sampling and display rates and resolutions. The first shot looks like random noise. The second shot is beginning to resolve the transistor's switching frequency (the potentially audible ringing). By the time you get to the last shot you are able to resolve the ringing of the inductances and capacitances of the wiring and layout themselves, far above the range of human hearing.... and acting as a purely dissipative mechanism for heating up the components concerned, as you can see from the fact that each cluster of ring oscillations decreases in amplitude over time.
(And you _still_ aren't putting your baselines directly on a graticule marker. See the little arrows on the left side of the display? Please use your vertical positioning knobs to put these little arrows _exactly_ on one of the horizontal graticule lines, unless there is a specific and clear reason for not doing so. You have no such reason, and the lack of accuracy in your scope setup is making it unduly difficult for observers to interpret your scope traces. I have mentioned this issue to you several times now. The reason for those wiggly lines on a scope display is so that they can be interpreted. The numbers in boxes that you seem to rely upon do not tell the whole, or even the most important story that an oscilloscope can tell. Proper management of the display of the traces is an essential part of scoposcopy. PLEASE PUT THE CHANNEL BASELINES EXACTLY ON HORIZONTAL GRATICULE LINES in all your future scopeshots unless you have a good, conscious and articulatable reason for not doing so. But congratulations on setting your trigger a bit better.)
The triggering point on the Atten and the similar scope that Void is using is indicated by several features of the display. Of course the trigger voltage and channel and edge are displayed as a "number in box" at the lower right of the screen. But on the trace display itself, the trigger voltage is indicated by a "T" and arrow, in the color of the channel selected, on the left edge of the display along with the channel baseline markers. The trigger TIME is indicated by the white arrow at the top of the display, and this is normally set at the center vertical graticule marker. SO the intersection of the lines defined by the "T" and the white arrow is where the scopes are triggering (or should be).
In Void's scopeshot this can be clearly seen: the trace triggers the scope at the intersection, right in the center of the screen horizontally and at the set trigger voltage vertically.
In Lawrence's scopeshots... not so much. In the last one particularly, the trigger point has been moved off the screen to the left with the horizontal positioning control and we are seeing a "delayed" display, and it's unclear just where the scope is triggering and on what signal, since the trigger point is off the screen. In many other scopeshots from Lawrence, there doesn't seem to be anything happening at the trigger point on the display, yet the scope is triggering anyway.
If the "ringing pulse" represents current crossing the 0 ref line, then we must have positive and negative power in the circuit. (Input Volotage is all positive. Output Voltage and Output Current are all positive.)
What does that mean? How can current flow forwards and backwards in a DC environment?
*** Look at the theoretical explanation again. If there is a "hidden" pulsing source, the above is possible. That is Lead-out energy. So long as there is crossing of the 0 reference line - either the main Current or the spikes, there is lead-out energy. Amen.
*** It is a matter of producing the circuit to achieve this crossing the 0 ref line behavior. The Zhou Board is only one example.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 08:38:12 AM
Channel 1 is the current trace? Is your current trace display inverted, or are you using different probe positions than are given in the last complete diagram?
I see you have also overlapped the baselines of the two traces, putting them both on the center graticule marker. And you are using bandwidth limiting on the current trace.
Hi Tinselkoala. My probes are oriented the same as I have shown in the schematic I posted previously. Yellow(Ch.1) is the input voltage waveform, and blue(Ch.2) is the input current waveform. The input current waveform should not be inverted. Yes, I have both waveforms vertically set at the center line. I like to set them that way.
Regarding the bandwidth limiting on channel 2, my scope turns this on automatically at low volts per division settings, and I am not able to turn it off. There seems to be some auto routine there that flips this on maybe as the signal gets a certain percentage of noise on it. My input current waveform is starting to get close to the noise level at this input voltage. I don't know what frequency the scope limits the bandwidth to when the BW Limit feature is turned on. The user manual for my scope seems to have been written by a grade four student. The PC interface software that comes with my scope also seems to have been written by the same grade four student. :) The scope itself however seems at least passable, so far.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 09:08:41 AM
If the "ringing pulse" represents current crossing the 0 ref line, then we must have positive and negative power in the citcuit. (Input Volotage is all positive. Output Voltage and Output Current are all positive.)
What does that mean? How can current flow forwards and backwards in a DC environment?
No, Lawrence, it means the same energy is sloshing back and forth between inductance and capacitance. Yes, it represents a tiny bit of energy changing direction of flow. No, it does not mean "negative power".
Take two buckets. Fill one with water from your well. Now begin pouring the water back and forth between the two buckets. Each time you pour, a tiny bit splashes out, a little evaporates, a bird comes by and drinks some and flies away. Eventually, you are not pouring a full bucket of water back and forth any more, but only a few drops, and finally all the water you started with is gone. So you return to your well (the transistor) and you bring up another bucket and start pouring it back and forth again. Do you wind up with extra water? No, of course you don't, all your water is dissipated into the environment and can't be used for anything. But it makes the birds and plants happy. But your arms surely must be getting tired by now.
You most certainly do not have a "DC environment". You are pulsing inductors at high frequency.
Quote from: Void on May 17, 2013, 09:11:17 AM
Hi Tinselkoala. My probes are oriented the same as I have shown in the schematic I posted previously. Yellow(Ch.1) is the input voltage waveform, and blue(ch.2) is the input current waveform. The input current waveform should not be inverted. Yes, I have both waveforms vertically set at the vertical center line. I like to set them that way.
Regarding the bandwidth limiting on channel 2, my scope turns this on automatically at low volts per division settings, and I am not able to turn it off. There seems to be some auto routine there that flips this on maybe as the signal gets a certain percentage of noise on it. My input current waveform is starting to get close to the noise level at this input voltage. I don't know what frequency the scope limits the bandwidth to when the BW Limit feature is turned on. The user manual for my scope seems to have been written by a grade four student. The PC interface software that comes with my scope also seems to have been written by the same grade four student. :) The scope itself however seems at least passable, so far.
Hmm. I've attached your schematic below, along with the schematic that the "rest of us" are using. Please note that your current probe is inverted from that which Lawrence and I are using, and presumably also that which .99 is using. This accounts for your positive readings where we are seeing negative readings. To avoid confusion, I suggest that we all use the same schematic, the same "names" for the probe connection locations, and to make it easy on Lawrence, I suggest that we use the one he has published and is using, with the setup that allows all four scope channels to be connected to the same "ground" reference point.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 09:14:26 AM
No, Lawrence, it means the same energy is sloshing back and forth between inductance and capacitance. Yes, it represents a tiny bit of energy changing direction of flow. No, it does not mean "negative power".
*** The LED was ON all the time. Some energy must be used. Why would a "0.4V or less rechargeable AA battery" last 3 days??? Can there be an alternative explanation?
Take two buckets. Fill one with water from your well. Now begin pouring the water back and forth between the two buckets. Each time you pour, a tiny bit splashes out, a little evaporates, a bird comes by and drinks some and flies away. Eventually, you are not pouring a full bucket of water back and forth any more, but only a few drops, and finally all the water you started with is gone. So you return to your well (the transistor) and you bring up another bucket and start pouring it back and forth again. Do you wind up with extra water? No, of course you don't, all your water is dissipated into the environment and can't be used for anything. But it makes the birds and plants happy. But your arms surely must be getting tired by now.
You most certainly do not have a "DC environment". You are pulsing inductors at high frequency.
We have to examine Board 124 - the one with the timer. You said in your post that it will NOT last longer than Board 116. Experiment so far has shown that it not only
lasted longer but also brighter.
More research needed. But if one assumes energy can be brought-in or lead-out, one can explain the experimental results immediately. Obviously, you may assume that the
extra energy comes from the timer power supply. We need to do experiments to eliminate that.....
Much more to learn and experiment. I sow seeds. Others are encouraged to water, fertilize, harvast etc.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 10:21:32 AM
We have to examine Board 124 - the one with the timer. You said in your post that it will NOT last longer than Board 116. Experiment so far has shown that it not only lasted longer but also brighter.
My prediction was of course based on
1) having the exact same starting energy stored in the sources, which you have not shown and which is very unlikely;
2) being able to quantify and equate the light output in both cases, which you have resisted doing for months now;
3) assuring and showing that it is impossible for any power to be coming from the Timer Switching circuit or other outside sources, something else you have resisted doing for a long time.
Quote
More research needed. But if one assumes energy can be brought-in or lead-out, one can explain the experimental results immediately. Obviously, you may assume that the extra energy comes from the timer power supply. We need to do experiments to eliminate that.....
Much more to learn and experiment. I sow seeds. Others are encouraged to water, fertilize, harvast etc.
You have wasted a lot of your own time, my time, and the time of hundreds of other people by your false claims based on the poor measurements and interpretations of them. If you had spent some time at the very beginning, to understand your instruments and how to use them, you might have been able to save a lot of this time and effort. It might not matter to YOU how other people waste their time, and I personally do this for my own edification and amusement so my own time isn't wasted -- and I am getting exactly what I expected from this program. But you have undoubtedly planted false hopes in some other people, and they have wasted their time and effort watering and fertilizing YOUR garden, and are harvesting nothing but frustration from it.
I've asked you several times before: You have distributed many boards, maybe over a hundred. Where are the reports from the testers to whom you have sent these boards? We have only .99's report... his _negative_ report that indicates that your measurements of that board were faulty. Where are the reports from all the other testers? Have you gotten any responses at all, negative or positive?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 09:08:41 AM
If the "ringing pulse" represents current crossing the 0 ref line, then we must have positive
and negative power in the circuit. (Input Volotage is all positive. Output Voltage and Output
Current are all positive.)
What does that mean? How can current flow forwards and backwards in a DC environment?
*** Look at the theoretical explanation again. If there is a "hidden" pulsing source,
the above is possible. That is Lead-out energy. So long as there is crossing of the 0 reference line
- either the main Current or the spikes, there is lead-out energy. Amen.
*** It is a matter of producing the circuit to achieve this crossing the 0 ref line behavior.
The Zhou Board is only one example.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 09:14:26 AM
No, Lawrence, it means the same energy is sloshing back and forth between inductance and capacitance. Yes, it represents a tiny bit of energy changing direction of flow. No, it does not mean "negative power".
Take two buckets. Fill one with water from your well. Now begin pouring the water back and forth between the two buckets. Each time you pour, a tiny bit splashes out, a little evaporates, a bird comes by and drinks some and flies away. Eventually, you are not pouring a full bucket of water back and forth any more, but only a few drops, and finally all the water you started with is gone. So you return to your well (the transistor) and you bring up another bucket and start pouring it back and forth again. Do you wind up with extra water? No, of course you don't, all your water is dissipated into the environment and can't be used for anything. But it makes the birds and plants happy. But your arms surely must be getting tired by now.
You most certainly do not have a "DC environment". You are pulsing inductors at high frequency.
I would say I am not convinced that those many negative swings seen in Lawrence's input current waveforms do not indicate current flowing back to the power source during the negative swings. (As an aside, keep in mind that Lawrence has his ch. 2 probe oriented such that his current waveform is inverted on his scope display.) However, it is not established if Lawrence has his DC offset on his scope channels completely zeroed out now, as Lawrence didn't indicate if he tested the DC offset by setting to x1, 2mV/div, DC, and grounding the scope probe tips to the probe ground clips to view the DC offset, as I suggested to him in a previous post, so there could be some DC offset in Lawrence's current waveforms. However, if the DC offset is minimal, then his input current waveforms do seem to show about as many negative swings as positive swings, although they are damped, which if shown correctly should average out to a very low current draw overall. On the other hand, if there is some DC offset there that is skewing Lawrence's input current waveforms, then maybe the input current waveforms are actually much more positively offset than is indicated in Lawrence's scope shots. Once I receive those test boards from Lawrence, I can confirm if my measurements are similar to what Lawrence is showing or not. I will make sure to check for any DC offset on both channels before making any measurements.
How about putting a Schottky diode in series with the battery, and treating that battery-diode combo as a black-box "battery" source? Clearly, the diode will prevent any "reverse current" from reaching the battery. However, I think you will likely still see the same current waveforms as before, including the zero-crossings that have been observed.
I have not tried this experiment myself, and since I don't see any zero-crossing to begin with it would be kind of useless for me to try it. But anyone who has a board that does make these zerocrossing current waveforms should probably try it, to see if the diode prevents the observed zero-crossings or not.
@Void,
Here are the results from Board 118 which will be sent to you for verification after all tests are done. The Input Voltage from the DC Power Supply was again adjusted so that the LED was just ON. CH2 (current) showed crossing 0 ref line with much "noise". The "noise" was stretched out by varying the time scale.
The result was a pulsed waveform similar to Board 119. However, in this case, there was some wavy on the 0 ref line. The actual waveform on the noise was somewhat different.
I shall let you do the "correct calibration" etc. Do not rely on my Atten and my skill to provide conclusive results. I may not be doing all the right set up and I am waiting for the 4-CH Tektronics and the "experts" to help me to the verification in a few weeks time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 11:10:18 AM
I've asked you several times before: You have distributed many boards, maybe over a hundred. Where are the reports from the testers to whom you have sent these boards? We have only .99's report... his _negative_ report that indicates that your measurements of that board were faulty. Where are the reports from all the other testers? Have you gotten any responses at all, negative or positive?
[/font]
@TK, We are dealing with the Chinese mentality in Hong Kong and China. Mr. Zhou was willing to show his picture but would not post on overunity.com. Prof. Julia Tree in USA was willing to let me quote his to-be-confirmed results using the Student Laboratory oscilloscopes. In his words: "The preliminary oscilloscope results indicated Output greater than Input but more research is required. I am giving some of your boards to others for testing." A factory owner said: "Why should I post the results of my engineers free to the World? If it does not work, why waste time posting? If it works, it will be top-secret until the product is on the Market. I am not interested in non-profit activities." A fellow researcher said:"What is the point of my posting? Just look at the jeers you received. If you are right, I do not get any credit. In any case, your work has generated enough interest for people to pump extra resources. I am looking forward to accessing the 4-CH Tektronics also. " A retired electrical Engineer said: "I heard your presentation at least three times. You are violating the Law of Conservation of Energy. No oscillating circuit can generate energy from nothing." A retired electronics Professor said: "I got the boards. There is much more vigorous research required to claim overunity. You are one of the dozens in Hong Kong showing similar boards. Good luck." When one sows seeds – what does the Bible say???
Noise analysis on Board 80.
I now use the pdf file so as not to occupy too much screen space. Note slide 2, 3 and 4 in particular. They showed probes shorted, no Input Voltage and just enough Input Voltage to light the LED.
What is the source of the Noise? Noise is present even when there is NO Input Power?
Shall put equipment to different parts of the house. Use microwave as Faraday cage?
Lawrence, it is entirely possible that your DC power supply is contributing to the noise in your signal.
I would like to see a scope trace of the power supply's output into a plain resistive load. If you set your power supply to 1.5 volts and use a 150 ohm and a 1 ohm resistor in series as the load, you will have I = V/R = 1.5/151 = just under 10 mA of current. You can then use the scope to look at the current in the 1 ohm resistor just as you have been doing with the JT boards. Use wires that are as short as possible and solder the resistors together and to the wires to the power supply. Any noise that you see in the resulting scope trace will be coming from the power supply and/or the oscilloscope itself. It should take you about ten minutes to do this test, including waiting for the soldering iron to warm up.
By varying the value of the voltage setting or the larger resistor you can look at the noise level at several current output levels.
This is a "control" experiment, something that is in general lacking in the work of many free energy researchers. Doing experiments or demonstrations that illustrate your phenomenon of interest is all well and good; but designing the proper _control_ experiments to rule out hypotheses is a real art and is the key to the application of the scientific method itself.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Noise analysis on Board 80.
I now use the pdf file so as not to occupy too much screen space. Note slide 2, 3 and 4 in particular. They showed probes shorted, no Input Voltage and just enough Input Voltage to light the LED.
What is the source of the Noise? Noise is present even when there is NO Input Power?
Shall put equipment to different parts of the house. Use microwave as Faraday cage?
AARRGHH!
Slide 2 "probes shorted".... but you are displaying the channels at different voltage settings !!! You have bandwidth limiting set for one channel ! And once again your zero baselines are not on horizontal graticule markers. This test should be repeated with both channels set at the minimum V/div setting, BWL off, to get a baseline noise level for each channel, in addition to the noise seen when set in the measurement mode.
Yes, noise is present _always_ and to exclude it completely you will need more than a microwave oven "Faraday Cage". The openings needed for instrument probes or power supply cords will leak more energy than you would probably believe.
If you insist on showing scope shots from your inaccurate, imprecise and noisy Atten scopes, I insist that you set the trace baselines properly, or I will just stop looking at them altogether.
You have no idea how annoying it is for me to see that you STILL ARE NOT PLACING YOUR BASELINES DIRECTLY ON A HORIZONTAL GRATICULE LINE.
What part of this do you not understand, Lawrence? If I want to see what voltage levels your traces are ACTUALLY indicating, rather than simply looking at the numbers in boxes, I must carefully see just how much offset from a reference line you have snuck in there, and then count divisions and add or subtract that little bit of imprecision in your adjustment EVERY TIME, when it would be a matter of an instant for you to set these important references accurately and properly to make it easier to interpret the voltage levels.
You will note that in all my videos showing scope shots, I always... ALWAYS.... indicate somehow where the zero baseline is and I ALWAYS try my best, parallax permitting, to place these references on a graticule line. I am using analog equipment that does not give me "numbers in boxes" so it would be nearly impossible to read an accurate voltage level if I did not do this. This is BASIC oscilloscope usage we are talking about here. Those colored lines have meaning, and scopes are hard enough to read as it is without you making it harder by "random" setting of the channel baselines.
Note especially the Trace 2 in the shot above. The eye sees where the horizontal graticule line is and wants to compare the scope trace with this line... but the real baseline is a bit below the graticule marker. This results in an optical illusion of sorts, where the eye thinks the trace is more negative than it really is. If the baseline was right on the graticule line like it should be, it would be immediately evident to the eye that this trace is quite symmetrical about the true zero line, as an inductive ring signature generally is. The positioning of the channel baselines is Important and Has Effects on the Visual Interpretation of the traces, so please PLEASE stop setting these things randomly, or with the deliberate bias shown in the trace above.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 17, 2013, 07:47:17 PM
Noise analysis on Board 80.
I now use the pdf file so as not to occupy too much screen space. Note slide 2, 3 and 4 in particular. They showed probes shorted, no Input Voltage and just enough Input Voltage to light the LED.
What is the source of the Noise? Noise is present even when there is NO Input Power?
Shall put equipment to different parts of the house. Use microwave as Faraday cage?
Hi Lawrence. Thanks for conducting those tests. The reason that I asked you to show the scope traces with the power turned off or disconnected, is because it is hard to interpret your scope input current traces without knowing what in those traces is actually due to external electrical noise getting into your circuit and probes. From the scope screen shot you posted where the power was turned off, I still see much of the same noise/pulses that we have been seeing in your recent input current scope shots. This seems to indicate that these pulses are coming from an external electrical noise source. Switching power supplies for electronics equipment such as laptops and desktop computers, and all sorts of other electronics equipment which use switching power supplies or which have internal digital circuitry, can generate noise pulses like that. Do you have a laptop or computer or other electronic equipment with external adaptor type AC plug-in switching power supplies operating anywhere near where you are doing your scope measurements? Laptops and computers and also their power supplies can certainly make electrical noise pulses like that, as wel as some other electronic equipment. Not to worry though. When you send me your boards for testing I will be able to tell what is going on with your circuits and how much external electrical noise was a factor in your scope screen shots that you have been posting.
By the way, if you set the switch on your oscilloscope probe to x1, you also need to set the corresponding scope channel's probe setting to x1 as well in your scope's channel settings menu, to match your scope probe switch setting. This makes the volts per division setting on your scope display match correctly for a x1 probe switch setting. If you have your scope probe switch set to x1, but you don't have your scope's channel setting also set to x1 (for example if it is set to x10 in the scope channel's probe setting), then your scope will display 20mV/div (and will also use this incorrect setting for voltage magnitude determination) when it should actually be displaying 2mV/div and determining voltage magnitudes based on 2mV/div. Could you have been doing this in your measurements? I am wondering why the current in many of your scope screen shots shows as being set to 20mV/div when at very low input voltages it seems to me that you would probably have to set to 2mV/div for the current measurements?
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2013, 09:48:42 PM
Lawrence, it is entirely possible that your DC power supply is contributing to the noise in your signal.
@TK,
It is unlikely to be the DC Power supply. I took the Atten to the living room - far away from any seen electrical appliances. The spikes are still there - with NO power supply.
