For now, here is the schematic and one scope shot of the indicated points on the schematic. I'm sure a number of improvements can be made with this design. Also, I've not built this, so some tweaking may be necessary to get it to work for real. This is a simulation.

Total battery power is about 200mW. Negative mean is about -5W. The LED (simulated by 2x 1N4007 diodes) should be fully illuminated.

I will do the power scope shots tomorrow.

Again, here are the parts:

1) 2N7000 (1)
2) 1N4007 (1)
3) 3.3uH inductor (4)
4) 1uF film cap (1)
5) 9V battery (1)
6) 1 Ohm CSR (1)
7) LED or 100 Ohm (1)
8] 30k resistor (10k to 50k) (1)
9) 1N5226 3.3V zener (1)

That is totally cool. I have everything except the Zener and can make up the inductors out of odd stuff, I think, or see what's there tomorrow when I go pick up the right Zener. Thanks for working on it... I'll let you know if the LEDs stay on when I remove the battery... !

Hello Steve,

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
You don´t need expensive equipment to show if the the basic principle works or not.

I'm not sure what you mean.  We can't prove the principle without accurate measurements.  With inaccurate data we would only be able to speculate on the pricniple.  Proof - first and foremost -  requires accurate measurements.  And at the frequencies of that oscillation we also need broad bandwidth scopes.  And that required bandwidth, unfortunately, comes at a price. 

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMJust get a few 9 Volts NiMH rechargable batteries a used scope from EBay and a few cheap digital multimeters and a few caps.

Then our test standards would be as unreliable as TK's and we'd have proved nothing at all.

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMIt will probably cost you less than 200 US$ including the scope...

I agree.  But that kind of scope would simply not 'cut it'.

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMYou just need only to adjust the scope heads for calibration, but that you can do on your own or let it do somebody from your team who has more electronic knowledge than you.

Everyone on our team knows more about electronics than me.  And NONE of them want to waste their time on inaccurate measurements.

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMI guess you should take a break now and concentrate on your measurements with your team.

I wish I COULD take a break.  You see for yourself how I need to cover my back.  I have TK - picowatt, MileHigh, FTC and a few others trying to paint it with 'hot tar'. 

continued./...

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 07, 2012, 07:54:52 PMFrom your last postings I have seen, that you do not understand, what TK has posted in his videos and I think you miss just the basic electronic knowledge to follow and understand it.

There is NOTHING ambiguous in this statement...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMMeanwhile here's the schematic for the new potentiometer arrangement. The CAP is only there for this demo and whatever power source you like can be substituted for the Elenco precision regulated PS.

I'll concentrate on these multiple misrepresentations in a follow up post.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMSo just leave him alone and better concentrate on your own measurements.

Is this a conditional requirement that you're imposing here Harti?  That I may NOT answer these slanderous posts by TK and picowatt and FTC and a few of their acolytes?  Are you ACTIVELY encouraging their 'tarring' with that 'tar brush'?

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMAnd as I said, it is only important to show the basic principle which you should be able also to demonstrate with small cheap batteries, if your design is not flawed due to measurements errors....

The only way to prove that there are no measurement errors are to subject that apparatus to a detailed battery draw down tests.  And to determine the settings for those draw down tests we - at its least - require accurate settings.  We cannot even GET those settings without reliable measurements.  And if we were to present a series of videos at the standard that TK has submitted in his efforts to 'debunk' then everyone would also then have good reason to dismiss that evidence as readily as they dismiss TK's evidence.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMAs I said, you don´t need expensive equipment and maybe somebody else in your group can educate you some more on the right measurement stuff.

This is simply not the case.  It is not only my collaborators who require good measurement - but science itself.  Anything less than accurate data would be a waste of everyone's time.  And I would thank you to not borrow TK's and Picowatt's assumption that I need any education in the art of measurement.  It was I who had to point out to TK that his best efforts were inadequate.  He didn't even factor in impedance.  And he took his sample measurements across a series of oscillations that were FAR from representative.   And he STILL is not applying impedance.  He hasn't even given us the inductance values of his potentiometer that he CLAIMS to have used in the video - nor those wire wound resistors that he CLAIMS to use in that calorimeter of his.  And your statement that I need an 'education' falls into the same bracket as the 'tarring' which seems to be your preferred editorial bias.  I can PROVE my competence at integrated power analysis.  Therefore anyone refuting this is guilty of slander.  And for either FTC or TK or picowatt to claim that I need education on basic power measurements is a joke.  FTC for one - couldn't do this at all - for the entire duration of those 'replicated' tests he did.

coninued/...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMOr just again watch all the 20 latest TK videos again and again and see for yourself if you can make it better in your own circuit.

