Joule Thief replications - not overunity

[WilbyInebriated]

there is anothing thing i am curious about also paul...
on the first post of this thread you claim a 44% efficiency, yet on your own website you have also posted a claim of 80.4% efficiency. now, the question i have is why is the 80.4% omitted from what you are telling everyone here? from the outside it would seem you are not being entirely forthcoming...

from your website: http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/09/joule-thief-efficiency-test-2/

"Here’s my results of testing gadgetmalls circuit, or at least the closest I can presently get to it. I don’t have his toroid, but I’m using a good toroid with high permeability & similar size that he describes.

This method consist of using a resistor for the load, and measuring the resistors temperature, which we’ll call Tr. Then doing the control experiment, which consists of connecting the resistor directly to a power supply, and then increasing the current until the resistor temperature stabilizes at Tr.

An elaborate setup would use a closed system that maintains a fixed temperature. I did not go that far. Also I did not dig out the ridiculously sensitive temperature equipment.

A 100 ohm carbon resistor was used as the load. The voltage across the JT was 1.559 volts DC, and the current was 74.3mA DC, for a total of 116mW. The control experiment showed that it took only 93.3mW to bring the resistor to the same temperature.

This comes to 80.4% efficient."

[PaulLowrance]

really? you finally finished that data logger and went the full distance? or is this the 'published data' you refer to from your website?

"Yesterday I tested gadgetmall (Albert) Joule Thief circuit. I used a AAA NiMH 700mAh battery as the source connected to Albert’s circuit, which in turn charges a BCAP0650 ultracapacitor (UC).  The UC started at 1.130 volts. The AA battery was charged. The experiment ended with the AAA at 0.491V, and the UC at 1.313V. This means the Joule Thief circuit charged the UC from 1.130V to 1.313V, for total energy of 134 joules. We know from the previous battery test that the same type of battery, fully charged, made by the same company, a AA 2000mAh NiMH has 6900 joules. Therefore the AAA 700mAh battery should have ~ 2400 joules. This comes to 100% * 134 J / 2400 J = 5.6 % efficient.

Today I adjusted the 10Kohm pot to try and improve the efficiency. This resulted 44% efficient, which is better than yesterdays 5.6% efficiency. I’m not sure if there’s much else to do here."

that's your idea of a conclusive test?

I've already detailed this. Datalogging was for the BCAP0650. The Joule Thief did not need datalogging, as it was simple input & output measurements.

[PaulLowrance]

there is anothing thing i am curious about also paul...
on the first post of this thread you claim a 44% efficiency, yet on your own website you have also posted a claim of 80.4% efficiency. now, the question i have is why is the 80.4% omitted from what you are telling everyone here? from the outside it would seem you are not being entirely forthcoming...

from your website: http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/12/09/joule-thief-efficiency-test-2/

"Here’s my results of testing gadgetmalls circuit, or at least the closest I can presently get to it. I don’t have his toroid, but I’m using a good toroid with high permeability & similar size that he describes.

This method consist of using a resistor for the load, and measuring the resistors temperature, which we’ll call Tr. Then doing the control experiment, which consists of connecting the resistor directly to a power supply, and then increasing the current until the resistor temperature stabilizes at Tr.

An elaborate setup would use a closed system that maintains a fixed temperature. I did not go that far. Also I did not dig out the ridiculously sensitive temperature equipment.

A 100 ohm carbon resistor was used as the load. The voltage across the JT was 1.559 volts DC, and the current was 74.3mA DC, for a total of 116mW. The control experiment showed that it took only 93.3mW to bring the resistor to the same temperature.

This comes to 80.4% efficient."

All of that is detailed long ago at this forum. The 80.4% efficiency was for a fixed resistor load. The 44% efficiency was for the gadgetmall claim of charging a Maxwell BCAP0650 ultracapacitor that was charged to 1.130 volts.

[WilbyInebriated]

I've already detailed this. Datalogging was for the BCAP0650. The Joule Thief did not need datalogging, as it was simple input & output measurements.

so that is your idea of a conclusive test...

you should maybe edit your pages to make that a bit clearer, re: the 80.4% test run.

[PaulLowrance]

so that is your idea of a conclusive test...

you should maybe edit your pages to make that a bit clearer, re: the 80.4% test run.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "test run," but they were tests, which were conclusive.