When I simply shorted the probe or connect a 1 or a 100 ohm resistor across, the spikes disappeared. It appears that the spikes are a property of the Boards.
Lawrence, Void's comment about sources of noise in the environment is important. "Noise" represents power, wasted and radiated power that is all around us at all times, except in very carefully designed and built "Faraday cages" or screen rooms. I think I've shown that the JT circuit we are using makes a great receiver for this kind of power in the environment, and if there is a lot of it, it can even light up the LED brilliantly with no battery or external power supply to the board. Your boards, with their loose layout and long wire lengths and other build features, will probably be even more susceptible to environmental pickup. Your latest post above seems to be showing that the board is picking up enough power from the environment to oscillate a little bit, or at least to amplify the oscillations it is detecting. (Also note that some of this power can be coming in thru common instrument and power supply ground leads.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XRA1qaPYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XRA1qaPYM)
I think it would be very interesting to "scan" your local environment with a good RF spectrum analyzer. Even a simple Tri-Field Meter could give you some idea of your RF, electric and magnetic field environment.
Picking up and using wasted power from the environment is a great and good thing. If you can light an LED brilliantly off of the "electrosmog", that is nearly as good as a real "forever light", in my opinion. Even though the electrosmog is mostly man-made and is wasted power from conventional sources, this is very close to the "harnessing the wheelworks of Nature" that Tesla dreamed of doing. Now if you could only tune into some ambient power that _wasn't_ already man-made, that would be the big prize, the true Divine Wind (rather than the divine "passing of wind" that we've accomplished so far in this thread.)
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 18, 2013, 12:33:43 AM
I took the Atten to the living room - far away from any seen electrical appliances. The spikes are still there - with NO power supply.
When I simply shorted the probe or connect a 1 or a 100 ohm resistor across, the spikes disappeared. It appears that the spikes are a property of the Boards.
Hi Lawrence. It is also possible that electrical noise from your scope's internal power supply is the source of the noise pulses, but your Atten scopes are made by Siglent, and your Atten scopes are very similar to my Siglent scope and I don't seem to have a problem with picking up noise pulses from my scope's internal power supply, so I am not sure what is causing those pulses that you are showing on your channel 2 trace with no power applied to your circuit. Unless the model of scopes you are using have a different power supply type/arrangement than my scope has. Or you may be picking up electrical noise into your scope from your AC power outlet when you plug in your scope, but I don't really know what is causing those apparent noise pulses that are showing in your scope trace with no power applied to your board. Does your other scope show the exact same sort of pulses with no power applied to your board? Do you have access to a different make of scope that you can do a comparison test with, with no power applied to the board?
I have attached a scope shot showing the voltage (yellow trace) and current (blue trace) input traces with my super cap now at 368mV. You can see that the current waveform still looks about the same overall, but electrical noise is now starting to be a significant factor, as the current waveform is getting down very close to the noise level. As you can see though, my joule thief circuit doesn't seem to have the kind of noise pulses on the current waveform that Lawrence shows in his input current scope shots for his boards, even at this very low input voltage. The LED is glowing fairly dimly now, and the circuit will stop oscillating when the input voltage drops a bit further. It seems my joule thief circuit as it is now will oscillate down to about 0.36V or so. The frequency measurements shown in the scope shots are not correct. The frequency measurement routines in the scope do not seem to work very well unless it is a fairly simple and clean waveform. The actual oscillation frequency is around 323kHz at this input voltage.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 18, 2013, 07:52:34 AM
Lawrence, Void's comment about sources of noise in the environment is important. "Noise" represents power, wasted and radiated power that is all around us at all times, except in very carefully designed and built "Faraday cages" or screen rooms. I think I've shown that the JT circuit we are using makes a great receiver for this kind of power in the environment, and if there is a lot of it, it can even light up the LED brilliantly with no battery or external power supply to the board. Your boards, with their loose layout and long wire lengths and other build features, will probably be even more susceptible to environmental pickup. Your latest post above seems to be showing that the board is picking up enough power from the environment to oscillate a little bit, or at least to amplify the oscillations it is detecting. (Also note that some of this power can be coming in thru common instrument and power supply ground leads.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XRA1qaPYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XRA1qaPYM)
I think it would be very interesting to "scan" your local environment with a good RF spectrum analyzer. Even a simple Tri-Field Meter could give you some idea of your RF, electric and magnetic field environment.
Picking up and using wasted power from the environment is a great and good thing. If you can light an LED brilliantly off of the "electrosmog", that is nearly as good as a real "forever light", in my opinion. Even though the electrosmog is mostly man-made and is wasted power from conventional sources, this is very close to the "harnessing the wheelworks of Nature" that Tesla dreamed of doing. Now if you could only tune into some ambient power that _wasn't_ already man-made, that would be the big prize, the true Divine Wind (rather than the divine "passing of wind" that we've accomplished so far in this thread.)
@TK,
That is a very interesting video. Your JT picked up enough energy to light up the LED brightly. I believe that in Zhou's shop, the "noise" seemed to be much more. The shop is in the midst of over a thousand electronics shops.
*** I shall do the tests on Board 118 and 119 at home first and then take them to Zhou's Shop and repeat. If the "noise" is indeed much higher, we may have a possible explanation of the "extra energy".
In Hong Kong, there is no escape from "electrosmog". I am not familiar with "scan" techniques. There was a story about a person in Hong Kong who powered his home with such "electrosmog" energy. He was then hired by the Hong Kong Electric Company and the secret was never disclosed.
I would not rule out the possibility that the Zhou Boards happen to pick up such "electrosmog" energy. This is still a form of "bring-in" or "lead-out" energy from the environment.
I shall let all the testers know about your video. More research needs to be done in this area.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 18, 2013, 10:04:21 AM
I would not rule out the possibility that the Zhou Boards happen to pick up such "electrosmog" energy. This is still a form of "bring-in" or "lead-out" energy from the environment.
Hi Lawrence. Well, I think it is probably not really anything too unusual going on there. A joule thief circuit contains a transistor, and a small signal transistor of this type acts as a sensitive amplifier, and with enough induced voltage in the circuit from external electrical noise pickup from electrical equipment through wiring or from radiated electromagnetic signals (it doesn't take that much), the sensitive transistor can be activated enough to amplify the noise signal and oscillate a bit. The coil windings on the toroid as well as wiring on your boards will act like antennas which can pick up any surrounding electromagnetic fields and convert that to an electrical voltage. The toroid windings can probably convert even very weak electromagnetic fields to a measurable voltage signal, much like a sensitive radio receiver with a transistor amplifier stage to boost the signal a bit.
Quote from: Void on May 18, 2013, 08:25:42 AM
Hi Lawrence. It is also possible that electrical noise from your scope's internal power supply is the source of the noise pulses, but your Atten scopes are made by Siglent, and your Atten scopes are very similar to my Siglent scope and I don't seem to have a problem with picking up noise pulses from my scope's internal power supply, so I am not sure what is causing those pulses that you are showing on your channel 2 trace with no power applied to your circuit. Unless the model of scopes you are using have a different power supply type/arrangement than my scope has. Or you may be picking up electrical noise into your scope from your AC power outlet when you plug in your scope, but I don't really know what is causing those apparent noise pulses that are showing in your scope trace with no power applied to your board. Does your other scope show the exact same sort of pulses with no power applied to your board? Do you have access to a different make of scope that you can do a comparison test with, with no power applied to the board?
See TK's Video. His JT (based on my circuit diagram) lighted brightly with no power supply. He attributed this to the board picking up "electrosmog" energy. This explanation makes sense.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 18, 2013, 10:04:21 AM
*** I shall do the tests on Board 118 and 119 at home first and then take them to Zhou's Shop and repeat. If the "noise" is indeed much higher, we may have a possible explanation of the "extra energy".
Hi Lawrence. You do not need to send any boards to me for testing if what you have been interpreting as unusual results is really just due to electrical noise pickup. However I can still test some boards for you if you like, if you want to have a comparison of my measurements compared to your measurements.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 18, 2013, 10:36:00 AM
See TK's Video. His JT (based on my circuit diagram) lighted brightly with no power supply. He attributed this to the board picking up "electrosmog" energy. This explanation makes sense.....
Yes, this is what I have been saying. Electrical noise in a circuit can have many causes, including EM radiation. The electrical noise doesn't always come directly through wiring, but more often is induced from EM fields produced by various types of electronics equipment. Switching power supplies and computers, etc., produce a lot of electrical noise, and this noise gets induced in circuits and scope probes via the EM fields surrounding this type of equipment, but this electrical noise can also get picked up through electrical wiring such as an AC power cord or power supply wires, for example.
In TK's example, he is holding the board in close proximity to a very strong EM field, but even a weak EM field could potentially induce enough voltage in your circuit to cause the sensitive transistor to activate a little bit. You do not even need a transistor to get this sort of effect. I have done tests where I found I can hold one lead of a LED in my finger tips and touch the other lead of the LED to a terminal on my DC power supply with the DC power supply switched off, and the LED lights dimly. This is due to some voltage from the AC line and transformer in the DC power supply coupling into the power supply wiring, even though the power supply is switched off. The power supply still has to be plugged into the AC outlet for this to work this way however. Also, the LED I was testing with is a very sensitive type of LED, and it starts to light at currents as low as 15uA to 18uA or so.
Also, see my note in a previous reply (Reply #882 ) which I made a few posts ago about making sure to set both the scope probe switch multiplication factor setting and the scope channel probe multiplication factor setting to match. It seems that you didn't have this set to match in your input current waveform measurements?
Quote from: Void on May 18, 2013, 10:45:19 AM
Yes, this is what I have been saying. Electrical noise in a circuit can have many causes, including EM radiation. The electrical noise doesn't always come directly through wiring, but more often is induced from EM fields produced by various types of electronics equipment. Switching power supplies and computers, etc., produce a lot of electrical noise, and this noise gets induced in circuits and scope probes via the EM fields surrounding this type of equipment, but this electrical noise can also get picked up through electrical wiring such as an AC power cord or power supply wires, for example.
*** Agreed. But can we effectively use such energy? Board 124 with the capacitor and twin timer suggests that such may be possible. I think if you use your supercapacitor and a twin timer, you may be able to make a rechargeable AA Battery last much longer. The addition of a small capacitor in parallel with the 1K Ohm resistor may help also.
In TK's example, he is holding the board in close proximity to a very strong EM field, but even a weak EM field could potentially induce enough voltage in your circuit to cause the sensitive transistor to activate a little bit. You do not even need a transistor to get this sort of effect. I have done tests where I found I can hold one lead of a LED in my finger tips and touch the other lead of the LED to a terminal on my DC power supply with the DC power supply switched off, and the LED lights dimly. This is due to some voltage from the AC line and transformer in the DC power supply coupling into the power supply wiring, even though the power supply is switched off. The power supply still has to be plugged into the AC outlet for this to work this way however. Also, the LED I was testing with is a very sensitive type of LED, and it starts to light at currents as low as 15uA to 18uA or so.
*** I have seen such "ghost lighting effects" also.
Also, see my note in a previous reply (Reply #882 ) which I made a few posts ago about making sure to set both the scope probe switch multiplication factor setting and the scope channel probe multiplication factor setting to match. It seems that you didn't have this set to match in your input current waveform measurements?
*** I usually set the scope and probes to x10. I damaged one Atten over three years ago by setting all values to x1. My student teams were on the learning curve. All my posted results used x10 except during calibration.
The question is - can we design
efficient circuits to use the electrical noise or electrosmog??? From the description of the neighbors of the Hong Kong Person who "rumored" to have mastered such technique, the house was full of wires, electrical equipment and antennas..... The Zhou Board is unlikely to be the final and best design to capture and use such energy. More research needed (at Universities with the appropriate equipment and experts?)
The TK video pointed to many new possibilities.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 18, 2013, 05:50:34 PM
Agreed. But can we effectively use such energy? Board 124 with the capacitor and twin timer suggests that such may be possible. I think if you use your supercapacitor and a twin timer, you may be able to make a rechargeable AA Battery last much longer. The addition of a small capacitor in parallel with the 1K Ohm resistor may help also.
The question is - can we design efficient circuits to use the electrical noise or electrosmog??? From the description of the neighbors of the Hong Kong Person who "rumored" to have mastered such technique, the house was full of wires, electrical equipment and antennas..... The Zhou Board is unlikely to be the final and best design to capture and use such energy. More research needed (at Universities with the appropriate equipment and experts?)
The TK video pointed to many new possibilities.....
Yes, your experiments with the timer charging a capacitor seem worth investigating further. Does the timer circuit you are using have a relay output with isolated contacts?
You probably can use electro-smog as a source of energy, but the problem is that most of this EM radiation around us is fairly low power, and you can probably only use it to at best light a LED or make a very low power battery charger. Maybe if a person set up a big array of high gain antennas they might be able to pull in a bit more power.
If someone is able to pull in more power than just a little bit this way, then they may be drawing power inductively off the main power grid lines, which is probably illegal. :)
I saw somewhere an article in russian with a circuit tapping radio waves from radio station and using it to power small load like 5-10W bulb (depending on the distance to the transmitter).
The point is that the only needed thing is to charge large electrolytic capacitor, then everything should work in close-loop system....can you design such circuit charging capacitor from radio waves ?
Quote from: Void on May 19, 2013, 10:57:33 AM
Yes, your experiments with the timer charging a capacitor seem worth investigating further. Does the timer circuit you are using have a relay output with isolated contacts?
*** The twin timer was bought from a local electronics component store. No technical details or circuit diagrams were included.
You probably can use electro-smog as a source of energy, but the problem is that most of this EM radiation around us is fairly low power, and you can probably only use it to at best light a LED or make a very low power battery charger. Maybe if a person set up a big array of high gain antennas they might be able to pull in a bit more power.
If someone is able to pull in more power than just a little bit this way, then they may be drawing power inductively off the main power grid lines, which is probably illegal. :)
*** We are still at the infancy of such technology. There are still many unknowns. Some of the statements from experts may be false because they drew conclusions from their existing knowledge. I still believe that no physics laws are violated if we use X amount of energy to "magnetize" a magnet and we can get Y units of work done. Y can be greater than X because the material itself already has magnetic properties.
I sow seeds. TK may have many negative comments but he also did some remarkable experiments that added to our understanding. The fact that a JT can pick up electrosmog energy is definitely worth further research. What is the best circuit and how much energy can be picked up? Will the addition of capacitors in the circuit make a difference?
*** I believe much electrical energy is "wasted" especially in a factory type environment when one can see sparks, noise etc. If such "wasted" energy can be picked up and used, we are not "stealing" from the electric companies.... In the traditional lighting systems, much energy is wasted as heat or radiated out without giving visible light. If we can use such energy???
I firmly believe that if a system already has "random" energy, the use of X units to
orientate such "random" energy may bring out Y units of useful energy. Y can be greater than X. The system does not need to be
closed or return back to the
initial state. No Laws of thermodynamics are violated.....
The two boards 121 and 122 with Mr. Lau is still ON dimly. Board 121 is the standard JT with a normal AA battery. Board 122 has the capacitor but no timer.
I shall go to his place to check it out tomorrow.
Mr. Zhou has built the 2n2055 and his preliminary result is that the Input Power can be much higher than the "noise level" of 10mV. I shall let him play with it for a few more days before picking it up.
It looks like the Boards are indeed "bringing-in" or "leading-out" some energy from the environment. I do not know the exact mechanism yet. It may be electrosmog or something else. I shall encourage others to water, fertilize and harvast the seeds..... It is a free World. The testers can do whatever they feel like.
Try to analyze the strange Board 113.
Board 113 was the strange board withwaveform totally different from other Boards. Previously, I just treat such Boards as reject. Now on TK's advice, I keep them and try to analyze them.
Just show the strange waveforms first. The first comparison of Board and connections appeared correct.
*** It looks like the best thing for me to do is to keep the Board. Wait until I find the right person to debug. I do not have the energy, skill and equipment to do a proper job.
Lawrence,
Board #113 seems to be running between 1MHz and 2 MHz. That is a big clue as to what is wrong/different. Most of your boards run in the low kHz correct?
Check the coil resistance and connections. You might have one half of the coil connected backwards (i.e. wrong polarity).
Quote from: poynt99 on May 20, 2013, 09:10:31 AM
Lawrence,
Board #113 seems to be running between 1MHz and 2 MHz. That is a big clue as to what is wrong/different. Most of your boards run in the low kHz correct?
Check the coil resistance and connections. You might have one half of the coil connected backwards (i.e. wrong polarity).
@poynt99,
Thank you for the tip. Rather than taking Board 113 apart, I shall deliberately produce a board with the wrong toroidal winding. But the
crossing of the current on the Output side is very interesting. LED was ON brightly with almost no Output (or negative Output) power. Could this "wrong" connection be the "magic" we are looking for?
Regarding the apparent negative or zero-crossing current trace, sorry Lawrence I do not trust your scope.
I won't believe the current trace crosses the zero-reference line until I see it on a higher-end scope. Why can you not borrow an Instek scope from Mr. Zhou?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 20, 2013, 06:40:18 AM
Try to analyze the strange Board 113.
Board 113 was the strange board withwaveform totally different from other Boards. Previously, I just treat such Boards as reject. Now on TK's advice, I keep them and try to analyze them.
Just show the strange waveforms first. The first comparison of Board and connections appeared correct.
*** It looks like the best thing for me to do is to keep the Board. Wait until I find the right person to debug. I do not have the energy, skill and equipment to do a proper job.
Hi Lawrence. Feel free to send this board to me for testing if you like. I can confirm if it is doing anything unusual or not.
I used the data logging feature of my scope to log the data points for the input and output voltage and current waveforms for my 'standard' joule thief circuit, and then used Excel to crunch the numbers to calculate the instantaneous power values and to calculate the overall average power. If anyone sees any errors or problems with the measurement/calculation method, or with the way I set up the formulas in Excel, let me know.
I connected the scope probes as shown in the attached schematic. Connecting the probes this way at the input does not invert the input current waveform, to make things simpler. Since I am using a 2 channel scope and just moving the scope probes over between input and output measurements, this probe connection method should be fine. If using a 4 channel scope to measure both input and output waveforms all at once, then you could use the probe connection method that Lawrence has been using, but the input current waveform will be inverted. You would not be able to use my scope probe connection method if connecting all four probes from a four channel scope at the same time to the circuit.
Vin was set to about 504mV.
Here are the calculated values:
Pin = 2.954mW
Pout = 2.034mW
Efficiency = 68.86%
See the attached .xls files for the actual recorded data points and details of the calculations.
In the attached scope screen shots, the yellow traces are the voltage waveforms, and the blue traces are the current waveforms.
Re 113: more likely to be a "damaged" transistor than wrong toroid connections. There are 4 possible ways to wire the toroid into the circuit, I think two will work and two won't work at all, and of the two that work sometimes one works slightly better but the frequency should be pretty much the same for both working hookups.
I have a special 2n2222 here that is partially failed; it acts somewhat like the 113 board, if I recall correctly. Or the transistor might even be a different type. Did you check the markings?
One thing is certain: two of your resistors are in backwards.
@Void: One problem with the way that you are doing it, with one scope, is that you are comparing a set of input power measurements taken at one time, and for a certain duration, with another set of output power measurements taken at a different time. Hopefully you have at least equated the number of full cycles, which is probably more appropriate than equating number of samples, but I don't really know which would be best.
I've suggested this alternative for those with a single scope: take input and output _current_ at one session, then take input and output _voltage_ at the other session. At least that way you will be taking the input and output readings simultaneously (or nearly so, separated by the scope's sample interval).
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 20, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
@Void: One problem with the way that you are doing it, with one scope, is that you are comparing a set of input power measurements taken at one time, and for a certain duration, with another set of output power measurements taken at a different time. Hopefully you have at least equated the number of full cycles, which is probably more appropriate than equating number of samples, but I don't really know which would be best.
I've suggested this alternative for those with a single scope: take input and output _current_ at one session, then take input and output _voltage_ at the other session. At least that way you will be taking the input and output readings simultaneously (or nearly so, separated by the scope's sample interval).
@tinselkoala: I understand what you are referring to in regards to the number of cycles. The time base is the same for both input and output measurements, so the number of cycles should be the same, but the triggering point may not be exactly the same since the current waveforms are different between the input and output waveforms, and I am triggering on the current waveforms for both measurement steps. Average power calculation for both input and output waveforms is done for the exact same amount of data samples (20,480 samples), so I would think that this should still average out about the same, but it is possible that there could be some degree of discrepancy due to different trigger points between input and output measurements. Not sure that your proposed alternate method would resolve that potential discrepancy of different trigger points, since in one measurement step I would be triggering on current, and in the other measurement step I would be triggering on voltage.
Using a two channel scope to do these measurements is no doubt a bit of a compromise. I guess it is just a question of how much potential there is for error using this method, due to different trigger points.
