To be deleted

[itsu]

NP,

thanks for the run down graphs, how did you make those?

Good idea to use a supercap, else run down times would be endless.
So the feedback (led) provides for about 15s longer runtime which is 18.75% (your 20% feedback current?)

Anyway, i have completed my 10 runs for the normal circuit, see below spreadsheet top part.
The 10x average is on the bottom of this first colored part underscored.

Then i quickly today ran 4 runs without the feedback (led) attached, to show that we have a limited increased power
drawn from the battery 15.28mW v 13.65mW (+1.63mW).
See lower part of the spreadsheet, again 4x average on the bottom of this lower part underscored.
Guess some power is lost somewhere as the ratio "pwr users / input" drops from average 94% to 85%.


Will start with some run down tests now,               looking for my super caps......


Itsu

[nul-points]

hi Itsu

you've been BUSY!!!!

those power user results look pretty comprehensive


its a shame that you haven't been able to replicate the true net supply current value (ie net flow of charge into & out of the circuit) - your scope traces show the 2 parts, so they are there (and your Green LED current value shows that charge is flowing back to your supply)


yes, large value caps seem to be the way to go when you have many tests to do

my 1F cap is physically large as well as large value - i think they were designed for crazy-loud car audio systems, so presumably very low ESR

i just replaced the battery with the 1F cap, charged it slightly above my required start voltage, then watched the voltage approach the cursor and started the circuit when the voltage was slightly above. i stopped logging just after the end cursor was crossed and subtracted the end time from the start time


good luck with your next tests
np

[nul-points]

Then i quickly today ran 4 runs without the feedback (led) attached, to show that we have a limited increased power drawn from the battery 15.28mW v 13.65mW (+1.63mW).

hi Itsu

i'm not sure about your input power calcs...

on your spreadsheet, you make them:
15.28mW (with feedback)
13.65mW (no feedback)

from your data, i make them:
3.75V * 6.97mA = 26.14mW (with feedback)
3.75V * 6.45mA= 24.19mW (no feedback)


thanks
np

[itsu]

Hi NP,

indeed, you make them:
3.75V * 6.97mA = 26.14mW (with feedback)
3.75V * 6.45mA= 24.19mW (no feedback)


but i did not make them, i had the Tektronix TDS3054B scope calculate them to be:
15.28mW (with feedback)
13.65mW (no feedback)

Your formula is for DC signals only, while we are dealing with a complex AC like current waveform.
The scope is able to deal with those complex AC like waveforms using its elaborate math functions.

Itsu

[AlienGrey]

I don't know its just another blocking oscillator like all the rest but its upside down!
Sling the ferrox core out and replace it with as NANOCRYSTAL one and tune for best output.

Not trying to be clever but that stuff the nanoparticles stay charged and if you just pulse the device
you're bound to get again.