Strategy Ruminations

[Feynman]

Joule thief with possible COP>1 operation

voltage/current phase anomaly

http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/PhysicsProf_comparison1_png.png

[Omnibus]

Joule thief with possible COP>1 operation

voltage/current phase anomaly

http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/PhysicsProf_comparison1_png.png

That is interesting. Can you simulate it with PSpice?

P.S. And, please don't call it COP if the output power is greater than the input power. COP is not a scientific term.

[MrMag]

Omnibot, your a joke. You think you are some kind of intelligent scientist, but your not. People have run your info on PSpice and told you that it doesn't work out to what you claim. But no, they are wrong. You can't do it that way. Spice doesn't calculate it properly. Yet you believe the data you get from it for your own purposes. Oh yeah, and don't take all the data, only this little section of it. The rest is not quite right.

You really look like a fool here you know. Trying to post your Noble winning information in all types of forums only to get deleted. Why do you think that is? Whenever anyone disagrees with you or questions you they are either wrong, incompetent, or spam.

I feel sorry for you. People are trying to put you straight but you are too ignorant and arrogant to see it. And you try to come across as a scientist.

[Omnibus]

Oh yeah, and don't take all the data, only this little section of it. The rest is not quite right.

Speaking of incompetent trolls.

Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.

I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.

[poynt99]

Speaking of incompetent trolls.

Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.

I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.

Using one complete cycle is normally acceptable, however there is a problem in this case.

Over 99% of the energy is returned to the source within every cycle, and only about 7mVp is present across the resistor. This 7mVp does not change, regardless of offset value.

You will notice that when you had an offset of 0V, that your Pi was very close to the Po of 2.28uW. As you went up and down with an offset voltage in the source, the Pi value deviated away from that 2.28uW value, and Po remained 2.28uW, as it should.

You may keep adding larger and larger offset voltages and you will find your Pi deviates farther and farther away from the theoretical value of 2.28uW. As you add offset voltage, the average value of the source voltage increases (either above or below zero), but in theory the average power delivered by the source should remain at 2.28uW. The fact that this is not the case would seem to indicate that there is some type of computation error involved.

As offset is introduced, the peak to peak power from the source increases, while the tiny amount of net power delivered to the resistor is constant and is swamped out by the peak powers going through the computations. With an offset of -3.356V the peak real power in the resistor is about 500 times lower than the peak apparent power in the source and capacitor. Try -100V offset and you will see this spread increase even more, and the Pi error will increase as well.

I think you are running into the very problem you have been trying to avoid. 

.99