Edit: Was just thinking about this some more, and I don't know if my scope synchronizes the data logging with the trigger set point, so the trigger point setting may not make much difference as far as synchronization of input and output measurement start points. Maybe the data logging does sync off the trigger set point though. I suppose I could run some tests to see if the data logging always starts at about the same point in a waveform for the same trigger setting...
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 20, 2013, 09:29:37 PM
Re 113: more likely to be a "damaged" transistor than wrong toroid connections. There are 4 possible ways to wire the toroid into the circuit, I think two will work and two won't work at all, and of the two that work sometimes one works slightly better but the frequency should be pretty much the same for both working hookups.
I have a special 2n2222 here that is partially failed; it acts somewhat like the 113 board, if I recall correctly. Or the transistor might even be a different type. Did you check the markings?
One thing is certain: two of your resistors are in backwards
.
Markings are the same 2n2222. I shall send it to Void.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 20, 2013, 06:40:18 AM
Try to analyze the strange Board 113.
Board 113 was the strange board withwaveform totally different from other Boards. Previously, I just treat such Boards as reject. Now on TK's advice, I keep them and try to analyze them.
Just show the strange waveforms first. The first comparison of Board and connections appeared correct.
Hi Lawrence. What were you using to power board 113 when you did those tests that you posted the waveforms for? DC power supply, super cap, or AA battery?
Quote from: Void on May 21, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Hi Lawrence. What were you using to power board 113 when you did those tests that you posted the waveforms for? DC power supply, super cap, or AA battery?
For Board 113, I used DC Power Supply.
@Void,
I shall be sending you the items in the diagram. They fit nicely into the plastic box. Please review and see if you need anything else. I shall also post the test results for all the Boards here first and outline what I believe to be the "confirmation" experiments. You are welcome to do any additional tests.
Two spare boards 133 and 134 will be included. You can pass them on to whomever you feel as helpful.
God Bless.
The presentation file in pdf format.
I shall for comments before sending out the Boards.
DSO Analysis for Board 118. COP = 1.37.
DSO Analysis for Board 119. COP = 1.73.
DSO analysis for Board 118 when the LED was just lighted up. Note the large COP = 5.27.
For this test, the Probes and Scope set to x1. Since the Atten is only 2-CH, the output and Input measurement were separated by a few minutes. At this low voltage (and blinking LED light?), the readings cannot be trusted. With blinking light, high degree of error or fluctuation was expected.
May need the 4-CH Tektronics to resolve this issue.
@Itseung888:
As far as I understand, you have sent out at least 30 of your devices to various people.
Did you get any useful feed back?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 21, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
@Void,
I shall be sending you the items in the diagram. They fit nicely into the plastic box. Please review and see if you need anything else. I shall also post the test results for all the Boards here first and outline what I believe to be the "confirmation" experiments. You are welcome to do any additional tests.
Two spare boards 133 and 134 will be included. You can pass them on to whomever you feel as helpful.
God Bless.
Hi Lawrence. Ok, that sounds good. Looks like I will have everything I need to run tests for you. I will posts my test results back here, if you like.
I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.
The moral is this: If you want high COPs from your devices, you must measure them properly. A bottom-end Atten DSO is the right instrument to use. No other instruments will show you the necessary zero-crossings, therefore there is something wrong with them. Since the Atten DSO shows what is needed, it can be used, as in the latest series of shots, to support claims of OU, even though test and calibration measurements show the Atten DSO to be error prone, imprecise and inaccurate when doing normal measurements of low voltage oscillating signals.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2013, 09:45:33 AM
I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.
The moral is this: If you want high COPs from your devices, you must measure them properly. A bottom-end Atten DSO is the right instrument to use. No other instruments will show you the necessary zero-crossings, therefore there is something wrong with them. Since the Atten DSO shows what is needed, it can be used, as in the latest series of shots, to support claims of OU, even though test and calibration measurements show the Atten DSO to be error prone, imprecise and inaccurate when doing normal measurements of low voltage oscillating signals.
@TK.
I believe if you try to measure OU in your youtube elecctrosmog situation, you most likely will get cross 0 ref line behavior. Your LED will be lighted forever when your board is not connected via wires to anything. Just let your board pick up the electrosmog.
You have shown that to be a
certainty. The next logical question is - how efficient can that process be? Can that energy be captured and stored continuously and use when needed???
Before people know solar panels, that energy was wasted. Can a TK device be built to use electrosmog energy???
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2013, 09:45:33 AM
I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.
....
That is not a bad idea - especially with those boards that can light a LED for over a year. Board 116 has shown that there might be some sort of "sweet spot" at around 0.4V. Board 124 with the capacitor and twin timer has shown prolonged lighting with reasonable brightness. In my case, such behavior lasted around 2 weeks. How can it be prolonged for over a year?
There is still much more research to be done.....
Just to show that two JT boards may be built based on the same circuit diagram but show very different results, I tried to similate the reading on the Void Board on reply 902.
*** One of our Current Curves should be inverted. But for comparison purposes, I leave them alone.
The comparison should convince anybody that the two Boards (Void and Board 124) are different. Different COP results are to be expected. The Spikes are missing on the Void Board.
We shall learn much more when Void gets the boards within 14 working days via Post Office Mail.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 22, 2013, 07:41:00 PM
Just to show that two JT boards may be built based on the same circuit diagram but show very different results, I tried to similate the reading on the Void Board on reply 902.
*** One of our Current Curves should be inverted. But for comparison purposes, I leave them alone.
The comparison should convince anybody that the two Boards (Void and Board 124) are different. Different COP results are to be expected. The Spikes are missing on the Void Board.
We shall learn much more when Void gets the boards within 14 working days via Post Office Mail.....
Hi Lawrence. Those spikes on the waveforms on your board do appear to be noise spikes. Noise spikes that appear at a very regular interval like that could be caused by a switching power supply, as that is a typical looking sort of noise spike pattern that can be seen on an oscilloscope due to noise generated by a switching power supply. Another difference I notice in the waveform for your board is that your board is operating at a much lower frequency than mine. This will be very much dependent on the type of ferrite core used and the number of windings, as the frequency of oscillation of the circuit is determined in part by the amount of inductance of the toroid windings. Since you are using a different type of ferrite core than me, and you may also have a different winding count as well, the inductance of your windings will be different than on my board, and it would be expected that your board would operate at a different frequency than my board. As you say however, once I run some tests on your boards we can compare my measurements to your measurements to see how things look then. I would be really surprised if there is over unity, but we will see what the measurements show anyway.
I have noticed something interesting in some new testing I was doing, not relating to over unity, but maybe a way to improve on efficiency somewhat. I will run some more tests on my proto-board circuit when I get a chance, and post results if I find anything interesting.
Quote from: Void on May 22, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
Hi Lawrence. Those spikes on the waveforms on your board do appear to be noise spikes. Noise spikes that appear at a very regular interval like that could be caused by a switching power supply, as that is a typical looking sort of noise spike pattern that can be seen on an oscilloscope due to noise generated by a switching power supply. Another difference I notice in the waveform for your board is that your board is operating at a much lower frequency than mine. This will be very much dependent on the type of ferrite core used and the number of windings, as the frequency of oscillation of the circuit is determined in part by the amount of inductance of the toroid windings. Since you are using a different type of ferrite core than me, and you may also have a different winding count as well, the inductance of your windings will be different than on my board, and it would be expected that your board would operate at a different frequency than my board. As you say however, once I run some tests on your boards we can compare my measurements to your measurements to see how things look then. I would be really surprised if there is over unity, but we will see what the measurements show anyway.
I have noticed something interesting in some new testing I was doing, not relating to over unity, but maybe a way to improve on efficiency somewhat. I will run some more tests on my proto-board circuit when I get a chance, and post results if I find anything interesting.
@Void,
The Box was mailed vis ordinary air mail at the Post Office this morning. It should arrive within 14 working days. Please post a message as soon as you receive it. I have the results from Boards 121 and 122 from Mr. Lau. I need to type and analyze them. Both appeared to indicate some unexpected behavior at around 0.4V..... That may be the sweet spot for the Zhou Boards.
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 23, 2013, 05:23:58 AM
@Void,
The Box was mailed vis ordinary air mail at the Post Office this morning. It should arrive within 14 working days. Please post a message as soon as you receive it. I have the results from Boards 121 and 122 from Mr. Lau. I need to type and analyze them. Both appeared to indicate some unexpected behavior at around 0.4V..... That may be the sweet spot for the Zhou Boards.
OK, thanks.
Result of Battery Change vs Time with Board 121 and 122. The experiment was performed by Mr. T S Lau.
Board 121 is simple JT. Board 122 is JT with Capacitor. General shape is the same.
At just below 0.4V, the slope of change is slow. LED gets dimmer but still ON for a few days. This portion is likely to be the "lead-out Energy" range.
"Suck-in" energy might be more appropriate than "Lead-out". Mr. Lau's graph would be much more exciting if its slope reversed, or even flattened totally out.
With the success of the experiments on Board 121 and 122, Mr. T S Lau continues on.
This time, he is comparing Board 127 and 128 with rechargeable Batteries. Board 127 is the standard Joule Thief with a capacitor. Board 128 has the Twin Timer. It is a repeat experiment. There is still the possibility that the Timer may induce energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 05:28:16 PM
"Suck-in" energy might be more appropriate than "Lead-out". Mr. Lau's graph would be much more exciting if its slope reversed, or even flattened totally out.
I prefer "brought-in". One of the things Mr. Lau will focus on next time is the small peak for Board 121. He happened to notice a votage rise at that time and focused on taking readings at 2 minute rather than 12 hour intervals. There could have been many more such peaks. I shall try to pick out more with the Atten monitoring the voltage change at around 0.4V.
Why should there be such Voltage Peaks??? Energy sucked-in???
Quote from: conradelektro on May 22, 2013, 08:05:48 AM
@Itseung888:
As far as I understand, you have sent out at least 30 of your devices to various people.
Did you get any useful feed back?
Greetings, Conrad
I late last year attended with a friend a demonstration of some of the "boards" in California. Itseung888 was online via Skype. None showed any signs of over unity and when the batteries were removed the caps ran down. I was going to order one to test in our lab for the purposes of showing the results on some high end equipment with people who know what they are doing when it comes to measurement. What followed was even more astonishing. We were sent an email where it stated I and my friend were so impressed we were to fly to Asia to form a business relationship. I let my friend deal with that (I am not using his name). I did not bother to proceed with any testing after that.
This may not be of any use to anyone but I felt since you were asking.
PS I love these little circuits and all the fun experimenters have with them, I am even testing a few in our water battery technologies. Bottom line...no over-unity.
Kind Regards
Mark
Lawrence..... I am completely flabbergasted. You have not told us, until now ..... that your Timer is powered from the AC MAINS. AC 110/220 V, right on the label. Is that right? You have AC mains power coming in to your timer box, which contains who knows what kind of transformer, switching power supply, solid state relay, oscillator inside it.... powered by the AC mains ??? ? Right next to your JT which as I have shown is perfectly capable of picking up energy wirelessly ???
I submit to you here and now that ALL your data taken using this timer is suspect, as is ALL your data taken with those God-forsaken ATTEN sillyscopes.
Further, the little bump on Mr. Lau's graph is called "noise" or "sampling error". If you had data at higher temporal resolution you would no doubt see more of these little bumps. And if you had, say, twenty Atten scopes and twenty JTs to monitor all at the same time, you'd see bumps all over the place. And then when you averaged them all together you would see "average" behaviour that was smooth. In short, the bumps are likely insignificant pimples that mean nothing in reality. Chase them down by all means.... but not using an Atten oscilloscope or a mains-powered "timer" sitting next to your device-under-test.
Quote from: markdansie on May 23, 2013, 07:12:01 PM
I late last year attended with a friend a demonstration of some of the "boards" in California. Itseung888 was online via Skype. None showed any signs of over unity and when the batteries were removed the caps ran down. I was going to order one to test in our lab for the purposes of showing the results on some high end equipment with people who know what they are doing when it comes to measurement. What followed was even more astonishing. We were sent an email where it stated I and my friend were so impressed we were to fly to Asia to form a business relationship. I let my friend deal with that (I am not using his name). I did not bother to proceed with any testing after that.
This may not be of any use to anyone but I felt since you were asking.
PS I love these little circuits and all the fun experimenters have with them, I am even testing a few in our water battery technologies. Bottom line...no over-unity.
Kind Regards
Mark
@Mark:
You must have looked many "self declared OU-inventors" into the eyes? What is driving them? (It is obvious what is driving a fraudster, I am interested in the not so straight forward fraudster.)
Is it "craving for recognition"? Is it good old "psychosis" in all its variety? Is it "bipolar disorder"?
Greetings, Conrad
P.S.: Like many people in Vienna, I am a Hobby-Freudian. Hobby-Freudians are not dangerous, they mainly analyse themselves.
@Conrad: congratulations on your sidewalk hobby! You (and Mark D.) might be interested to read the latest manifestation of the psychosis you are looking at, here:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2013, 02:02:23 PM
@Conrad: congratulations on your sidewalk hobby! You (and Mark D.) might be interested to read the latest manifestation of the psychosis you are looking at, here:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html)
Wow, if I had written these posts (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html) from a Flower blooming on the tip of Africa) I would self-diagnose as in need of strong medication.
Greetings, Conrad
It's the three Sherrys before lunch that does it, I'm afraid.
Lawrence, I have been trying to find out more about your REX Dual Timer.
The REX brand is well-known in the timer and temperature-regulation industry. They make many different timing relay devices and controllers. But I can't find your exact model in any of the on-line literature from them. Similar models are shown but perhaps your Dual Timer is only available in your area.
Can you at least open it up and take a couple of good photographs of both sides of its circuit board, so that we can get an idea of how it is operating, whether it uses relays or mosfets, whether it has a switchmode or transformer-style power supply, etc?
Thanks in advance.
Spent a few hours with Dr. Raymond Ting. He showed me his confidential wireless Joule Thief. The picking up of electrical energy was not a surprise to him. His technique may be similar to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHhV4qutyA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHhV4qutyA)
How can we ensure our JT does not pick up electrical energy from outside? or
How can we pick up as much energy as possible from outside?
Quote from: ltseung888 on May 26, 2013, 06:28:06 PM
Spent a few hours with Dr. Raymond Ting. He showed me his confidential wireless Joule Thief. The picking up of electrical energy was not a surprise to him. His technique may be similar to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHhV4qutyA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHhV4qutyA)
How can we ensure our JT does not pick up electrical energy from outside? or
How can we pick up as much energy as possible from outside?
Well, you could run and test alll of your JT circuits inside a Faraday cage and that would eliminate outside power sources. But, to me, if I have a circuit that runs by itself, even if the power is man-made from some RF source, it is still "free to me" energy as the radio station does not have to pay a penny more because I am running a light from their output. In your case with the O.U. claims, it would be good to eliminate outside man-made sources. However, after that, if it turns out to be man-made sources, I would not fault anyone from using it as it is like picking up stuff that others have thrown away.
Bill
Bill is 100% correct a Faraday's cage is the way to go. You might get a water tight one and put it underwater as well lol.
You may also want to try temperature variations.
Kind Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 24, 2013, 02:02:23 PM
@Conrad: congratulations on your sidewalk hobby! You (and Mark D.) might be interested to read the latest manifestation of the psychosis you are looking at, here:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4180.html)
I guess I can wear the fact I am out of favor with her as another badge of honor.
I could dig up all the email referring to you, and I remember more than one Skype call with her laying down the law regarding you.
I see even Sterling getting flamed a little lol.
Kind Regards
Quote from: markdansie on May 28, 2013, 06:02:01 AM
I guess I can wear the fact I am out of favor with her as another badge of honor.
I could dig up all the email referring to you, and I remember more than one Skype call with her laying down the law regarding you.
I see even Sterling getting flamed a little lol.
Kind Regards
Look at what the idiot is flailing about now. She posts two pictures on PESN, and I downloaded them and enlarged portions of them. Now she is pissing all over herself, making accusations and threats and displaying for everyone to see just how utterly and vapidly STUPID she really is.
"Not actually".... the foolish old woman just makes stuff up, and can't even manage her own information.
Here are the photographs that AINSLIE HERSELF posted or sent to Sterling to post:
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1089_400.jpg (http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1089_400.jpg)
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1089_rd.jpg
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1090_400.jpg (http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1090_400.jpg)
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/Rosemary-Ainslie-circuit_2013-05-22-1090_rd.jpg
Surely anyone with half a brain can see that these can be freely downloaded by ANYONE, and can be displayed at their full resolution, and ANYONE can take crops from these pictures, and ANYONE can analyze and annotate them at will. That is what happens, AINSLIE, when YOU upload something from your computer to the internet. COME ON.... Bring on your "proper authorities". I laugh at you, and so will they, when they see the sum total of your idiocy, libel, and insulting ignorance.
"BRYAN LITTLE"..... the idiot still can't even get her basic facts straight. She has NEVER produced a trace of evidence or support for her continuing fantasy that I am someone called Brian or Bryan Little, and every time she utters that name she sticks her foot further and further down her own throat.
QuoteNot actually. Not even close. There were other recipients of those PRECISE photographs. And your own photographs PRECISELY MATCH those in my 'in box'. I have sent those photographs to NO-ONE.
There were other recipients, but you sent those photographs to NO-ONE. Which is it, you lying mendacious troll? You don't even know, yourself.
Quote from: markdansie on May 28, 2013, 06:02:01 AM
I guess I can wear the fact I am out of favor with her as another badge of honor.
I could dig up all the email referring to you, and I remember more than one Skype call with her laying down the law regarding you.
I see even Sterling getting flamed a little lol.
Kind Regards
So Rosemary Ainslie has tried to negatively influence your opinion of me verbally and in print, by making statements that are provably false (like this "Bryan Little" nonsense that she keeps spouting). I hope you've preserved those records.
Picked up two 2n3055 prototype Boards from Mr. Zhou. The Input Voltage can be 12V. In the example, Ch2 Vrms was greater than 500mV - much higher than the noise level or around 5mV.
The COP was 0.44. No spikes nor crossing of 0 reference line seen. The Atten ADS 1062 CAL was used. It looks like the Atten is acceptable at such measurement values.
While waiting for the Tektronics and the the experts to tune and use it, I decided to document the crossing of the 0 ref line on Board 132. A 6 minute video will be posted at youtube.
I also included a photo at the lab of Dr. Raymond Ting. The Spikes were very noticeable.
There may be the possibility that the Tektronics will not show the same shift. But we shall see. There is always the possibility of picking up electrosmog as the lead-out energy.....
*** Added the picture that caused excitement and confusion in the first place. The picture was the crossing of 0 ref line by Input Current on the Atten. The problem was suspected to be "DC Offset Error" on the Atten. It is included for record keeping purposes. Readers should NOT take the waveform as demonstrating OU...
Lawrence, I am glad to see that you are becoming more skeptical and are toning down your claims somewhat. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of support from experimental evidence, and if the evidence is questionable so then are the claims.
Meanwhile, you and Dr. Ting might be interested in my various wireless JTs. Of course these require an actual wireless power transmitter to operate properly, but that is also a very simple and easy circuit to make.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5wbyAwgeO8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5wbyAwgeO8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo)
Sohei Thoth has also done a lot of work with air core JTs and wireless coupling. Check it out!
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 30, 2013, 11:46:22 AM
Lawrence, I am glad to see that you are becoming more skeptical and are toning down your claims somewhat. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of support from experimental evidence, and if the evidence is questionable so then are the claims.
Meanwhile, you and Dr. Ting might be interested in my various wireless JTs. Of course these require an actual wireless power transmitter to operate properly, but that is also a very simple and easy circuit to make.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5wbyAwgeO8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5wbyAwgeO8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYhISYeWGTo)
Sohei Thoth has also done a lot of work with air core JTs and wireless coupling. Check it out!
After I saw the much higher spikes when the "electrosmog or the wireless transmission" devices were turned on, I was more inclined to believe that the Zhou circuits happened to pick up such energy. It is still a form of using
energy from the environment. I think even with your old analog oscilloscope, you can see more spikes if you do something similar. Most probably the Tektronics will display the same thing.
We may be able to have the
Atten and the Tektronics side-by-side. The environmental factors will be very similar.
Some supporters are proposing to run a summer course/seminar for students - they believe it will be beneficial educationally even if the devices are not OU. One suggested competition is on how long a new AA battery can light X LEDs at Y1 to Y2 level of brightness. They are working on the rules and prizes.
the back emf spike off any inductor is many times faster than any forward oscillation spike,how can anybody accurately assess the totality of power of this backspike?it happens so fast that it screw-hysterises any measuring meter im sure.its absolutely essential to accurately asses the total wattage of each spike to get a clear picture of totality of spikes no?possible with todays scopes?