Not only CAN we make it better ourselves - we have DONE so.  And that test in that final video that you refer to has been COMPREHENSIVELY covered in our paper.  TK's CONCLUSIONS related to this are simplistic, inappropriate and inaccurate.  WHY then are you recommending it?   I'll elaborate in my next post.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMI don´t want to suppress any technology, but if it is just based on measurement errors and there is no overunity with your circuit, then it also makes no sense to continue this whole scenario.
Then you just have an unefficient underunity water heater and the batteries discharge when using it... nothing more....

That's a big IF. There are six of us who stand by these measurements.  And 4 of those 6 collaborators are qualified engineers.  There are a host of engineers OUTSIDE of our collaboration who have witnessed these results and stand by them.  There are at least 2 academic institutions devoted to replicating and getting to grips with the evidence in these experiments.  And yet you are somehow convinced by TK's evidence?  I would have thought that you'd see through his slander and the need for this before you'd be convinced by anything at all.  Had he been courteous, fair minded, reasonable, then indeed one could perhaps have been persuaded by an apparent impartiality.  But his tests are inadequate, contradictory, ambiguous, confusing, rendered with dreadful photography under excessively poor lighting - and with NO effort made to validate any single filmed reference made.   The most of those videos are associated with 'disgusting' innuendos ... 'making out with a dog'? 'boomp'  'boomp'?  Or heavy handed sarcasm?  The 'the battery voltage has not dropped... but we all know it has'... number?  And 'you know who' will object?  Or that ABSURD 'calibration' exercise given as some kind of evidence that his data is valid?  And you think this is SCIENCE? Then the use of that ridiculously heavily cladded insulated calorimeter of his - which SOMETIMES shows a change in temperature - but NEVER is this related to time - which can be the only valid reference in the face of all that cladding.  And the resistor inside is variously a potentiometer or simply wire wound resistors - and we STILL don't know their inductance.  We only know that it is NOT the same as our own resistor.  Nor are we given one single stat against the actual battery performance related to that wattage dissipated.  And you are CONVINCED by this charade?   I would have hoped that you'd see through it.  Surely?

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 06, 2012, 06:32:47 PMSo show us, that we are wrong, but just quit ranting about TK´s circuit that you don´t seem to understand....

Stefan. Ranting implies an emotional outburst that typically is made under conditions of high passion and it is evident as a rant - precisely because it is a protest that has no reason and no logic.  It is also usually tainted by some colourful expletives.  Just look at every single post made by TK to me - and you will see what a rant is.  I trust that my protests are measured, unemotional logical and that they rely on the marshaling of facts that would not be possible under a state of high emotion.   Are you saying that TK may rant BUT I may not even protest?  TK may slander me - and picowatt for that matter, and MileHigh and anyone at all.  But I may not defend myself in order to protect my good name against that slander?  Because such argument will be construed to be a RANT? Therefore you allow TK to attack our work in any slanderous manner he pleases - with an entire disregard of forum guidelines?  But I may not, under any circumstances defend our work or my name against that attack?  Even if I do so within the constraints of your forum guidelines? And NOTA BENE Steve.  The ONLY regular contributors to this thread are TK - picowatt - MileHigh and FTC.  If they are representative of your forum members then that's rather 'thin' representation.  Were FTC and MileHigh still either on moderation or banned as before you invited them free access to this thread topic - then TK's ONLY support would be picowatt.  Did you allow MileHigh and FTC 'free reign' for some editorial purposes that we can only guess at?  I must concede your obviously 'desired' consequence.  There are now 4 against one.  Or, if I were to include you and those rather asinine posts by Powercat and PhiChaster - 7 against one.  This certainly seems like a representative majority opinion.  But we both know that it's not.  It's just that the most of your members won't engage when the players are merely bullies - who are certainly NOT dealing with impartial science - judiciously and seriously presented.

Regards,
Rosie

edited some punctuation.