N.R.M.R.E. An investigation.

[TinselKoala]

Zephir:

Go away, unless you are willing to BUILD, TEST AND REPORT.

And aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

[Grumage]

If it is "just" a mini exciter radiant thing, I have a much simpler schematic that actually works, is repeatable,  and doesn't cause components to fail. It also looks much cooler.

OK, I need some clarity here.

1. Just what are the claims made for Nelson's circuit that we are examining here, other than that it causes components to fail and makes funny scopetraces?
2. Do we have the correct and complete schematic?
3. Which way around does _Nelson_ say the transformer needs to go, using the "24 volt" and "240 volt" winding terms, not "primary and secondary"?

Sorry if I seem a bit snippy this morning. I've been feeding trolls and while that is all good fun, it does get rather tiresome at times.

Dear TinselKoala.

So are you saying we do not actually have the complete schematic? Or that this device in the photo is not even the same one we have the schematic for?

That's correct. I did mention that in my opening post.

2. Do we have the correct and complete schematic?

No, we don't.

3. Which way around does _Nelson_ say the transformer needs to go, using the "24 volt" and "240 volt" winding terms, not "primary and secondary"?

From my last correspondence with Nelson I'm pretty sure he was suggesting the 240 V side was connected in series with the source.

Sorry if I seem a bit snippy this morning. I've been feeding trolls and while that is all good fun, it does get rather tiresome at times.

Trolls eh?  You should join me in " Tamriel " on the European Megaserver.... I prefer bashing them. They don't come back !!   

And finally..... A big thank you to Itsu.... My first post with individual quotes.....

Cheers Graham.

[TinselKoala]

Er... OK, thanks.

So permit me to review the state of affairs as I see them:

1. We don't know what the claims are
2. We don't have the actual schematic
3. The connection of the 240 volt side of the transformer makes no sense if the output is supposed to be "HV radiant"
4. We have experimental reports that there is no "HV radiant" with the transformer connected that way but there is "HV radiant" if it is connected in the logical manner with the 24 volt side connected to collector and power rail.
5. The circuit causes components to fail partially and completely, and makes uninterpretable scope traces .... sometimes.

I am 100 percent willing to work on this, I have already spent a little bit of time and money on it, I have the transistor and I've wound the "toroid". But how am I supposed to proceed further?  What exactly is going to be the hypothesis under test here?

I am starting to agree with Zephir, and that really worries me.   

[AlienGrey]

Er... OK, thanks.

So permit me to review the state of affairs as I see them:

1. We don't know what the claims are
2. We don't have the actual schematic
3. The connection of the 240 volt side of the transformer makes no sense if the output is supposed to be "HV radiant"
4. We have experimental reports that there is no "HV radiant" with the transformer connected that way but there is "HV radiant" if it is connected in the logical manner with the 24 volt side connected to collector and power rail.
5. The circuit causes components to fail partially and completely, and makes uninterpretable scope traces .... sometimes.

I am 100 percent willing to work on this, I have already spent a little bit of time and money on it, I have the transistor and I've wound the "toroid". But how am I supposed to proceed further?  What exactly is going to be the hypothesis under test here?

I am starting to agree with 'Old Ford Zephir' was it a car ? , and that really worries me.   

Hi before you start 'don't forget' some of this extra energy involves somehow pulsing an earth wire and collecting energy from the earth wire.

[Dog-One]

1. We don't know what the claims are
2. We don't have the actual schematic
3. The connection of the 240 volt side of the transformer makes no sense if the output is supposed to be "HV radiant"
4. We have experimental reports that there is no "HV radiant" with the transformer connected that way but there is "HV radiant" if it is connected in the logical manner with the 24 volt side connected to collector and power rail.
5. The circuit causes components to fail partially and completely, and makes uninterpretable scope traces .... sometimes.

Point by point:

1.  Nelson claims this circuit is a learning tool that he has permission to document and share publically.  He also claims that if fully understood, it can be modified to function the way his "Amazing Oscillator" circuit behaves, i.e. self running.

2.  The schematic posted by Graham is correct.  It's the one I used.

3.  The line transformer I connected as step-up.  Voltages on the secondary will be higher than the voltages measured within the circuit around the transistor and toroid.

4.  Again, my assumption was step-up.

5.  It can and probably does damage components--have spare caps & transistors handy.  A current regulated power supply with gentle fine control of adjustments is a must.

I am 100 percent willing to work on this, I have already spent a little bit of time and money on it, I have the transistor and I've wound the "toroid". But how am I supposed to proceed further?  What exactly is going to be the hypothesis under test here?

First, can you get this gadget to go into "berserk mode"?   Second, can you explain why it behaves that way?

Final consensus, is there anything we have missed in classical electronic engineering that would leave you to believe Nelson's claim that this circuit can be modified in such a way as to be a self runner?  Working purely under the assumption Nelson is on-the-level, what are we missing if we determine there is nothing here of significance?

I am starting to agree with Zephir, and that really worries me.   

He's a young guy, impatient and eager, with everything pretty much black or white.  I remember those days.