Not possible with Lawrence's Atten scopes, no. Possible with "today's scopes", yes, and even with yesterday's and the day before yesterday's. Believe it or not, inductors and their behaviour in circuits are actually pretty well understood, both theoretically and from a practical standpoint, and people really did do accurate and precise power measurement of circuits containing inductors, before digital oscilloscopes came along.
Interestingly, though.... for very fast rise and fall time signals the best oscilloscopes are still strictly analog, with the inputs directly driving the deflection plates of the CRT without intervening circuitry.
But you don't have to use an oscilloscope to make an accurate power determination, because you can channel all of the energy in the spikes into a resistive load which will then warm up by Joule heating. This warmup can be measured very precisely and accurately indeed, if one is serious enough. Thus you get around all sampling artefacts caused by not being able to see really highfrequency components on the DSO, at whatever sample rate/interval it uses.
aha @tinselkoala.calorometry yes but, like rossi calorometry,or any calorometry its vulnerable to skeptic attack due to heat losses,especialy wen we are dealing with a small COPs or whatevers left over to measure after circuitry losses.i propose a different and much more efficient way to measure with 80% efficiency and skep-proof,the electrochemical way,electrolysis of h2o,many electrolysis cells in series to swallow up the massive back-emf voltage,and subsequent evaluation of total volume oxygen produced versus consumed in the single(1.5v) NiMH cell that powers the circuit.if the ratio is larger then bang,nobody can argue results.wat u think?
p.s. In my above example of verifying over or underunity effects the nimh cell has to be totaly drained first then charged up with a known amount of coulombs of charge as a reference thus if you charge up with 1000 coulombs and receive 15000 coulombs worth of O2 bangbaddabing,nobody can argue overunity.the goal is to as efficently as possible store ALL of the bak-emf power and showcase it.
Now that we understand the significance of crossing the 0 ref line, I decided to go back to the old demonstration boards with an additional winding on the toroid.
Sure enough, I detected the crossing of the 0 ref line by the Output Voltage! This gave rise to very low Output Power or even negative However, many LEDs can be lighted brightly. Shall investigate this more.
Use the inductive spikes in the battery again:
you can try charge a large series of many bats DIRECTLY from the bakspike yes,remember the bakspike is many times more voltage than 4ward spike and many times less current than 4ward spike thus we have to capture as much of its POWER(VI) as possible,seperately from the power source(single 1.5v cell).then when power source runs flat we take all the series recharged(all seperate 1.5v same size) cells and put them all into parallel and then compare if its now more TOTAL power captured than spent by source.
in other words,my scientific angle here is to capture and then store the accumulated totality of any excess overunity power BEFORE re-using it because if you use it while generating it you will be losing valuable power thru downstep transformers,l.e.d.s,bla bla bla.i bring into question the amount of power lost at the rectifier/diode itself even,probably enormous losses there.
Quote from: profitis on May 31, 2013, 10:57:50 AM
the back emf spike off any inductor is many times faster than any forward oscillation spike,how can anybody accurately assess the totality of power of this backspike?it happens so fast that it screw-hysterises any measuring meter im sure.its absolutely essential to accurately asses the total wattage of each spike to get a clear picture of totality of spikes no?possible with todays scopes?
I don't know that your statements about the back spike are really of concern when making measurements on a joule thief circuit with a LED connected as a load. The LED limits the back spike peak amplitudes to the forward voltage drop of the LED, and the frequency of operation is relatively low, so these spikes appear to be readily measurable with even a lower end scope. If you are not referring to a joule thief circuit with a LED as a load, then it could well be a different scenario depending on circuit specifics. Of course a lower end scope will not be as accurate as a higher end scope overall, but as long as any given scope is used within its particular limitations and the scope is calibrated correctly, the measurements should be suitable for getting a reasonable idea of the efficiency of a joule thief circuit with a LED load.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 01, 2013, 04:56:46 AM
Now that we understand the significance of crossing the 0 ref line, I decided to go back to the old demonstration boards with an additional winding on the toroid.
Sure enough, I detected the crossing of the 0 ref line by the Output Voltage! This gave rise to very low Output Power or even negative However, many LEDs can be lighted brightly. Shall investigate this more.
Hi Lawrence, I am not so sure that you do fully understand the significance of zero crossings. Zero crossings are normal with any AC waveform, but such zero crossings in no way necessarily suggest that there is anything unusual going on. I think your biggest issue to date is that you are sometimes attempting to draw conclusions about different things that you see without first trying to take steps to fully understand what is happening. Adding a secondary winding will cause you to measure an AC waveform with zero crossings from the secondary winding, but a LED will only conduct current in one direction, so one half of the AC waveform will cause next to no power consumption in a LED. Not sure if you are using a LED or LEDs as a load?
Some things that you seem to be seeing as unusual, are really just very ordinary things which are easily understandable and explainable by someone with even just a basic electronics background. For example electrical noise pickup in any electronics circuit from surrounding EM fields and through connecting wiring is completely common and ordinary, and anyone with even just a little experience in making measurements on AC electronic circuits will be aware of this, and will take steps to account for this if necessary in their measurements. I think you will be much better off in situations if you think you are seeing something unusual, to just provide a clear explanation of what you are doing and provide a circuit diagram if necessary, and others with some electronics knowledge and experience can help explain what is going on, or suggest steps you can take to better understand what is really going on.
Quote from: profitis on May 31, 2013, 02:51:09 PM
aha @tinselkoala.calorometry yes but, like rossi calorometry,or any calorometry its vulnerable to skeptic attack due to heat losses,especialy wen we are dealing with a small COPs or whatevers left over to measure after circuitry losses.i propose a different and much more efficient way to measure with 80% efficiency and skep-proof,the electrochemical way,electrolysis of h2o,many electrolysis cells in series to swallow up the massive back-emf voltage,and subsequent evaluation of total volume oxygen produced versus consumed in the single(1.5v) NiMH cell that powers the circuit.if the ratio is larger then bang,nobody can argue results.wat u think?
I think it's an interesting idea, but....
Can you show any outside references, like in peer-reviewed literature, that shows your electrolysis power measurement method being used and compared to some other power measurement method for concurrent validity?
I can do so if necessary, for the Joule heating and bolometric and other conventional power measurement systems. If you can show an electrolysis power measuring system that agrees with other methods that I know and trust, and is easy to perform, I'd be happy to add it to my arsenal of measurement procedures. I'm not interested in starting an experimental program to examine and develop your idea, though.
Quote from: profitis on May 31, 2013, 02:57:19 PM
p.s. In my above example of verifying over or underunity effects the nimh cell has to be totaly drained first then charged up with a known amount of coulombs of charge as a reference thus if you charge up with 1000 coulombs and receive 15000 coulombs worth of O2 bangbaddabing,nobody can argue overunity.the goal is to as efficently as possible store ALL of the bak-emf power and showcase it.
I'd love to see you put 1000 Coulombs of charge into a NiMH battery and get 15000 Coulombs worth of O2 (whatever that means) back out of it. Badabing.
@void im refering to any attempt to demonstrate more power from a bakspike than an inspike on any suitably designed inductor,not necesarily the joule thief but if you say,like tinselkoala says, that ther are scopes that can accurately determine the entire power magnitude of each spike then thats interesting.i dont know if it would be interesting to the skeps tho who demand 3dimensional evidence,eg self-looped systems but my point is that to power and recharge a single system at same time incurs dramatic losses,eg.an l.e.d. for example is only about ten percent efficient,the rest is unnecesarily wasted heat inside the l.e.d pn junction.thus my suggestion for 2 seperate stages 1)total discharge of power source and 2)recapture of all and above what was released at power source.the circuit must be designed solely for this optimum 'upstep'of totality of power at maximum posible efficiency. You have to throw out all l.e.d,s,all resistances,anything that would dissipate power between source and capture.
@tinselkoala,a skep can argue a scope down on almost any theory,eg,tampering,leakage from the power source OF the scope etc..the public dont even know what a scope is or how it works.you can use a series of totaly flat seperate(1.5v)rechargable batteries instead of electrolysis units then afterwards line them up into parallel,then measure the coulombs/volts totality.every single electron from your bakspike must deposit an atom of NiO2(nickel oxide) and an atom of H2(hydrogen) inside evry one of your series recipient cells,there is no way round this(faradays law),so if your bakspike is 100volts you must collect that power in about 50 series bats,allowing a nice 2volts to suitably recharge each dead(1.5v) bat.btw,what kind of voltages does one get on a average bakspike?
Quote from: profitis on June 01, 2013, 12:44:15 PM
@void im refering to any attempt to demonstrate more power from a bakspike than an inspike on any suitably designed inductor,not necesarily the joule thief but if you say,like tinselkoala says, that ther are scopes that can accurately determine the entire power magnitude of each spike then thats interesting.i dont know if it would be interesting to the skeps tho who demand 3dimensional evidence,eg self-looped systems but my point is that to power and recharge a single system at same time incurs dramatic losses,eg.an l.e.d. for example is only about ten percent efficient,the rest is unnecesarily wasted heat inside the l.e.d pn junction.thus my suggestion for 2 seperate stages 1)total discharge of power source and 2)recapture of all and above what was released at power source.the circuit must be designed solely for this optimum 'upstep'of totality of power at maximum posible efficiency. You have to throw out all l.e.d,s,all resistances,anything that would dissipate power between source and capture.
Hi profitis. When I was saying you can use a scope, I meant specifically with a joule thief circuit with a LED load, as this thread is about making power measurements on joule thief circuits. As for LEDs not being very efficient, I don't believe that is really a factor as what we are concerned with regarding power dissipation in the LED is the voltage across the LED and the current through the LED at any instant in time. Whether that power is dissipated as heat or light makes no difference from a power consumption point of view.
Maybe things don't have to be too overly complicated to do what you want to do, however.
For other types of circuit setups, you could use a large valued capacitor of a known (accurately measured) capacitance value as a input power source, and use the back spikes from your inductor to charge another capacitor with known capacitance value (again, accurately measured) as a load, but there are drawbacks to this. It is not so easy to make accurate measurements on very large values of capacitance, and you would need high quality capacitors that have a minimal amount of leakage resistance. Also, you would need to use a very high speed diode to capture the back spikes to the load capacitor, and there is going to be power consumption in this diode. However, if there really is any significant amount of excess energy being delivered to the load capacitor, the power losses in the output rectifier diode may not be overly significant. It would depend on your exact setup however.
If you use the back spikes to charge a load battery from an input battery while at the same time powering some constant load, then you could maybe just keep swapping the batteries every so often and see if you can get the circuit to power the constant load much longer than you could with just using the two batteries not using the back spike charging and battery swapping method. If you can power the load at some given amount of power much longer with the battery swapping and back spike charging method than what you can get with just the two batteries alone, then that might be a fairly easy way to indicate that you are getting excess energy produced beyond what the batteries themselves have stored in them. This may actually prove a bit tricky however, as you would need some way to make sure the batteries in the comparison tests are charged to very close to the same amount of charge at the start of the tests, and I am not sure if there is any reliable way to determine that.
Quote from: profitis on June 01, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
btw,what kind of voltages does one get on a average bakspike?
It varies widely depending on many factors such as the exact driving pulse shape, duty cycle, frequency, amplitude, inductance of the inductor, current drive capability of the pulse source, etc. The voltage amplitude of the generated back spike will also depend on any load that is connected to the inductor and the diode type used to capture the spike, etc. Any load connected can potentially greatly limit the amplitude of the back spike. Many factors involved.
@void yes caps r tricky due to fluctuating voltage/countervoltage,heat,leaks etc thats why i recomend bats,80percent efficiency conversion electro energy to chemical energy and vise versa.you take your now series charged load bats and swap in parallell to use as a source,throw away the single original(now flat) source and replace with same number of flat bats as the original load and from there it can be perpetual swaps,series to parallel,parallel to series,assuming overunity.
Something interesting. I haven't had a whole lot of time for testing in the last few weeks, but I conducted a few tests this morning with my proto-board joule thief circuit. This is very preliminary, and some further analysis would be required to try to determine what exactly is going on, but this is what I measured. I ran this test twice to try to eliminate inadvertent measurement error as a factor in the results. Ran tests on my JT circuit to compare circuit efficiency when powering the circuit with a regulated DC power supply set to 0.5VDC, as compared to powering the circuit with my 3000 Farad nominal value super capacitor charged to about 0.5VDC. My measured results in both test runs using the 2 channel scope data logging/instantaneous power/average power calculation method for input and output power, show the super cap powered JT circuit as giving about 6% to 7% or so increase in circuit efficiency. Input and output currents are a bit less when powering with the super cap, so that might account for the increased efficiency, but I am not sure. I would need to run more tests to see if this apparent increase in circuit efficiency is consistent over a number of test runs. This same sort of test could probably be run to compare a regulated DC power supply to an AA or AAA cell as well.
It's hard to know just how much the supply's regulation and filtering is affecting your measurements, though. Certainly you aren't going to be able to "recharge" your power supply from the JT circuit, as some people think happens with batteries! At low voltages, most bench supplies aren't going to perform as stably or cleanly as they do at higher voltages. There are ways to get around this by using external voltage dividers and heavy filtering, probably, but not many experimenters are likely to go to that much trouble to assure clean and precise low-voltage power.
Some experimenters have even been known to cite the power supply's own display meters, usually digital, for their voltage and current measurements. I kid you not.
@void,perhaps your regulated dc source is pulsing?if its from the mains.
this is completely offtopic but do any of you guys have any tantalum capacitors lying around?perhaps stuck on a old junk circuitboard?
Waveforms from a secondary coil on Board 135. A 1 meter copper coil was wound around the toroid on Board 135. A load of 50 ohm + 1 ohm was used. The Secondary Coil Voltage was taken across the 51 ohms and the Secondary Coil Current was taken across the 1 ohm resistor.
The Secondary Coil gave much more flexibility. Replacing the 50 ohm resistor with a variable resistor affects the current both on the Secondary Coil and that in the JT circuit. Since the load is purely resistive in this case, the resulting power from this Secondary Coil is all positive. This power happened to be more than that from the primary Output of the JT. The sum gave a COP of 1.04 but that was at the range of experimental error of the Atten and the resistors.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2013, 03:46:46 PM
It's hard to know just how much the supply's regulation and filtering is affecting your measurements, though. Certainly you aren't going to be able to "recharge" your power supply from the JT circuit, as some people think happens with batteries! At low voltages, most bench supplies aren't going to perform as stably or cleanly as they do at higher voltages. There are ways to get around this by using external voltage dividers and heavy filtering, probably, but not many experimenters are likely to go to that much trouble to assure clean and precise low-voltage power.
Some experimenters have even been known to cite the power supply's own display meters, usually digital, for their voltage and current measurements. I kid you not.
The thing is though that I use my scope to measure and monitor the input voltage, and when my power supply is set to 0.5VDC output, the voltage waveform is very stable. Very little fluctuation. For whatever reason, the super cap (when charged to close to the same voltage as the power supply ) was giving a measured increase in efficiency. I am going to run the test again, and I will post my scope screen shots in case anyone wants to compare the waveforms when using the power supply and when using the super cap as input power source. There is some difference in the waveforms.
Quote from: profitis on June 02, 2013, 06:18:13 PM
this is completely offtopic but do any of you guys have any tantalum capacitors lying around?perhaps stuck on a old junk circuitboard?
I do, old and new. Why?
Quote from: Void on June 02, 2013, 09:51:56 PM
The thing is though that I use my scope to measure and monitor the input voltage, and when my power supply is set to 0.5VDC output, the voltage waveform is very stable. Very little fluctuation. For whatever reason, the super cap (when charged to close to the same voltage as the power supply ) was giving a measured increase in efficiency. I am going to run the test again, and I will post my scope screen shots in case anyone wants to compare the waveforms when using the power supply and when using the super cap as input power source. There is some difference in the waveforms.
Well, that's good, but of course you realize that your power supply already has a lot of filter capacitance in parallel with its output, probably, and chokes in series; it's just that the caps in the power supply have their charge constantly replenished from the voltage regulator.
Certainly there will be differences in things like impedance of the three power sources (bat, cap, psu) so why shouldn't waveforms and measured efficiencies differ a bit?
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 02, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
A 1 meter copper coil was wound around the toroid on Board 135. A load of 50 ohm + 1 ohm was used. The Secondary Coil Voltage was taken across the 51 ohms and the Secondary Coil Current was taken across the 1 ohm resistor.
Congratulations! You've invented the transformer!
(sorry, I couldn't resist. ;) )
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2013, 10:08:14 PM
Well, that's good, but of course you realize that your power supply already has a lot of filter capacitance in parallel with its output, probably, and chokes in series; it's just that the caps in the power supply have their charge constantly replenished from the voltage regulator.
Certainly there will be differences in things like impedance of the three power sources (bat, cap, psu) so why shouldn't waveforms and measured efficiencies differ a bit?
Yes, there is no doubt that the joule thief circuit operation will be affected by what is connected to its power input terminals, but rather than having a higher efficiency with the regulated power supply connected, the measured efficiency is higher with the super cap connected, although the waveforms appear to be fairly similar overall. Although the input voltage is about the same, the circuit seems to draw less current with the super cap connected, and that might account for the higher efficiency, although I don't know exactly why that is. Perhaps the joule thief can draw more current with the power supply connected because of the better regulation. This just may indicate that a joule thief type circuit runs more efficiently as the input current draw is reduced, but again, I am not certain exactly why that would be.
Power and Efficiency of my Joule thief circuit powered with regulated DC power supply:
Input Voltage: 504mV
Input Power: 2.995mW
Output Power: 2.002mW
Efficiency: 66.84%
Scope shots are attached below.
Yellow traces are voltage, and blue traces are current.
Power and Efficiency of my Joule thief circuit powered with my 3000 Farad Super cap:
Input Voltage: 500mV
Input Power: 2.501mW
Output Power: 1.947mW
Efficiency: 77.85%
That's an increase in circuit efficiency of about 11%. This is the exact same JT circuit as in the previous test I posted, with the only difference being that the input power is now being supplied by a super cap, charged to very close to the same voltage that the regulated power supply was set to in the previous test. Notice that the output power consumption of the LED is very close in both circuit arrangements, but the input current draw drops when using the super cap, thus reducing the input power a fair bit.
@Lawrence, this is just preliminary, but the tests I have run comparing JT circuit efficiency between using a regulated DC supply and using a super cap as the input power source would seem to lend support to your own tests where I think you were using a battery and a timer to intermittently charge a super cap, (or what was your exact setup?), and you noticed that it took longer for the battery to run down.
Scope shots are attached below.
Yellow traces are voltage, and blue traces are current.
It would be interesting if you could equate the output impedances of the psu and the cap somehow, but I have no idea how to do this. It hardly seems fair to have to put a resistor in series with the supercap. It certainly looks like you are getting more ringing with the PSU, and this is a loss mechanism.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
It would be interesting if you could equate the output impedances of the psu and the cap somehow, but I have no idea how to do this. It hardly seems fair to have to put a resistor in series with the supercap. It certainly looks like you are getting more ringing with the PSU, and this is a loss mechanism.
I am not sure what you mean about the resistor in series with the super cap, as this one ohm series resistor is exactly the same when using the regulated power supply, and both setups are set to very close to the same input voltage. That fuzziness on the input voltage waveform could be just a bit of noise coming from the power supply, and the noise doesn't show when using the super cap because the power supply is disconnected and switched off. Not sure though. I can't really explain yet why the current draw drops so much when using the super cap when it is set to the same voltage, while the output power consumption of the LED remains pretty close in both arrangements. Whatever the reason, it does seem to boost efficiency. In this last test run I left the super cap charging longer before starting the test so that the super cap voltage would be very close to what I had the power supply voltage to.
@tinselkoala ok can you do us both a favour and chop one of your old tantalums in half with a plyers, half between the 2 prongs,vertical not parallel,so that the black manganese dioxide layer and grey tantalum layer is clearly visible,i will tell you what to do next.
Quote from: profitis on June 03, 2013, 06:36:37 AM
@tinselkoala ok can you do us both a favour and chop one of your old tantalums in half with a plyers, half between the 2 prongs,vertical not parallel,so that the black manganese dioxide layer and grey tantalum layer is clearly visible,i will tell you what to do next.
Ah.... no.
The last time I got into one of these "I'll tell you what to do next" things I wound up opening a portal into a dark universe of demons and djinn and it took weeks to close it again. Forget about it.
You tell me the whole thing up front, and I'll be the one to decide whether or not I take that next step.
@tk well if you touch one prickprong lead of your microampmeter to the black half(+) and the other to the grey area(-) you should register a continuous non-stop current.i did this years ago but didnt think anything of it then but now i want to try it again but ive got no tantalums at hand.i just want to know if you get same result and it wasnt an error on my part.the current was much larger with the sliced cap than the closed cap(which just showed capacitance current as opposed to continuous current)
Quote from: Void on June 02, 2013, 11:47:30 PM
I am not sure what you mean about the resistor in series with the super cap, as this one ohm series resistor is exactly the same when using the regulated power supply, and both setups are set to very close to the same input voltage. That fuzziness on the input voltage waveform could be just a bit of noise coming from the power supply, and the noise doesn't show when using the super cap because the power supply is disconnected and switched off. Not sure though. I can't really explain yet why the current draw drops so much when using the super cap when it is set to the same voltage, while the output power consumption of the LED remains pretty close in both arrangements. Whatever the reason, it does seem to boost efficiency. In this last test run I left the super cap charging longer before starting the test so that the super cap voltage would be very close to what I had the power supply voltage to.
I think the cap and the PSU probably differ in "output impedance". I think this means that, for a given changing load, there will be a difference in the _current_ that the two methods will supply as the load changes. Clearly the JT is a changing load, both per-cycle and over longer time periods, and the capacitor is a supply that doesn't replenish itself. But the PSU is a "replenishing" supply. When you power from the PSU you are essentially powering from its filter capacitors, which are being kept "refilled" by the voltage regulator stage behind them.
I think the PSU probably has higher output impedance than the capacitor, but I don't know, and as I said I don't know how one would go about equating the output impedances of the two, but I am sure about this: impedance matching has a lot to do with power transfer efficiency and if there is a large mismatch between the supply and the load the transfer will be poor.
Quote from: profitis on June 03, 2013, 12:41:29 PM
@tk well if you touch one prickprong lead of your microampmeter to the black half(+) and the other to the grey area(-) you should register a continuous non-stop current.i did this years ago but didnt think anything of it then but now i want to try it again but ive got no tantalums at hand.i just want to know if you get same result and it wasnt an error on my part.the current was much larger with the sliced cap than the closed cap(which just showed capacitance current as opposed to continuous current)
OK, I'll try it, although I really don't have what I would consider the appropriate meter here for this test, but I do have a 100 uA moving-coil meter I could try. To avoid me chopping up too many of my expensive tantalum caps, do you have a suggestion as to the capacitance and voltage ratings of the cap I should destroy for you? I have a fair assortment of values, and I have some of each type: radial-lead "droplets" and also some axial-lead cylinders.
@tk it was one of those square ones that one finds en mass on the power circuitboards of pc harddrives.they are each about the size of a pinkie-fingernail.those are the ones i tried but if you have larger ones at your disposal it would be better i assume.your analog microampmeter is perfect for the job.tell me what you see on your meter pls tk.
i replicate JT several times and found out that Eff is less 80%.
similar topology like the boost converter.
Quote from: profitis on June 03, 2013, 02:36:03 PM
@tk it was one of those square ones that one finds en mass on the power circuitboards of pc harddrives.they are each about the size of a pinkie-fingernail.those are the ones i tried but if you have larger ones at your disposal it would be better i assume.your analog microampmeter is perfect for the job.tell me what you see on your meter pls tk.
Hmmm. I'm not familiar with that type, and I'm not going to tear apart a hard drive looking for one. A SMD, I suppose from your description. All the tants I have are the droplet or tubular types, but I have a wide range of capacitances, from 0.1 uF to 33 uF or so. Presumably higher capacitance would be better for this experiment.
Quote from: bryanwizard on June 03, 2013, 11:41:09 PM
i replicate JT several times and found out that Eff is less 80%.
similar topology like the boost converter.
Yep. But if your input power is free, and would be wasted if you didn't harvest it somehow.... that's good, right? And even 80 percent is pretty good if your input power is free, because...well... your input power was free. If it really is, that is. Maybe a "forever light" needs a chemical bias source that remains at 0.45 volts in order to be able to continue to harvest electrosmog for long periods of time or something, and the chemical source's voltage need not be depleted, as long as the power through the system is coming from the electrosmog.
Like the spring on a screen door. You only have to do work against it once, to open the door and prop it open with a rock. Then the flies can come and go as they please through the open door.
Experiments can be done to rule out all of these hypotheses, and finally the real explanation for Lawrence's "forever light" will emerge.
@tk you dont have any old junk circuitry lying around?like old computer parts?try it with your 33uf and see if it works tk,perhaps it,l work better.at this stage we have no explanation for this effect,if your cap can visibly make the meter bounce 1 or 2 micros when closed then thats the one to chop open.we want to see if it chopping open gets us a boost.we want to explain this mysterious effect.
Like I said, I am not willing to waste a hard drive looking for your square tantalums, and the only other tantalum capacitors that I have ever seen on PC power supplies, etc, are the droplet or cylindrical types. I'll cut open one, ONE, of my 33 uF droplet or cylinder types for you sometime later today.
@Lawrence: I have received your JT boards in the mail, and as soon as I get a chance I will run some power measurements on your boards and post the results here in this thread, if you like. Other than basic power efficiency tests at say an input power supply voltage of 0.5V, are there any other specific tests you would like me to run on the JT boards you sent me? I can also run comparison power measurement tests with a super capacitor as the input power source, and with a battery as the input power source, to compare results.
Edit:
A quick preliminary test on board #'s 118 and 119 (with the DC offset on my scope channels first checked for calibration) shows no zero crossing on the input current waveform, as would be expected. The waveform shapes appear to be pretty close to what I see on my JT circuit, with one difference being that Lawrence's boards run at a lower frequency than my JT board. I will run full power measurement tests on these boards as soon as I get a chance.
@tk thanx ,put one wire on the exposed black half and the other on the exposed grey half,directly.what do you see?
"i replicate JT several times and found out that Eff is less 80%."
Try higher voltage, 555 IC and FET.
Quote from: Void on June 04, 2013, 10:54:37 AM
@Lawrence: I have received your JT boards in the mail, and as soon as I get a chance I will run some power measurements on your boards and post the results here in this thread, if you like. Other than basic power efficiency tests at say an input power supply voltage of 0.5V, are there any other specific tests you would like me to run on the JT boards you sent me? I can also run comparison power measurement tests with a super capacitor as the input power source, and with a battery as the input power source, to compare results.
Edit:
A quick preliminary test on board #'s 118 and 119 (with the DC offset on my scope channels first checked for calibration) shows no zero crossing on the input current waveform, as would be expected. The waveform shapes appear to be pretty close to what I see on my JT circuit, with one difference being that Lawrence's boards run at a lower frequency than my JT board. I will run full power measurement tests on these boards as soon as I get a chance.
@Void,
Great. We can do similar experiments. The first one I would like to check is the occurrance of the Spikes - possibly due to "electrosmog".
Try to capture the waveforms in your standard environment. Then repeat with the Board close to a "noisy" environment - next to some electrical appliance such as PC, TV, washing machines etc. Check whether you can detect any spikes. We can use TK's video or the wireless JT circuits as a guide to produce "electrosmog" if needed. Check whether such spikes cross 0 ref line.
where is that guy now, tinselkoala?yoohooo,yo bro
@Lawrence: Here are my power measurements for your JT Board # 119.
For the same input voltage (0.5VDC) using my regulated power supply, your JT board runs at a much lower frequency than my board (most probably mainly due to the different type of toroid you are using), and your board also has higher input and output currents than my JT board at the same input voltage. The switching spikes on the input voltage waveform on your board are sharper with a higher amplitude, and with less ringing than I get with my JT circuit.
The efficiency measured to be pretty close to my JT board at the same input voltage however.
Do you want to see these same type of measurements for the other boards you sent me as well?
Input Voltage: 500mV
Input Power: 5.282mW
Output Power: 3.779mW
Efficiency: 71.54%
I am attaching the scope screen shots below.
Yellow traces are the voltage waveforms, and blue traces are the current waveforms.
I am also attaching the Excel spreadsheet files showing the data samples and the resulting power calculations.
-- void --
Quote from: profitis on June 04, 2013, 08:11:21 PM
where is that guy now, tinselkoala?yoohooo,yo bro
This is OT and I don't want to hijack the thread... but sorry, I got a null result on your experiment. I couldn't detect any current through the Fluke ammeter. The moving coil meter was too unstable and responded to electrostatic field from my hands.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 03, 2013, 11:56:38 PM
Yep. But if your input power is free, and would be wasted if you didn't harvest it somehow.... that's good, right? And even 80 percent is pretty good if your input power is free, because...well... your input power was free. If it really is, that is. Maybe a "forever light" needs a chemical bias source that remains at 0.45 volts in order to be able to continue to harvest electrosmog for long periods of time or something, and the chemical source's voltage need not be depleted, as long as the power through the system is coming from the electrosmog.
Like the spring on a screen door. You only have to do work against it once, to open the door and prop it open with a rock. Then the flies can come and go as they please through the open door.
Experiments can be done to rule out all of these hypotheses, and finally the real explanation for Lawrence's "forever light" will emerge.
would be possible to used the earth battery as an input power
Void,
Are you able to get a math trace of (ch1 * ch2) on your scope?
Quote from: bryanwizard on June 04, 2013, 10:45:49 PM
would be possible to used the earth battery as an input power
I already did that a few years ago. I lit 400 leds from a JT circuit and my earth battery. Check out my youtube videos if you like.
Bill
Quote from: Void on June 04, 2013, 09:56:13 PM
@Lawrence: Here are my power measurements for your JT Board # 119.
For the same input voltage (0.5VDC) using my regulated power supply, your JT board runs at a much lower frequency than my board (most probably mainly due to the different type of toroid you are using), and your board also has higher input and output currents than my JT board at the same input voltage. The switching spikes on the input voltage waveform on your board are sharper with a higher amplitude, and with less ringing than I get with my JT circuit.
The efficiency measured to be pretty close to my JT board at the same input voltage however.
Do you want to see these same type of measurements for the other boards you sent me as well?
Input Voltage: 500mV
Input Power: 5.282mW
Output Power: 3.779mW
Efficiency: 71.54%
I am attaching the scope screen shots below.
Yellow traces are the voltage waveforms, and blue traces are the current waveforms.
I am also attaching the Excel spreadsheet files showing the data samples and the resulting power calculations.
-- void --
@Void,
There is something wrong with the Input Waveform. If you used Board 119, the waveform should be similar to the attached. Do not use the Invert function. The Current Waveform (CH2) should be mostly negative. In your example, it is all positive. Please check.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 05, 2013, 01:16:45 AM
@Void,
There is something wrong with the Input Waveform. If you used Board 119, the waveform should be similar to the attached. Do not use the Invert function. The Current Waveform (CH2) should be mostly negative. In your example, it is all positive. Please check.
Hi Lawrence. I have explained this before. There is nothing wrong with my input current waveform measurement. The reason your input current waveform shows as negative is because you hook up your scope probe for the input current measurement in reverse, which causes your current waveform to show as inverted. Since I am using a 2 channel scope, I see no reason to not measure the input current in its proper orientation. I might try an experiment to connect my input current probe in reverse like you connect it, just to see if the input power measurement comes out the same, but just with an inverted sign. If you think about it, for your input current waveform to show as negative current, your input current waveform must be inverted.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 04, 2013, 11:28:27 PM
Void,
Are you able to get a math trace of (ch1 * ch2) on your scope?
Hi poynt99. I haven't tried the math trace feature on my scope, but according to the manual for my scope, it does have a CH1*Ch2 math trace function.
Quote from: Void on June 05, 2013, 02:57:04 AM
Hi Lawrence. I have explained this before. There is nothing wrong with my input current waveform measurement. The reason your input current waveform shows as negative is because you hook up your scope probe for the input current measurement in reverse, which causes your current waveform to show as inverted. Since I am using a 2 channel scope, I see no reason to not measure the input current in its proper orientation. I might try an experiment to connect my input current probe in reverse like you connect it, just to see if the input power measurement comes out the same, but just with an inverted sign. If you think about it, for your input current waveform to show as negative current, your input current waveform must be inverted.
@Void,
The reason why I used the "strange way" is to cater for the possible 4 CH scopes and the Tektronics from Poynt99. Please use the same convention so that we can compare easily. Thank you.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 05, 2013, 12:28:33 AM
I already did that a few years ago. I lit 400 leds from a JT circuit and my earth battery. Check out my youtube videos if you like.
Bill
may i see your video. post the link
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 05, 2013, 03:07:45 AM
@Void,
The reason why I used the "strange way" is to cater for the possible 4 CH scopes and the Tektronics from Poynt99. Please use the same convention so that we can compare easily. Thank you.
Hi Lawrence. I can repeat the power measurement test on board 119, and measure the input current with the Ch2 scope probe leads reversed like you have been doing, if you like. I will do this as soon as I can get a chance.
Quote from: Void on June 05, 2013, 02:57:04 AM
Hi Lawrence. I have explained this before. There is nothing wrong with my input current waveform measurement. The reason your input current waveform shows as negative is because you hook up your scope probe for the input current measurement in reverse, which causes your current waveform to show as inverted. Since I am using a 2 channel scope, I see no reason to not measure the input current in its proper orientation. I might try an experiment to connect my input current probe in reverse like you connect it, just to see if the input power measurement comes out the same, but just with an inverted sign. If you think about it, for your input current waveform to show as negative current, your input current waveform must be inverted.
Void,
Technically speaking, one of either the current or the voltage needs to be inverted when measuring input power. The input source power when measured always produces a negative (unless you have an OU device) wattage. Go around the circuit loop and notice the electric field is in opposition to all the voltage "drops" in the circuit.
Anyway, it is only a technicality, as the only difference in the end is the sign of the measured power, the magnitude will be exactly the same.
Quote from: Void on June 05, 2013, 03:02:15 AM
Hi poynt99. I haven't tried the math trace feature on my scope, but according to the manual for my scope, it does have a CH1*Ch2 math trace function.
Could you try it please?
Also try to see if you can then apply a "mean" auto-measurement of the resulting p(t) math trace.
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2013, 09:31:32 AM
Void,
Technically speaking, one of either the current or the voltage needs to be inverted when measuring input power. The input source power when measured always produces a negative (unless you have an OU device) wattage. Go around the circuit loop and notice the electric field is in opposition to all the voltage "drops" in the circuit.
Anyway, it is only a technicality, as the only difference in the end is the sign of the measured power, the magnitude will be exactly the same.
Hi Poynt99. Sorry, but I disagree. In my many years involved in electronics I have never heard of anyone expressing input power to a circuit or system as negative Watts or negative power. Watts are Watts. It will be automatically understood that if we are talking about input power to a circuit, that this involves a power drain from the power source. Maybe, possibly at the academic level, power from power generation devices might be referred to as negative power, but in common usage involving measuring input and output power on circuits and systems, I have not encountered it.
If the current were really 180 degrees out of phase with the voltage, then you would have power going into the power source rather than power draining from the power source. There may be some special cases where a negative sign might be used in conjunction with power measurements, but for ordinary electronics circuits and systems power measurements, I have not encountered it. A negative sign for power might conceivably be used on a circuit or system that is over unity, and where some of that power is directed back to a battery or something similar to cause the power source to be charged more than it is drained, but I have yet to encounter such an over unity circuit or system (at least not personally) that really does produce over unity. I keep an open mind however. :) Also, I don't know, but people who have systems like wind mills and solar panel power generation systems, who put some power back into the power company's power grid, may be considered as consuming 'negative power' by the power company, but I don't know if that term is actually used by the power company in that case.
@tk,mm interesting,perhaps its size dependant thanx.hey if you need any chemical tests done for anything let me know.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2013, 09:35:44 AM
Could you try it please?
Also try to see if you can then apply a "mean" auto-measurement of the resulting p(t) math trace.
Thanks,
.99
Ok sure, I will have a look at it and see what I can do.
Joule thief seems not have overunity.
Quote from: MenofFather on June 05, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
Joule thief seems not have overunity.
Yes, it would seem it is not very likely for an 'ordinary' joule thief circuit anyway. It is just a form of an oscillator circuit which has been used for many years in electronics. If such oscillator circuits were over unity, you would think engineers would have noticed that a long time ago. I try to keep an open mind, however. There may be special conditions where over unity could be achieved. My hobby is to experiment and keep a look out for any such special conditions. :)
@void,its time to try a different material for your core,gadolinium metal,nickel metal,cobalt metal,aluminum-nickel,manganese dioxide pressed powder/rod,titanium-nickel etc.
Quote from: Void on June 05, 2013, 10:35:09 AM
Hi Poynt99. Sorry, but I disagree. In my many years involved in electronics I have never heard of anyone expressing input power to a circuit or system as negative Watts or negative power. Watts are Watts. It will be automatically understood that if we are talking about input power to a circuit, that this involves a power drain from the power source. Maybe, possibly at the academic level, power from power generation devices might be referred to as negative power, but in common usage involving measuring input and output power on circuits and systems, I have not encountered it.
You may disagree if you wish, but technically speaking the facts remain. The power computation in sources is negative, and the power computation in sinks is positive.
Are you familiar with Kirchhoff's Voltage Law? It states the following:
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) (or Kirchhoff's Loop Rule) is a result of the electrostatic field being conservative. It states that the total voltage around a closed loop must be zero.
Implicit to this is a "power law" as well, and it could be stated as follows:
The total power around a closed loop or within a device must be zero.
I encourage you to draw out a simple circuit of a battery in series with 2 resistors to form a complete circuit or loop. Now go around and verify KVL. Make special note of the polarity of the drops across the resistors vs. the drop across the battery as you move around the loop in one direction. Are they the same polarity as you move around the loop? Which direction does the current flow? Is it the same direction through the battery and resistors?
If done correctly, you will find that the power in the resistors is as follows:
P = V x I = +W
and the power in the battery as follows:
P = -V x I = -W
Just because you have not encountered something, does not mean it can not exist or be correct.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 05, 2013, 01:03:58 PM
You may disagree if you wish, but technically speaking the facts remain. The power computation in sources is negative, and the power computation in sinks is positive.
Are you familiar with Kirchhoff's Voltage Law? It states the following:
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) (or Kirchhoff's Loop Rule) is a result of the electrostatic field being conservative. It states that the total voltage around a closed loop must be zero.
Implicit to this is a "power law" as well, and it could be stated as follows:
The total power around a closed loop or within a device must be zero.
I encourage you to draw out a simple circuit of a battery in series with 2 resistors to form a complete circuit or loop. Now go around and verify KVL. Make special note of the polarity of the drops across the resistors vs. the drop across the battery as you move around the loop in one direction. Are they the same polarity as you move around the loop? Which direction does the current flow? Is it the same direction through the battery and resistors?
If done correctly, you will find that the power in the resistors is as follows:
P = V x I = +W
and the power in the battery as follows:
P = -V x I = -W
Just because you have not encountered something, does not mean it can not exist or be correct.
Poynt99, it is not a major concern to me, but I was just giving my feedback on your comments. :) Yes, of course I am familiar with Kirchoff's voltage law. I think we are talking about two different things here however. I am talking about the common way that input power is expressed when referring to input power measurements or input power specs on circuits. It is commonly expressed as a positive power. It is understood that input power implies a power drain from the power source. That's all I am saying. At any rate, it is not really of concern to me if someone wants to put a negative sign when expressing input power or not. As long as the measurements are done correctly, and it is made clear what various measurements represent, such as input power and output power, etc. I don't see a problem. In the case of measuring and displaying the input voltage and input current waveforms on a circuit using a scope, I think it would be confusing for people to have the input current waveform inverted (showing as a negative current) unless you include a note explaining that the current waveform is inverted from the actual. What is of main concern to me, is that measurements are done correctly. So, I would appreciate if anyone would let me know if they notice any errors in my measurements or calculations. If someone wants to invert their scope waveforms or indicate input power with a negative sign, that's fine with me as long as it is clear what they are doing. :)
Quote from: profitis on June 05, 2013, 12:09:40 PM
@void,its time to try a different material for your core,gadolinium metal,nickel metal,cobalt metal,aluminum-nickel,manganese dioxide pressed powder/rod,titanium-nickel etc.
I intend to conduct more experiments with Lawrence's boards first, but sure, it might prove interesting to investigate and try different core materials to see how it impacts circuit performance.
@void indeed,given the fact that of all the parts in any inductive circuitry its the core where the thermodynamics laws are supposed to be manipulated to our benefit,ie.the collapsing of magneto-alligned dipoles on each oscillatory cycle.
Instead of using a toroid, wrap your coils around the run battery itself, in layers, with the greater number of turns "secondary" wound first, then the lesser turns "primary" wound over the outside of that. You may need a few more turns than "standard". If you have a little tube that the battery will slip nicely into, use that for the coil form, so it's easy to change batteries. Compare alkaline, NiMH, and carbon-zinc batteries. Also do the same with a supercap: use it as the coil core.
Quote from: Void on June 05, 2013, 01:44:02 PM
I intend to conduct more experiments with Lawrence's boards first, but sure, it might prove interesting to investigate and try different core materials to see how it impacts circuit performance.
@Void,
Thank you for your efforts. Please do one waveform and DSO analysis using my "4 CH scope" connection. It will remove any unnecessary disputes with our comparison experiments in different parts of the World. Try to do the experiment in a normal environment and then in an "electrosmog" environment.
Once you have done that, do the following:
(1) Connect one capacitor in parallel with the DC Power Supply. You can hook the capacitor positive to Vin and the capacitor negative to Vout.
(2) Set the DC Power Supply to 1.5V and turn it on for 1 minute.
(3) Turn off the DC Power Supply and check how long the LED will be ON. Check whether the brightness appears to be the same in the first 2 minutes. You can be more scientific and use suitable instruments. I just use the naked eye.
(4) Repeat the above with 2, 3 and 4 capacitors in parallel. I believe you have 4 of my capacitors.
(5) Repeat that with your super capacitor.
(6) The above will prepare us for the next experiment. We shall use a timer to prolong the battery life (or cut electricity bills). One group claimed to have used such techniques plus small solar panels to achieve the "forever lighted lamp". Their electricity bill was greatly reduced.
Mr. T S Lau is repeating the timer experiment with a single capacitor. My unconfirmed information is that different value of the capacitor and/or timing will give different battery lives (or pay different electricity bills). I shall take apart that Rex Dual Timer after his experiment.
Quote from: bryanwizard on June 05, 2013, 03:30:07 AM
may i see your video. post the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqKEed7AOI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqKEed7AOI) (400 LEDs from JT and EB)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kL8ys8m0-4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kL8ys8m0-4) (EB and JT run 48" tube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauOlhNK0iY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauOlhNK0iY) (EB and supercap run Bedini motor)
Check out my channel for other similar videos.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 05, 2013, 05:35:13 PM
Instead of using a toroid, wrap your coils around the run battery itself, in layers, with the greater number of turns "secondary" wound first, then the lesser turns "primary" wound over the outside of that. You may need a few more turns than "standard". If you have a little tube that the battery will slip nicely into, use that for the coil form, so it's easy to change batteries. Compare alkaline, NiMH, and carbon-zinc batteries. Also do the same with a supercap: use it as the coil core.
That's an interesting idea. The coil windings will probably induce eddy currents in the metal casing of the batteries, which will probably reduce the self inductance of the windings, but it will be interesting to see what results this produces. Also, winding around the super cap should be interesting as well. Good idea! I will give this a try when I get a chance.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 05, 2013, 08:23:34 PM
@Void,
Thank you for your efforts. Please do one waveform and DSO analysis using my "4 CH scope" connection. It will remove any unnecessary disputes with our comparison experiments in different parts of the World. Try to do the experiment in a normal environment and then in an "electrosmog" environment.
Once you have done that, do the following:
(1) Connect one capacitor in parallel with the DC Power Supply. You can hook the capacitor positive to Vin and the capacitor negative to Vout.
(2) Set the DC Power Supply to 1.5V and turn it on for 1 minute.
(3) Turn off the DC Power Supply and check how long the LED will be ON. Check whether the brightness appears to be the same in the first 2 minutes. You can be more scientific and use suitable instruments. I just use the naked eye.
(4) Repeat the above with 2, 3 and 4 capacitors in parallel. I believe you have 4 of my capacitors.
(5) Repeat that with your super capacitor.
(6) The above will prepare us for the next experiment. We shall use a timer to prolong the battery life (or cut electricity bills). One group claimed to have used such techniques plus small solar panels to achieve the "forever lighted lamp". Their electricity bill was greatly reduced.
Mr. T S Lau is repeating the timer experiment with a single capacitor. My unconfirmed information is that different value of the capacitor and/or timing will give different battery lives (or pay different electricity bills). I shall take apart that Rex Dual Timer after his experiment.
Ok, as soon as I get a chance, I will do power measurements for some of your boards with the scope probes connected in the way you do it, to make it easier for you to compare to your own results. Yes, you sent me four of your 10F super capacitors.
In (1) above, I assume you mean to connect the super cap negative terminal to the Iin terminal on your boards?
In (3) above, I can measure the output power at the start and compare to the output power after two minutes. If the output power is close to the same, then that would mean that the LED brightness should be about the same. It is doubtful that one could accurately judge small differences in LED brightness just by eye. I know I certainly couldn't anyway.
I may well have to wait till at least the weekend to conduct these tests for you.
Quote from: Void on June 06, 2013, 07:11:04 AM
That's an interesting idea. The coil windings will probably induce eddy currents in the metal casing of the batteries, which will probably reduce the self inductance of the windings, but it will be interesting to see what results this produces. Also, winding around the super cap should be interesting as well. Good idea! I will give this a try when I get a chance.
So will I. Thanks TK.
Bill
@Lawrence: I was going to do some measurements on your boards using your method to connect the scope probes for the input voltage and current measurements, but I believe there is a problem with this method of measuring the input waveforms. When the scope probes are connected in the way you are doing it for the input waveform measurements, what you are measuring as Vin is actually not Vin, but actually Vin minus the voltage across the 1 ohm current sense series resistor. Although the voltage across the series resistor is not really high compared to the input voltage, based on my measurements it will make the input voltage measurement vary by about 4% or so. Since the accuracy of the scope itself when measuring such lower amplitude voltages is probably already not really great, adding an additional variation of about 4% to the input voltage measurements is probably too much error.
On another note, something odd I have been noticing recently:
I have been conducting a few tests with the JT circuits over the last few days, and something odd I have noticed in measurements with both your JT board #119 and my JT circuit is that sometimes I am measuring a somewhat higher efficiency on these JT boards than other times. (From tests so far, this variation seems to be on top of the difference in efficiency that I measured when comparing efficiency between a regulated DC supply and a super cap as power input sources, but I still need to run more tests to confirm that). I will run some tests on my scope to try to determine if my scope or probes could be having issues. I don't think my scope or probes are having issues, however I won't know for sure until I run some measurement tests with my scope. If the issue is not with my scope or probes, then I can't see why the efficiency of the JT boards could change every now and then. I am talking about differences in measured efficiency of 5% to 10% or so. The actual voltage and current waveform traces on the scope reflect these measured changes, so it doesn't appear to be a problem with the scope data logging. I know bad connections on the boards could also potentially cause something like this, but so far I have seen this variation on both my circuit and on Lawrence's board 119 which is soldered. I will check out the boards as well to see if I can rule out potential bad connections. Lawrence I won't post up any more measurements until I get a chance to investigate these odd measurement variations more carefully. Hope it's not an issue with my scope... :)
Edit: The reason I think it is not an issue with my scope is because when I connect the Ch1 and Ch2 scope probes up to the scope's reference 1kHZ squarewave terminal, everything looks fine.
<deleted - poynt99 has already answered my question>
Void,
Yes, this is the way Lawrence and I measured his input power.
I already pointed out this issue some time ago in this thread, and Lawrence simply compensates for the CSR in the spreadsheet calculations. It makes the input power appear to be a little lower than it actually is.
There is no need to worry however, as all measurements have shown far less than unity, even without compensating for the CSR error.
The way you are measuring the LED power, you have the same problem there too.
Here is where I made that post:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356492/#msg356492
Void, Why are you OK with your Pout measurement when the very same issue is present?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2013, 12:58:13 PM
Void,
Yes, this is the way Lawrence and I measured his input power.
I already pointed out this issue some time ago in this thread, and Lawrence simply compensates for the CSR in the spreadsheet calculations. It makes the input power appear to be a little lower than it actually is.
There is no need to worry however, as all measurements have shown far less than unity, even without compensating for the CSR error.
The way you are measuring the LED power, you have the same problem there too.
Hi poynt99. Ok, I wasn't aware that Lawrence was taking steps to try to compensate for that in his calculations. As long as he is compensating for that correctly then I guess it should work out ok in the wash. Thanks for the info on that. This is not a problem with the way I measure the output power, since we actually want to measure the total output power of the load (power dissipated by both the LED and the 1 ohm series resistor). In the case of the total load (LED and the one ohm resistor) the voltage drops across the LED and resistor are additive, which is what we want. So the power measurements for the load are correct.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2013, 01:19:37 PM
Here is where I made that post:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356492/#msg356492
Void, Why are you OK with your Pout measurement when the very same issue is present?
It's not the same issue. See my reply above...
Sure,
If you want to include the output CSR as part of the load. But none of us have done that to this point. We have considered the LED as the load.
If you want to go along that line of thinking (where the CSR is taken as part of the load), then you should be measuring and accounting for ALL the components in the circuit and consider them as an "output", excluding the battery of course.
Technically speaking (I know you hate that phrase), ALL the components excluding the battery are "output" components. The idea and hope is that one of these output devices gets most of the power. In this case, that component is the LED (which btw DOES get most of the power).
If anything, you should be more concerned about including the power in the input CSR vs. the output CSR, as the input CSR dissipates far more power than the output CSR.
And don't forget the transistor, it has the second highest power dissipation in the circuit.
So you have a choice, either you call the LED the "load", or every component except the battery, the combined total "load".
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2013, 01:52:12 PM
Sure,
If you want to include the output CSR as part of the load. But none of us have done that to this point. We have considered the LED as the load.
If you want to go along that line of thinking (where the CSR is taken as part of the load), then you should be measuring and accounting for ALL the components in the circuit and consider them as an "output", excluding the battery of course.
Technically speaking (I know you hate that phrase), ALL the components excluding the battery are "output" components. The idea and hope is that one of these output devices gets most of the power. In this case, that component is the LED (which btw DOES get most of the power).
If anything, you should be more concerned with the power in the input CSR vs. the output CSR, as the input CSR dissipates far more power than the output CSR.
From the diagram I have of Lawrence's scope probe connection method (from Feb 2013), he seems to be measuring the output power the same way I am, unless he changed the way he is measuring it since February 2013. At any rate, measuring power dissipation across the entire load is what we want here. Regarding the efficiency measurements, what is being measured is the overall circuit efficiency, and so it is understood that power dissipation by circuit components impacts the overall circuit efficiency. Sure, the power dissipation by the one ohm current sense resistor in the input circuit skews measurements a bit as well, but unless someone has a really good quality current probe to use to measure the input current, then we don't really have a choice to not use this resistor. It's a good point though. It might actually be more accurate then not to compensate for the voltage drop across this input current sense resistor, since it would be more accurate to subtract the power dissipated by this resistor from the input power for circuit efficiency calculation. :) However, as you mentioned, if the measured circuit efficiency is not within a few percent of 100% then this measurement difference is probably not too critical. If I do ever measure efficiencies close to 100%, I would certainly want to move to a much higher quality scope to improve on measurement accuracy, as the error with the scope I have now may possibly be as much as +/- 5% at these low voltage and current magnitudes (hopefully the error in my scope measurements is not more than that) :).
As a rule of thumb when measuring the input and "output" power of a device, unless the chosen output component (LED in this case) power is easily exceeding the measured input power, one must individually-measure ALL the circuit components (excluding the source) and sum them all to compare to the input power.
If the sum total of all the output components' power is greater than the input power, then you may have something.
In the case of Lawrence's JT, the input power "Pin" is the source or battery power.
Each "output" component to be measured for power is listed below:
1) Input CSR resistor
2) 1k base resistor
3) base inductor resistance
4) collector inductor resistance
5) transistor
6) LED
7) output CSR resistor
If (P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6+P7) > Pin, then ;D
If (P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6+P7) </= Pin, then 8)
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2013, 02:38:40 PM
As a rule of thumb when measuring the input and "output" power of a device, unless the chosen output component (LED in this case) power is easily exceeding the measured input power, one must individually-measure ALL the circuit components (excluding the source) and sum them all to compare to the input power.
If the sum total of all the output components' power is greater than the input power, then you may have something.
In the case of Lawrence's JT, the input power is the source or battery power.
Each "output" component to be measured for power is listed below:
1) Input CSR resistor
2) 1k base resistor
3) base inductor resistance
4) collector inductor resistance
5) transistor
6) LED
7) output CSR
If (P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6+P7) > Pin, then ;D
If (P1+P2+P3+P4+P5+P6+P7) </= Pin, then 8)
Yes, that's true. When looking for over unity, the power dissipated by all the circuit components plus the power dissipated by the load is the total power consumed, but practically we really want to know what overall efficiency we can get with respect to the output load power, since the load power is the useable power, although a really inefficient circuit could maybe be used to help warm a room in the winter, or to power a peltier module. :) Actually, these days where battery life in mobile devices is quite important, I wonder if any manufacturers have started using peltier modules to convert heat produced by the circuitry back to electricity? Maybe the efficiency gains involved wouldn't make it worth the extra component cost however.
@Lawrence: Here are my measurements for your board #119, using your scope probe measurement method.
I didn't compensate for the voltage drop across the one ohm current sensing resistor at the input in my Excel calculations, but you can do that if you wish by modifying the attached Excel file. I am still seeing that odd variation in my efficiency measurements, and I am still investigating to see if I can figure out what might be causing it, so all I can say for now is this is what I measured for your board # 119 right at the current moment. :)
Input Voltage: 0.5VDC regulated supply
Input Power: 5.195mW
Output Power: 4.159mW
Efficiency: 80.06%
Scope screen shots and Excel files used for power calculations are attached.
Yellow traces are voltage and blue traces are current.
Input current waveform is inverted.
@Lawrence: Here are my measurements for your board #118, using your scope probe measurement method.
Input Voltage: 0.5VDC regulated supply
Input Power: 4.893mW
Output Power: 3.765mW
Efficiency: 76.95%
Scope screen shots and Excel files used for power calculations are attached.
Yellow traces are voltage and blue traces are current.
Input current waveform is inverted.
@Lawrence: Here are my measurements for your board #134, using your scope probe measurement method.
The other three boards you sent me do not light up. I would need to take a look at them to see what the issue is.
Input Voltage: 0.5VDC regulated supply
Input Power: 4.994mW
Output Power: 4.023mW
Efficiency: 80.56%
Scope screen shots and Excel files used for power calculations are attached.
Yellow traces are voltage and blue traces are current.
Input current waveform is inverted.
http://touchstonesemi.com/products/current-sense-amplifiers
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 09, 2013, 06:33:45 PM
http://touchstonesemi.com/products/current-sense-amplifiers (http://touchstonesemi.com/products/current-sense-amplifiers)
These aren't super fast but from looking at the data sheet they should be usable to well over 20kHz with much better accuracy than what you are using now and they draw only microamps of current themselves. And you might be able to get a free sample demo board, complete with the low-inductance path, very low resistance precision CVR.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 09, 2013, 06:41:57 PM
These aren't super fast but from looking at the data sheet they should be usable to well over 20kHz with much better accuracy than what you are using now and they draw only microamps of current themselves. And you might be able to get a free sample demo board, complete with the low-inductance path, very low resistance precision CVR.
Nice. Thanks for the info. If I were measuring efficiencies close to 100% I would definitely look into those boards. I have saved the link just in case.
@Void,
Now that we are using the same connections for measurement, the results should be compariable.
See if Baord 118 or 119 show the same characteristics in having "noise". Please adjust your DC Power Supply so that the LED just light up. Reduce slightly and the LED should still be ON. With Board 120, that occurs at CH1 Vrms = 344mV. The Waveform for CH2 has spikes crossing the 0 ref line.
If a capacitor is connected in parallel with the DC Power Supply, there will be the longest lighting with the lowest drop of voltage around this range. Poynt99 can use Board 33 to do the same. He will be using the Tektronics. Please display your waveform.
Many of you will comment that this is around the "noise" level. Let us do the experiments first.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 11, 2013, 05:36:37 AM
@Void,
Now that we are using the same connections for measurement, the results should be comparable.
See if Baord 118 or 119 show the same characteristics in having "noise". Please adjust your DC Power Supply so that the LED just light up. Reduce slightly and the LED should still be ON. With Board 120, that occurs at CH1 Vrms = 344mV. The Waveform for CH2 has spikes crossing the 0 ref line.
If a capacitor is connected in parallel with the DC Power Supply, there will be the longest lighting with the lowest drop of voltage around this range. Poynt99 can use Board 33 to do the same. He will be using the Tektronics. Please display your waveform.
Many of you will comment that this is around the "noise" level. Let us do the experiments first.....
@Lawrence:
As I have previously explained, as the amplitude of the waveforms being measured fall closer and closer into the noise level amplitude range, the degree of error in the measurements increases accordingly. Also, when making measurements close to the lower measurement limits of the measuring instrument, the degree of error is typically a lot higher than when making measurements that are at higher magnitudes and well within the normal measurement range of the measuring instrument.
For the input voltage setting you are suggesting here, the input and output current magnitudes are well within the noise level range, especially the output current which is completely within the noise level, and also the current waveform magnitudes are down at the very lower measurement limit of my scope, which will also introduce even further error into the measurements. Regarding the noise, we can't assume that the noise waveforms are always perfectly symmetrical and therefore will average out to about 0 overall, as noise at any instance in time is the sum total of all noise sources affecting your circuit over the measurement period, and although some noise may be fairly symmetrical about the 0 voltage axis, other sources of noise may average out to be more positive or more negative overall, and the noise affecting a circuit can vary a fair bit over time depending on the sources of the noise. The result is that when the magnitude of waveforms being measured are well within the noise level, the noise could very potentially be skewing our measurements quite a bit, and it in all likelihood is. You just simply can't rely on such measurements being at all accurate under such conditions. As I have also mentioned before, you would in the very least need something like a high quality amplified differential probe to attempt such measurements, and you would also want to take steps to minimize noise in your circuit as much as possible. You would also want to be using a good high quality and very well calibrated scope for the measurements as well. Even then, you would still need to be aware of the measurement limitations of the equipment you are using to make your measurements, and be aware of how much error noise may still be introducing into your measurements.
With all the above being understood in regards to the measurement error being much too high to make meaningful measurements at the current waveform magnitudes which result when the input voltage is set very low, I made the following measurements just to show what kind of results you can end up with when attempting to make measurements under such conditions. If a person did not fully understand about measurement instrument limitations, and the effects of noise on measurements when waveform magnitudes are well within the noise level, then a person might make the mistake of thinking that measurements made under such conditions are meaningful. In reality however, it is very likely in the following measurement results that the measured values have a high degree of error due to the current waveforms being measured being well within the noise level. Anyone with an engineering or science background should be well aware of these sorts of measurement limitations and sources of error in measurements.
I used your scope probe connection method for these measurements.
I used a regulated DC power supply only (no super cap in parallel) for the input voltage source.
I made certain that the DC offset for Ch2 (used for current measurements) was calibrated as close to 0V as I was able to get it, before making the measurements.
(Again, these measurements are meaningless due to the current waveforms being measured being well into the noise level.)
Input Voltage: 328mV (The output LED was lighting dimly at this input voltage setting.)
Input Power: 32.275uW
Output Power: 103.278uW
Efficiency: 319.994% :)
Scope screen shots are attached.
Voltage traces are in yellow, current traces are in blue.
Input current waveform is inverted.
@Lawrence: Just to try to help clarify what I was saying in my post above, I am attaching a scope screen shot of the Ch2 probe connected exactly as it was when I made the output current measurement shown in my previous post, but in this case the power supply is still connected to the circuit, but the power supply is switched off, to just show the noise level being picked up by the scope probe at this measurement point in the circuit. As you can see in the attached scope shot, the noise waveform with the power supply switched off looks very close to what the 'output current' waveform looked like in my measurements shown in my previous post. In other words, what is being measured as 'output current' under such conditions is actually mainly electrical noise that is being picked up by the circuit and probe. This will in all likelihood greatly skew the output current measurement and give you a meaningless measurement result. The actual output current that is passing through the output LED at this low input voltage setting on the joule thief circuit (for example at 328mV) is most likely in the very low microamps range, probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20uA or so. Also, such a low current is likely well below the minimum amplitude that my scope can measure with any degree of accuracy.
- void -
Quote from: Void on June 11, 2013, 10:08:47 AM
In other words, what is being measured as 'output current' under such conditions is actually mainly electrical noise that is being picked up by the circuit and probe. This will in all likelihood greatly skew the output current measurement and give you a meaningless measurement result. The actual output current that is passing through the output LED at this low input voltage setting on the joule thief circuit (for example at 328mV) is most likely in the very low microamps range, probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20uA or so. Also, such a low current is likely well below the minimum amplitude that my scope can measure with any degree of accuracy.
- void -
Seriously?
That noise signal on your trace is not going to greatly skew the current measurement at all. Even if it was 20uA (it's probably much lower), this is about 1/1000th the current in the circuit when it is running.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2013, 10:52:10 AM
Seriously?
That noise signal on your trace is not going to greatly skew the current measurement at all. Even if it was 20uA (it's probably much lower), this is about 1/1000th the current in the circuit when it is running.
Sorry Poynt99. What you just said doesn't make any sense at all to me. I think I have explained it all quite clearly. The approx. 20uA I am referring to is the approx. actual current flowing through the LED under those operating conditions, not the resulting average or RMS current that the scope is measuring due to the electrical noise pickup at that measurement point. There is also likely a fair bit of measurement error introduced due to the current magnitudes being well down below the very minimum limit the scope can measure with any accuracy. If I take the measured output current sample data points logged in the spreadsheet for the output current measurement (mainly noise) and take the average, it comes out to 240uA average current, but this is just the average of what is mainly electrical noise! This can clearly be seen by comparing the output current waveform scope shot to the noise waveform scope shot with the power supply switched off. Again, for roughly that brightness on the LED, I would estimate the actual current through the LED to be very roughly about 20uA. I am basing this LED current estimate on the current that flows through my LED when it is set to just light very dimly when connecting the LED directly to my DC power supply and measuring the DC current using a multimeter. The LED on Lawrence's board is a different type than my LED, so its actual current at that very dim brightness might be a bit different, but Lawrences's LED seems to perform similarly to my LED in the joule thief circuit, so it is probably similar to my LED in performance. It is just an estimate, but it is probably ballpark.
I see now.
With only 0.328V input, your voltage across the LED CSR is only about 1.2uVp according to my sim.
On the 2mV/DIV scale, you can only resolve about 8uV.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2013, 01:02:08 PM
I see now.
With only 0.328V input, your voltage across the LED CSR is only about 1.2uVp according to my sim.
On the 2mV/DIV scale, you can only resolve about 8uV.
Yes, and the noise level picked up by the scope probe is much higher than that, and I believe it is the noise which is the main cause of the error in the output current measurement, based on the magnitude range of the samples and the average of the output current data samples.
Just in case anyone has any doubts about a LED being able to light up dimly with only 20uA of current passing through it (it no doubt depends on what exact type of LED you have however), I connected the LED I have been using in my joule thief circuit directly to my adjustable DC power supply with my multimeter connected in series to measure the LED current, and adjusted the DC power supply voltage so that the LED was just turning on and glowing dimly, very roughly similar in brightness to the LED on board 119 that I ran these last power measurements on. My LED is a yellow LED and Lawrence's LED on board 119 is a white LED, so Lawrence's LED may have a bit different current versus brightness relationship than my LED, but I adjusted my LED close to around the point where the LED is just lighting up, similar to how I had the LED adjusted on board 119 when I did these last power measurements. I would have to disconnect one of Lawrence's LEDs from one of his boards to do this same test on the same type of LED that Lawrence uses on his boards, but I think this test with my yellow LED does show that a LED with somewhat similar performance characteristics to the LEDs used on Lawrence's boards light dimly with current in the very low uA range. I am not certain what actual current was flowing in the LED on board 119 in my last test, but I would guess that somewhere in the range of 15uA to 50uA or so would not be far off from actual. Lawrence, if you want, I can remove a LED from one of your boards which is not working and do this same test.
Pictures of LED brightness with LED current set to a DC current of about 20uA and 42uA are attached below. (My multimeter is probably not super accurate at these current levels, but it is probably at least ballpark), but I didn't have the camera directly facing the top of the LED in these snapshots and it is hard to judge LED brightness in a picture anyway, and although it is also not very accurate to judge LED brightness with the eye, the LED appeared a bit brighter at 42uA than it was at 20uA although this doesn't show up in the attached pictures very well.
Edit: To check how much noise might be affecting these current readings with my multimeter, I connected my multimeter set to the same 2mA DC current range across the one ohm output current sensing resistor on board 119, and the meter measured 0.0000 Amps, so it seems the multimeter when set to measure DC current is nowhere near as sensitive to noise pickup as the scope probe is across the same resistor, but the scope is measuring voltage across the one ohm resistor and the multimeter is measuring actual current through the meter.
Quote from: Void on June 11, 2013, 09:30:31 AM
@Lawrence:
As I have previously explained, as the amplitude of the waveforms being measured fall closer and closer into the noise level amplitude range, the degree of error in the measurements increases accordingly. Also, when making measurements close to the lower measurement limits of the measuring instrument, the degree of error is typically a lot higher than when making measurements that are at higher magnitudes and well within the normal measurement range of the measuring instrument.
For the input voltage setting you are suggesting here, the input and output current magnitudes are well within the noise level range, especially the output current which is completely within the noise level, and also the current waveform magnitudes are down at the very lower measurement limit of my scope, which will also introduce even further error into the measurements. Regarding the noise, we can't assume that the noise waveforms are always perfectly symmetrical and therefore will average out to about 0 overall, as noise at any instance in time is the sum total of all noise sources affecting your circuit over the measurement period, and although some noise may be fairly symmetrical about the 0 voltage axis, other sources of noise may average out to be more positive or more negative overall, and the noise affecting a circuit can vary a fair bit over time depending on the sources of the noise. The result is that when the magnitude of waveforms being measured are well within the noise level, the noise could very potentially be skewing our measurements quite a bit, and it in all likelihood is. You just simply can't rely on such measurements being at all accurate under such conditions. As I have also mentioned before, you would in the very least need something like a high quality amplified differential probe to attempt such measurements, and you would also want to take steps to minimize noise in your circuit as much as possible. You would also want to be using a good high quality and very well calibrated scope for the measurements as well. Even then, you would still need to be aware of the measurement limitations of the equipment you are using to make your measurements, and be aware of how much error noise may still be introducing into your measurements.
With all the above being understood in regards to the measurement error being much too high to make meaningful measurements at the current waveform magnitudes which result when the input voltage is set very low, I made the following measurements just to show what kind of results you can end up with when attempting to make measurements under such conditions. If a person did not fully understand about measurement instrument limitations, and the effects of noise on measurements when waveform magnitudes are well within the noise level, then a person might make the mistake of thinking that measurements made under such conditions are meaningful. In reality however, it is very likely in the following measurement results that the measured values have a high degree of error due to the current waveforms being measured being well within the noise level. Anyone with an engineering or science background should be well aware of these sorts of measurement limitations and sources of error in measurements.
I used your scope probe connection method for these measurements.
I used a regulated DC power supply only (no super cap in parallel) for the input voltage source.
I made certain that the DC offset for Ch2 (used for current measurements) was calibrated as close to 0V as I was able to get it, before making the measurements.
(Again, these measurements are meaningless due to the current waveforms being measured being well into the noise level.)
Input Voltage: 328mV (The output LED was lighting dimly at this input voltage setting.)
Input Power: 32.275uW
Output Power: 103.278uW
Efficiency: 319.994% :)
Scope screen shots are attached.
Voltage traces are in yellow, current traces are in blue.
Input current waveform is inverted.
@Void,
Thank you for your experiment and the posts.
At present, I am more interested in whether the "Noise" can help me produce the "forever lighted lamp". Some groups claimed to have "forever lighted lamp" ON for months and years. Mr. T S Lau has it ON for weeks. He thinks that he can pickup the energy from the Power Line a few hundred meters from his window. Dr. Ting believes an oscillating circuit can be built to efficiently pick up the "electrosmog". Measurement into the "noise" level is useful if one wants to use the "noise"......
The scope shots from the Atten or similar low cost scopes may not be accurate but they do indicate a possible direction. Poynt99 has the high end Tektronics and may have time to do a similar experiment like what you have just done. (I can always wait for results from the Tektronics and skilled team in Hong Kong and Shenzhen.)
Void, you can now do the timing experiment with the capacitors. Set your DC Power to 1.5 V and turn it ON for 1 minute with 1-4 capacitors. When the DC Power is switched OFF, see how long each case lasts. I shall publish my results later so that we can compare them.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 11, 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Measurement into the "noise" level is useful if one wants to use the "noise"......
@Lawrence: That implies that the noise has enough power associated with it to light a light. Keep in mind that just because you measure noise voltage swings in the mV range or whatever, this does not necessarily translate to actual useable power. For example, in my test above I was measuring noise voltage across the output current one ohm current sensing resistor with the power supply turned off, but the LED was off and certainly next to no current was flowing through the LED, if any at all. If the LED is pretty much an open circuit in this situation, then the actual current flowing through the current sensing resistor would have to be very close to zero. So, what you measure as noise voltage with a scope probe does not necessarily translate to useable power. As soon as you try to draw current from this noise voltage, the noise voltage will likely drop down much lower. Some noise sources are going to have more power associated with them than other noise sources of course.
You can probably draw some degree of useable power from a power line using a large coil of wire oriented correctly, and if it is not too far from the power line, but the power company would likely not appreciate this. You can potentially pull off quite a bit of power from high voltage power transmission lines inductively or possibly even capacitively, but again the power company would not like this at all. :)
You should be able to come up with a better circuit for picking up EM fields to light a LED or low power light. Lasersaber has experimented with a lot of circuits of this sort. For example see the following videos and info from Lasersaber:
Important Joule Ringer CrossOver update!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt5zulKQ1XE
More videos from lasersaber:
http://www.youtube.com/user/lasersaber/videos
Information on his circuits:
Joule Ringer Crossover
http://laserhacker.com/JouleRingerCrossOver.html
Other similar types of circuits:
http://laserhacker.com/index.html
I am not too interested in using noise to power a circuit, at least not as my primary interest. I am more interested in looking for and experimenting with possible ways to generate over unity from as yet unknown or untapped energy sources. When I have time I will try to do some experiments with your super capacitors as a power source for the joule thief boards.
Quote from: Void on June 11, 2013, 04:54:41 PM
I was measuring noise voltage across the output current one ohm current sensing resistor with the power supply turned off, but the LED was off and certainly next to no current was flowing through the LED, if any at all.
*** The experiment should be done with the LED just ON.....
You should be able to come up with a better circuit for picking up EM fields to light a LED or low power light. Lasersaber has experimented with a lot of circuits of this sort. For example see the following videos and info from Lasersaber:
*** Thanks for the information. We have been following Lasersaber's work.
The adding of capacitors into the circuit is worth much more research.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 11, 2013, 07:38:09 PM
*** The experiment should be done with the LED just ON.....
Hi Lawrence. Yes, as I had already explained in a few places in my notes for last the experiment I did above with board 119 with the input voltage set to 328mV, I adjusted the input voltage so that the LED was just turned on. The point I was trying to make about measuring the noise voltage waveform with the power off was related to the second measurement I did across the one ohm output current sensing resistor with the power supply turned off to show how much of what constitutes the 'output current measurement' under this condition is mainly just noise, and not reflective of the actual current that was flowing through the LED. In other words, what Ch2 was 'measuring' in regards to output current with the LED just barely turned on, was mainly not output current at all but just noise voltage picked up by the scope probe when connected across the one ohm resistor.
Lawrence, you did not comment on my experimental results at all. Do you understand what I explained in my comments? I just want to confirm that you understand that the output current measurement and subsequent calculated output power that is measured and calculated under the very low input voltage setting used in this experiment is not indicative of the actual power being consumed by the LED. It is actually just erroneous measurement values which appears to be due mainly to the noise voltage picked up by the Ch2 probe, and also due to some extent to measurement error that occurs at waveform magnitudes below the practical lower measurement limit of the scope. The actual output power consumed by the LED and one ohm output current sensing resistor will likely be somewhat less than the input power, but with the equipment and measurement method being used, there is no way to accurately measure the input and output power accurately at those low current levels. At any rate all indications are the output power is much less than was measured. This is what I was showing when I demonstrated that for an approximate equivalent brightness of the LED that the LED current is actually much lower than was 'measured' in the experiment. Did you follow all this, and what is your opinion on my experimental results?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0j46SSlRuI&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0j46SSlRuI&feature=youtu.be)
The Video showed Board 120 with Input and Output connections.
The crossing of 0 ref line by Input CH2 (Current) was clear. More research needed.....
Full DSO analysis showed COP = 9.17.
@Void,
The waveform and analysis showed similar behavior as yours. Will try to show characteristics around this range...
Capacitor check:
Four similar boards were used side-by-side. Board 117 has 1 capacitor. Board 129 has 2 capacitors. Board 126 has 3 capacitors. Board 123 has 4 capacitors. All were charged for over 2 minutes.
The lighting time in ascending order was 1, 3, 2, 4.
See attached.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 12, 2013, 06:02:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0j46SSlRuI&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0j46SSlRuI&feature=youtu.be)
The Video showed Board 120 with Input and Output connections.
The crossing of 0 ref line by Input CH2 (Current) was clear. More research needed.....
Full DSO analysis showed COP = 9.17.
@Void,
The waveform and analysis showed similar behavior as yours. Will try to show characteristics around this range...
@Lawrence, thanks for completely ignoring my comments and questions to you. :)
You will most likely completely ignore my following comments as well, but I thought I would give it a try one last time, just on the off chance that you do have some slight interest in trying to understand what is really going on under a low input voltage condition with your boards. :)
If you turn off the power supply
such that the LED is off and not conducting current, and you still measure a very similar waveform across the output current sensing one ohm resistor with your scope, then you are obviously not measuring a 'current' at all. It is just noise voltage picked up by the scope probe at this connection point, and this will obviously greatly skew your measurements if your output current magnitude is proportional to or much less than the actual noise voltage magnitude, as is the case when the LED is just turned on and glowing dimly. As I have already demonstrated, your output current measurement is meaningless under this condition. To talk about input and output power and COP under such measurement conditions as if they are meaningful numbers makes no sense. If you disagree with anything I am saying, then please point out what you disagree with and explain specifically why you disagree, so we can discuss further. This of course assumes that you have some interest in trying to understand what is actually going on in this arrangement. :)
In my last experiment with board 119 above, noise made up a large percentage of the input current measurement which would likely throw off the input current measurement to at least some degree or other, making the input current measurement under this condition unreliable, and noise obviously completely covered up the output current waveform such that what was being measured as 'output current' was actually just mainly noise, and was not reflective of the actual output current at all.
Quote from: Void on June 12, 2013, 09:57:26 AM
@Lawrence, thanks for completely ignoring my comments and questions to you. :)
You will most likely completely ignore my following comments as well, but I thought I would give it a try one last time, just on the off chance that you do have some slight interest in trying to understand what is really going on under a low input voltage condition with your boards. :)
If you turn off the power supply such that the LED is off and not conducting current, and you still measure a very similar waveform across the output current sensing one ohm resistor with your scope, then you are obviously not measuring a 'current' at all. It is just noise voltage picked up by the scope probe at this connection point, and this will obviously greatly skew your measurements if your output current magnitude is proportional to or much less than the actual noise voltage magnitude, as is the case when the LED is just turned on and glowing dimly. As I have already demonstrated, your output current measurement is meaningless under this condition. To talk about input and output power and COP under such measurement conditions as if they are meaningful numbers makes no sense. If you disagree with anything I am saying, then please point out what you disagree with and explain specifically why you disagree, so we can discuss further. This of course assumes that you have some interest in trying to understand what is actually going on in this arrangement. :)
In my last experiment with board 119 above, noise made up a large percentage of the input current measurement which would likely throw off the input current measurement to at least some degree or other, making the input current measurement under this condition unreliable, and noise obviously completely covered up the output current waveform such that what was being measured as 'output current' was actually just mainly noise, and was not reflective of the actual output current at all.
@Void,
Your comments were good and valid. The actual measured results were not useful in trying to
prove overunity. Once we are at the noise level, any reading may arise.
However, I am trying to see if the "noise" can be turned into
useful energy to light up the LED. TK's Video; Dr. Ting's wireless JT; Lasersaber's ringers etc. all pointed to that possibility. In particular, Mr. T S Lau's recent timer and capacitor experiment at his home (with window facing a high power line a few hundred meters away) showed the possibility of a "forever lighted lamp". His result for
22 days showed a continued lighting from a rechargeable AA Battery starting at 1.26V and still lighting at 0.61V. With 3 hours rest, the battery Voltage climbed back to 1V approximately.
That experiment is being tuned with more capacitors and different timing. The expectation is that the set up will last months. We may add the secondary coil winding at some stage. One possible explanation of the much longer life of the battery is due to "bringing-in" energy from the
noise or electrosmog. The crossing of the 0 ref line behavior indicated such possibility.
Another possible explanation is that at some "resonance condition",
a still not clearly understood mechanism would "lead-out" or bring-in much more energy. I occasionally find a sudden increase in brightness of the LED and a rise in CH1 Vrms with no battery attached. That particular behavior is difficult to capture but I am sure that we shall capture and video it one day. The thought at this point is that the slow draining of the capacitor may hit one or more of such condidtions.
If we can maintain such conditions or keep bring the circuit back to such conditions,.... Your displayed Input Waveform clearly indicated a "crossing 0 ref line" behavior for Input Current. You can try to vary your DC Power Supply Voltage slowly and observe whether you can reproduce such "crossing 0 ref line" behavior
every time. I can do that on my Atten. There were comments that the behavior was due to bad set up of the Atten or "the limitation of a cheap scope". Your similar results lowered the possibility of bad set up.....
Here you go
Power generation using noise.
Effect of "noise" at around 0.38V by Mr. T S Lau.
The experiment was done at the home of Mr. Lau with his window facing a high power line within a few hundred feet. Board 128 used a timer set to 2 minutes off and 10 seconds on. Board 127 used no timer. Both have a capacitor (2.3V 10F).
Board 127 is interesting in that the voltage drop was verry slow after the 0.38V mark. At such level, the Atten DSO showed much crossing of the 0 ref line for Input CH2 (current). That indicated both positive and negative power. Negative Power means energy flowing back to source.....
That explained the much longer "hanging on" of the Battery and the Overunity results.
@Void,
Doing DSO Analysis at noise level may not be useless and meaningless after all.....
@Lawrence: Thanks for the response. :) The experiments with the super caps as a power source are interesting, and appear to show some potential, but I personally wouldn't be too quick to try to draw any conclusions or to try to attribute what is going on to any particular factor such as noise or whatever at this point, without doing a lot more experimentation and analysis. I have not seen any indication that noise pickup has any effect on actual circuit performance in my own experiments with the joule thief circuit. However, if the circuit is located in a fairly strong EM field, then that might well have some measurable impact on performance. No doubt different types of experiments can be done to help get a better understanding of what is going on. I will do more experiments with this as well, as time permits. I will post up any interesting results back here if you like.
Cheers.
Quote from: Void on June 13, 2013, 07:55:44 AM
@Lawrence: Thanks for the response. :) The experiments with the super caps as a power source are interesting, and appear to show some potential, but I personally wouldn't be too quick to try to draw any conclusions or to try to attribute what is going on to any particular factor such as noise or whatever at this point, without doing a lot more experimentation and analysis. I have not seen any indication that noise pickup has any effect on actual circuit performance in my own experiments with the joule thief circuit. However, if the circuit is located in a fairly strong EM field, then that might well have some measurable impact on performance. No doubt different types of experiments can be done to help get a better understanding of what is going on. I will do more experiments with this as well, as time permits. I will post up any interesting results back here if you like.
Cheers.
@Void,
One group in Shenzhen told me that they could use "noise" to light up LEDs already. I believe that they used some modified form of Joule Thief. The post from reply 1037 onwards are interesting. Your quoting of the lasersaber video in which he wirelessly drew energy from Power Supply was of particular interest.
My gut feel is that a circuit can be built not just to pick up external EM noise energy. It may also oscillate or resonate some EM energy within the electronic components of the circuit..... The research continues.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 13, 2013, 03:56:15 AM
Effect of "noise" at around 0.38V by Mr. T S Lau.
The experiment was done at the home of Mr. Lau with his window facing a high power line within a few hundred feet. Board 128 used a timer set to 2 minutes off and 10 seconds on. Board 127 used no timer. Both have a capacitor (2.3V 10F).
Board 127 is interesting in that the voltage drop was verry slow after the 0.38V mark. At such level, the Atten DSO showed much crossing of the 0 ref line for Input CH2 (current). That indicated both positive and negative power. Negative Power means energy flowing back to source.....
That explained the much longer "hanging on" of the Battery and the Overunity results.
@Void,
Doing DSO Analysis at noise level may not be useless and meaningless after all.....
I used the same rechargeable AA battery as Mr. Lau in his board 127 experiment. The Battery was recharged to about 0.4V. It was connected to Board 120 and the Input Ch1 Vrms value was allowed to drop to the "noise level" after a few hours(with the battery and capacitor in parallel). The Board was separated from the Scope as far as possible. The setup was moved to a location far from other electrical appliances.
Attached are the results.
Let me try to answer the question: "Is the Joule Thief Circuit Overunity?"
Based on the information as of today (June 14, 2015), my answer is:
(1) Based on the Atten DSO results and the Zhou Boards, the Joule Thief Circuit displayed Overunity behavior at around 0.33 to 0.38V DC Input.
(2) At such voltage levels, the electromagnetic noise became significant. Thus the displayed results would not be accepted as conclusive.
(3) If we add one or more capacitors (e.g. 2.3V 10F) to the circuit, the LED would be faintly ON with such voltage (0.33 to 0.38) for a long time after the battery is removed. The Atten Scope showed that the Input CH2 (current) waveform crossed the 0 ref line with many spikes.
(4) As the Output Voltage and Current were mostly positive, the Output Power would be positive.
(5) The Input Voltage (CH1) was always positive. Negative Input Current (CH2) would give rise to Negative Power. Negative Power would indicate feedback to the source (or recharging the capacitor or battery).
(6) COP could be determined by the ratio of Average Output Power over Average Input Power. With Input Current (CH2) crossing the 0 ref line, the Average Input Power could be very small. Thus COP could be very large (much greater than 1 or overunity.)
The above should be verified with better Scopes and skilled experts to ensure that no setup errors were introduced. One possible explanation of the crossing 0 ref line is due to presence of electrosmog or EM noise. Another possible explanation may be a still not understood source.....
@poynt99
Do you think that you can do the above verification with your Tektronics and Board 33? Look for the cross 0 ref line behavior at around (0.33 to 0.38V) from your DC Power supply?
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 13, 2013, 06:43:20 PM
@Void,
One group in Shenzhen told me that they could use "noise" to light up LEDs already. I believe that they used some modified form of Joule Thief. The post from reply 1037 onwards are interesting. Your quoting of the lasersaber video in which he wirelessly drew energy from Power Supply was of particular interest.
My gut feel is that a circuit can be built not just to pick up external EM noise energy. It may also oscillate or resonate some EM energy within the electronic components of the circuit..... The research continues.
When I mentioned that I have not seen indications that 'noise' can affect the performance of the joule thief circuit, I am referring to the particular joule thief circuit you and I have been testing with, and I am referring to just the ordinary ambient electrical noise background level that is picked up by the joule thief circuit. As I mentioned previously, if you place a joule thief circuit in a fairly strong EM field such as close to a power transformer or any other device that emits a strong EM field around it, then that might well cause the LED to glow, and we know already that this can happen. I am making a distinction between the ordinary ambient electrical noise level background as opposed to the energy pickup that might occur in the presence of much stronger fields. There are actually people doing research on using ambient RF energy pickup to power low power circuits. For example Nokia is doing research on such a circuit to use in their cell phones which they hope one day will allow a cell phone battery to be constantly recharging from ambient electrical noise and radiated RF signal pickup. There are various others doing research into this area. As I mentioned previously, I have no doubt that much better circuits than a joule thief circuit can be devised to pick up ambient electrical noise and radiated RF and EM fields around electronics equipment and such, and use that energy as a power source, but I am not too interested in this, and it is not really related to the topic at hand which is in regards to whether a joule thief circuit is over unity. I wouldn't consider a circuit that powers itself from ambient EM energy to be 'over unity' in the sense that we are investigating here, although in a sense it is 'free energy'. :)
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 14, 2013, 04:43:06 AM
Let me try to answer the question: "Is the Joule Thief Circuit Overunity?"
Based on the information as of today (June 14, 2015), my answer is:
(1) Based on the Atten DSO results and the Zhou Boards, the Joule Thief Circuit displayed Overunity behavior at around 0.33 to 0.38V DC Input.
(2) At such voltage levels, the electromagnetic noise became significant. Thus the displayed results would not be accepted as conclusive.
(3) If we add one or more capacitors (e.g. 2.3V 10F) to the circuit, the LED would be faintly ON with such voltage (0.33 to 0.38) for a long time after the battery is removed. The Atten Scope showed that the Input CH2 (current) waveform crossed the 0 ref line with many spikes.
(4) As the Output Voltage and Current were mostly positive, the Output Power would be positive.
(5) The Input Voltage (CH1) was always positive. Negative Input Current (CH2) would give rise to Negative Power. Negative Power would indicate feedback to the source (or recharging the capacitor or battery).
(6) COP could be determined by the ratio of Average Output Power over Average Input Power. With Input Current (CH2) crossing the 0 ref line, the Average Input Power could be very small. Thus COP could be very large (much greater than 1 or overunity.)
The above should be verified with better Scopes and skilled experts to ensure that no setup errors were introduced. One possible explanation of the crossing 0 ref line is due to presence of electrosmog or EM noise. Another possible explanation may be a still not understood source.....
@poynt99
Do you think that you can do the above verification with your Tektronics and Board 33? Look for the cross 0 ref line behavior at around (0.33 to 0.38V) from your DC Power supply?
Sorry, but in my opinion you are again attempting to draw conclusions based on unproven assumptions. You also still seem to be overlooking that when electrical noise pickup is a significant portion of the waveform you are trying to measure, that the error in the measurements will be too high to make meaningful measurements. It is not that measurements made under such conditions are "inconclusive" as you are saying here, as if the measurements still have some degree of validity. The measurements made under such conditions are meaningless due to the high likelihood for a very large degree of error. I have already demonstrated that the measurements can be way off under such measurement conditions. :) I have mentioned that you can possibly use a good quality amplified differential scope probe to make measurements under such conditions, but even then the person making the measurements would need to be well versed in making measurements under such conditions and be able to make sure that all measurement equipment is calibrated properly and used correctly and within the measuring equipment's practical limitations.
If you see zero crossing on the input current waveform, this does not necessarily imply over unity. It may indicate that input power consumption is reduced, but without proper measurements being done for both the input and output power, you can't know anything about actual circuit efficiency or over unity. Such can only be speculation. Other types of experiments might be setup to help get a better understanding of what is going on however. At any rate, if the signal to noise ratio of the waveforms being measured is too low for accurate measurements, it is not going to help at all if you make the measurements on a higher end scope. The poor signal to noise ratio will still be the same, with the one possible exception for the case where much of the electrical noise was being generated by the scope power supply and circuitry of the lower end scope itself. Under poor signal to noise ratio measurement conditions you would have to move to something like a high quality amplified differential scope probe, as I have mentioned already, but even then it would require someone with proper training and experience to ensure proper measurements are done.
Edit: By the way, I am not saying that I believe your joule thief circuit couldn't ever produce over unity under certain conditions, just that I think a lot more experimentation and analysis would need to be done before attempting to draw any conclusions. I think the best you can say so far is that under certain conditions you appear to be getting a higher efficiency, but the best efficiency that can be achieved is still not determined yet. :)
I was reading the book "The Chinese Dream" by Helen Wang. In the book, she mentioned that China should pour much more resources in Research now. The simple copying or manufacturing period is over.
Energy Research is and will be an area worth much research. The traditional mode of years of study, peer review papers or confidential laboratories may be outdated. USA, Japan and other countries are increasing money supply to boost the economy. Another term is to pump money into "meaningful economic activities".
The posts and comments in the last few months at least helped to identify the procedures and pitfalls in using a relatively inexpensive oscilloscope to measure Input and Output Power. It also pointed to the potential "bringing-in" or "leading-out" of electrosmog as a source of energy. It did not rule out the possibility of another "not yet well understood" source related to oscillation and resonance.
I sow seeds. The seeds may or may not bear fruit. But much watering, fertilizing, weeding etc. will be required. The result of my postings, hopefully, will result in much more resources poured into the energy research field. The "farmers" or researchers in China are reading other work such as those from Lasersaber etc.
I know my limitations. I just contribute what I can to the pursuit of "meaningful economic activities".....
God Bless
The "noise" shown on recently posted
photos of the scope display looks very
familiar. Would your setup be near an
AM radio transmitter perhaps?
While attending Navy Electronics Technician
"A" School at Treasure Island near San
Francisco in 1961 we noticed the same
sort of noise in many of our laboratory
sessions. Treasure Island was across the
bay from a strong AM Country and Western
station (can't remember the callsign but
the music was pretty good) located right
on the shore at Oakland just north of the
bay bridge about one mile or so distant.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 16, 2013, 03:39:33 AM
The "noise" shown on recently posted
photos of the scope display looks very
familiar. Would your setup be near an
AM radio transmitter perhaps?
While attending Navy Electronics Technician
"A" School at Treasure Island near San
Francisco in 1961 we noticed the same
sort of noise in many of our laboratory
sessions. Treasure Island was across the
bay from a strong AM Country and Western
station (can't remember the callsign but
the music was pretty good) located right
on the shore at Oakland just north of the
bay bridge about one mile or so distant.
@SeaMonkey,
The various pictures were taken in three different locations. One was at Zhou's shop amongst thousands of other small electronic stores. I should say - counters or tables - rather than stores. The spikes were most noticeable. Another place was the lab of Dr. Ting who was experimenting with wireless Joule Thief or remote charging. The third place was my bedroom. My bedroom was inside a typical residential area of Hong Kong with skyscapters all around. When one tried to find routers, one could see almost an unending list with at least a dozen showing strong signals.
Thus I did not rule out that the long lighting of the LED at around 0.4V was due to EM noise. Dr. Ting demonstrated that EM Noise was most probably a factor when he turned on his wireless Joule Thief setup and brought it close to my Joule Thief. The spikes on the scope were much higher.....
I shall bring the Atten to Mr. T S Lau's place. His window was facing a Power Line a few hundred meters away. I shall compare that with a location away from "civilization".....
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 16, 2013, 05:42:41 AM
Thus I did not rule out that the long lighting of the LED at around 0.4V was due to EM noise. Dr. Ting demonstrated that EM Noise was most probably a factor when he turned on his wireless Joule Thief setup and brought it close to my Joule Thief. The spikes on the scope were much higher.....
I shall bring the Atten to Mr. T S Lau's place. His window was facing a Power Line a few hundred meters away. I shall compare that with a location away from "civilization".....
As I have shown, the noise voltage measured on the scope for the current waveforms does not reflect the actual currents in the circuit when the current magnitudes are well down into the noise level. As the input voltage drops, the current draw is getting lower and lower, so it wouldn't be surprising that the rate of discharge for a battery or a super cap will slow down quite a bit as the input voltage drops into the low range. When the input voltage falls below about .4 volts or so, the power dissipation of the JT circuit is getting quite low, so the power drain on a battery or a super cap will be very little in this operating range.
One experiment you could do to try to determine if ambient noise pickup is having any effect on circuit performance is to decide on an exact circuit configuration and starting input voltage setting such as 20F super caps set to say 0.4V, and then time how long it takes for the LED to turn off in a location with less ambient noise compared to a location with noticeably higher ambient electrical noise. You would have to accurately measure the input starting voltage with a scope or decent multimeter for the test to be valid however. You would probably want to make a least a few test runs at each location to get an indication of how consistent the discharge times are for the same location and same circuit configuration and input voltage. You would want to keep the circuit board away from devices that generate a strong EM field like power supplies that have large power transformers or switch mode power supplies, etc., as we know that devices that have fairly strong EM fields around them will definitely affect the circuit performance. This assumes you are interested in trying to determine the effects of the ambient electrical noise level on circuit performance and not the effect of stronger EM fields that can be generated by certain electronics devices. Just to clarify, I make a distinction between the ambient electrical noise level that exists when one is not close to any electronics devices that have a strong EM field around them, and stronger EM fields that can be encountered around or close to certain types of electronics devices, or AC power lines, etc. No doubt stronger EM fields could very well have some impact on the JT circuit performance, and as we know such stronger EM fields could make the LED light without any power applied to the circuit. I wouldn't call such stronger EM fields 'ambient electrical noise' however.
The EM noise from the Power Lines at T S Lau's home is confirmed.
The Forever Lighted Lamp Project has been started. The initial goal is lighting the LED with the EM noise for at least 3 months. Review and improve as needed.
The two presentation files have been shown to people with plenty of time and people with plenty of money. Team them up and get people with plenty of expertise.....
The "One World" paradigm shift has started???
Quote from: Void on June 16, 2013, 09:50:32 AM
As I have shown, the noise voltage measured on the scope for the current waveforms does not reflect the actual currents in the circuit when the current magnitudes are well down into the noise level. As the input voltage drops, the current draw is getting lower and lower, so it wouldn't be surprising that the rate of discharge for a battery or a super cap will slow down quite a bit as the input voltage drops into the low range. When the input voltage falls below about .4 volts or so, the power dissipation of the JT circuit is getting quite low, so the power drain on a battery or a super cap will be very little in this operating range.
One experiment you could do to try to determine if ambient noise pickup is having any effect on circuit performance is to decide on an exact circuit configuration and starting input voltage setting such as 20F super caps set to say 0.4V, and then time how long it takes for the LED to turn off in a location with less ambient noise compared to a location with noticeably higher ambient electrical noise. You would have to accurately measure the input starting voltage with a scope or decent multimeter for the test to be valid however. You would probably want to make a least a few test runs at each location to get an indication of how consistent the discharge times are for the same location and same circuit configuration and input voltage. You would want to keep the circuit board away from devices that generate a strong EM field like power supplies that have large power transformers or switch mode power supplies, etc., as we know that devices that have fairly strong EM fields around them will definitely affect the circuit performance. This assumes you are interested in trying to determine the effects of the ambient electrical noise level on circuit performance and not the effect of stronger EM fields that can be generated by certain electronics devices. Just to clarify, I make a distinction between the ambient electrical noise level that exists when one is not close to any electronics devices that have a strong EM field around them, and stronger EM fields that can be encountered around or close to certain types of electronics devices, or AC power lines, etc. No doubt stronger EM fields could very well have some impact on the JT circuit performance, and as we know such stronger EM fields could make the LED light without any power applied to the circuit. I wouldn't call such stronger EM fields 'ambient electrical noise' however.
@Void,
See the waveforms at the home of Mr. Lau. Even the Input Voltage showed sharp spikes.....
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 19, 2013, 07:19:26 PM
@Void,
See the waveforms at the home of Mr. Lau. Even the Input Voltage showed sharp spikes.....
Hi Lawrence. It would appear that you are either not reading my comments to you in this regard or you are not understanding much of what I am saying, so I won't bother to keep repeating myself regarding the difference between ambient noise and stronger sources of EM fields, and in regards to how 'measuring' a significant noise voltage waveform across the current sensing resistor will not translate to an increase in actual load current when the noise voltage level is high compared to the output current. Also, without knowing the exact details of what you did in your test, it would not be possible to comment. However, I wish you luck with your experiments with trying to use ambient electrical noise and EM fields, etc. to try to power a JT circuit.
Regarding using stronger EM fields, in a test I did I was able to light an unpowered JT board LED quite brightly just by feeding a coil of wire with my low power signal generator and holding it near the JT board coils. The transistor doesn't appear to operate at all in this case however, and the power transfer to the LED appears to be mainly through magnetic induction between the external and JT collector coil.
Quote from: Void on June 20, 2013, 03:49:33 PM
Hi Lawrence. It would appear that you are either not reading my comments to you in this regard or you are not understanding much of what I am saying, so I won't bother to keep repeating myself regarding the difference between ambient noise and stronger sources of EM fields, and in regards to how 'measuring' a significant noise voltage waveform across the current sensing resistor will not translate to an increase in actual load current when the noise voltage level is high compared to the output current. Also, without knowing the exact details of what you did in your test, it would not be possible to comment. However, I wish you luck with your experiments with trying to use ambient electrical noise and EM fields, etc. to try to power a JT circuit.
Regarding using stronger EM fields, in a test I did I was able to light an unpowered JT board LED quite brightly just by feeding a coil of wire with my low power signal generator and holding it near the JT board coils. The transistor doesn't appear to operate at all in this case however, and the power transfer to the LED appears to be mainly through magnetic induction between the external and JT collector coil.
@void,
I read your posts and understand your viewpoint.
The focus in Hong Kong now is – how much ambient electrical noise and EM fields can be brought-in? Can it save energy and become a commercial product? Will the addition of capacitors, antennas or other electronics components help?
My conclusion on this thread is that –
the Zhou JT can be overunity in the presence of strong EM fields. EM noise energy can be lead-out or brought-in to light the LED.....
I still think that we can build a circuit to
align the dipoles and use the already available energy of the orbiting electrons..... More research needed.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 20, 2013, 06:18:10 PM
The focus in Hong Kong now is – how much ambient electrical noise and EM fields can be brought-in? Can it save energy and become a commercial product? Will the addition of capacitors, antennas or other electronics components help?
My conclusion on this thread is that – the Zhou JT can be overunity in the presence of strong EM fields. EM noise energy can be lead-out or brought-in to light the LED.....
Hi Lawrence. If the LED is powered by external EM fields or electrical noise or radio signals, etc., it is not really over unity at all, at least not in the sense of over unity that most people are discussing and investigating here. Such a source of power would be from ordinary explainable man made power sources. Someone is paying for that power. There are various companies and people doing research into this area, but it really has nothing to do with 'over unity' research. That is not to say that such an approach could not prove useful for powering very low power devices. IMO, that approach is not really related to the topic of this thread however. Here we are looking for over unity in the sense of extra power coming from as yet unknown or unexplained power sources. As yet I have seen no demonstrations from you that show over unity. I have shown that what you previously were interpreting as over unity was actually due to measurement error.
Quote from: ltseung888 on June 20, 2013, 06:18:10 PM
I still think that we can build a circuit to align the dipoles and use the already available energy of the orbiting electrons..... More research needed.
That may be possible. I wouldn't know. Certainly a number people have been making very similar claims for years such as Bedini and Bearden, etc. While I am open minded about such things and do my own experiments in this area as well, I have to wonder why if people like Bedini and Bearden really have built working over unity devices, why are they not putting the devices to practical use and producing and selling such devices. If the devices are really over unity it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that. The only device that I am aware of Bedini selling is a desulphating type battery charger, however I personally am not aware of any demonstrations that shows convincingly that such a device is over unity. Instead Bedini now also seems to be focusing on selling alternate forms of crystal or chemical batteries. Strange. If he really has over unity devices, I really have to wonder why is he is not producing them or contracting/licensing someone else to produce them. There are lots of claims out there, but few if any people seem to be actually showing proper power measurements to back up such claims. Really it should go without saying that a person should demonstrate proper power measurements first and/or have the measurements confirmed by competent others first before claiming over unity. Otherwise it is just more unfounded claims to add to the ever growing pile. :)
did any seen this video
it seams like free energy device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVWFlpRmLkE
How bright is your LED, anyway? Here's how to find out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kzf7S-pOEM
A cheap way to compare the efficiency of different Joule Thief circuits.
I have used the following method for many years:
1. Put a capacitor in parallel with the battery. An example capacitor value is 10F 2.3V.
2, Connect the battery to charge the capacitor and light the LED for 1 minute.
3. Disconnect the battery and then measure the time the LED remains ON.
See attached.
Hi All,
I finally had time to make some measurements of one Fleet Joule Thief circuit,
that Lawrence Tseung has sent me a few months ago..
Sorry, I was on vaccation and had many other things to do in the meantime,
but finally here are the tests:
Test Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E75I6ka-aa8
Test Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszgQSa51KY
If you have any questions,
please post and comment below or on the Youtube comments section.
Regards. Stefan.
Nicely done. It's too bad the results weren't better, though. We haven't heard from Lawrence in some time, I hope he's doing well.
It would be nice to understand why his results are so different from yours, on the same board.
Somehow a tendency has developed in many
explanations to refer to the Current Measurement
Resistor as the "shunt" resistor.
As the resistor is a series resistor within the
circuit, whose purpose is to "convert" current
into voltage for ease of measurement with a
high impedance VoltMeter, there is potential
for great confusion amongst any Newbs who may
be watching and soaking up the technical
jargon (to be repeated endlessly.)
The Current Measurement Resistor is only a
"shunt" (or parallel connected resistor) with
respect to the meter which connects across
the resistor to display the voltage drop.
The "shunt" resistor and the VoltMeter together
make up a milliAmmeter device which is series
connected within the circuit of interest.
Hopefully all who demonstrate the technique
will take pains to clarify the proper relationship.
Bum Skinny spreads like wildfire in the Forums...
I suppose that is something else you can thank Ainslie for.
I generally refer to it as a CVR (current viewing resistor) and I received a ration of ... Ainslie-ness for it. Others often call it a CSR (current sensing resistor). Both are widely used; I don't like the "sensing" because the resistor doesn't sense anything it just sits there, dropping voltage. One views the current by sensing this voltage drop with an instrument, like a voltmeter or a time-voltmeter (oscilloscope).
I have also illustrated proper Shunts: