OverUnity Research
Benches => PhysicsProf => Topic started by: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-11, 21:51:52
-
I've been playing with the Joule Thief self-resonator for months and learning a lot. And I obtained ONCE a result using the Tektronix 3032 that the efficiency n (= COP = Pout/Pin) was 113%, that is looking like overunity. I'll get to that result soon, after some background. And note from earliest thread on this bench, that a requirement for believable "overunity" is that the experiment must be repeatable.
The basic JT circuit schematic is shown in the attached -- and follows from development on the following thread, from which I quote a brief portion:
@PhysicsProf
Thus, I would say yes for the sake of simplicity! Here is the proposed method:
1. take CSR2 out and connect the LED directly to the ground (or just leave as is and don't measure V4, measure V2 instead if you were using two scopes).
2. measure V1, V2, V3 as before.
3. calculate Pitotal by MEAN [V1*V2], which gives the time average input power.
4. calculate Pototal by MEAN [V3*V2] over time, similar to finding the Pitotal.
5. then n = Potatal/Pitotal, which is EXACT as the error in the value of CSR1 is balanced out in the way n is calculated. O0
This seems to be as simple as it can be. Also, it only leaves tiny energy leaks out of consideration, namely the leaks in the 1k resistor and the coils.
cheers,
lanenal
Now I say the JT is a self-resonator because the JT "finds" its own natural frequency very rapidly when voltage is applied. This frequency depends on the combination of components chosen and can be easily varied over a wide range by changing or adding components. The major changes I have made lately to the basic JT circuit, in an attempt to find OU, are:
1. Replacing the LED with a resistor -- it still rings! but you need an oscilloscope to see it.
2. Applying a capacitor across (in parallel with) the L2 (feedback) loop, turning it into its own LC side-circuit.
2b. Applying a capacitor (and resistor if desired) in series with the L2 loop, forming a pulsing system.
3. Applying a capacitor across the L1 primary loop, another LC side-circuit.
4. Changing the transistor used, resistances, cap values, etc. -- a broad parameter space with such a simple circuit to start with.
The discussion on the JT has been proceeding for some time on another thread, and I'm not going to repeat everything, so for important background material on my and others' results I refer the reader back to that thread; perhaps start here:
Interesting results yesterday as I traveled to the University and used the Tektronix 3032 there, to derive Pin and Pout mean values, as we have been discussing.
I will start with a few "normal results", in part to get us all used to reading the waveforms and the calculated power.
Result 1: Using toroid "A" (from prototype A sent to me for testing by Lawrence Tseung; but just using the primary and feedback windings, not the secondary winding). Attached shows the resultant waveforms and calculated Power, with the input Power in red on the left and the output Power in red on the right. Channel 2 is always the voltage drop across the one-ohm resistor (see Lanenal's circuit diagram above in this thread), that is, the current waveform. Here, a nice sawtooth. Channel 1 is the voltage across the battery -- or, in these tests, the DC power supply -- for Pin, on the left. For Pout on the right, Channel 1 is the voltage drop across the transistor and (red) LED.
Notice that per the schematic, the voltage across the 1 ohm resistor is Negative, hence both Pin and Pout show up as negative -- for the discussion that follows, and to be consistent with what we know, I will set the y axis to be POSITIVE DOWNWARDS consistent with the power in and out being positive quantities. The shapes are interesting -- a saw=tooth for Pin and a single U-shape for the Power Out.
The 3032 calculates ch1*ch2 = V * I = Power and displays the result in RED waveforms, and it calculates the MEAN Power for us, given in the right- hand column. Per our previous discussion, to a reasonable accuracy over a dozen or so cycles, we get:
n = Pin / Pout = 36.11/ 40.15 = 0.9.
The estimated error, +- 2% based on .99's simulation and on the repeatablility I find for this ratio in these tests (for a given toroid and set-up).
High efficiency, but not surprising.
The second pair of scope-shots homes in on the input and output signals, showing detail. This juxtaposition will be useful for later comparisons.
-
It is worth repeating my post from last week on the possible breakthrough using the JT circuit, before turning to more recent results.
Without further ado, let me share with you -- inviting comment -- the most interesting result of yesterday's (4 March 2011) tests at the University, using a Tektronix 3032 scope.
Here I am using the eJ toroid that I wound. I began with a Jameco toroidal inductor (100 uH, Jameco part # 386601), and wound fifteen windings bifilar of 22-gauge insulated (one with plastic, the other enamael) copper wire. The inductance of EACH of my windings came out to 24 uH. The Jameco winding is not involved in this test run, and the wires are left unconnected from this winding (which would be the secondary winding for a Tseung-type system).
I have given results with this SAME eJ toroid above... where we observed Pin as a simple sawtooth and Pout a single hump or spike. Now -- please look closely at the waveforms for this run at 0.996 V (in from the power supply), in the attached.
First, we look at the detail for roughly 1.5 cycles in the first attached screen-shot. The red Pin waveform is approximately what we have seen before, a saw-tooth pattern. But the (red) Pout waveform is quite different!
Instead of a single hump or spike essentially bounded at zero-power as we have seen in the past, we now see a U-shape that significantly OVERSHOOTS ZERO, demonstrating current and voltage Out of Phase, as we also see comparing the voltage across the (LED+transistor) in yellow, and the current in the 1-ohm CSR shown in blue.
Further, notice the oscillations/wiggles in the waveforms for the output power and voltage waveforms. Very interesting. To me, this is striking and rarely-seen behavior, and I have been working with these types of circuits for months now.
To get the efficiency with some accuracy, we have the Tektronix 3032 calculate Mean Power for both Pin and Pout over numerous cycles -- with this interesting result:
n = 44.8 / 39.8 = 1.13 = 113%
+- about 3% as previously noted.
If you are visually comparing Pin and Pout waveforms in the attached, note that the scale in the screen display for Pin is 20 mVV whereas the scale for Pout is 50 mVV (which does not change the result above), which I did because the Pout curve was getting clipped on the 20mVV scale as i recall.
In order to encourage and facilitate comparisons, I include a final attachment which shows Pin and Pout for these data at 0.996V juxtaposed with the data for the same eJ toroid ran at nearly the same voltage (0.993 volts), but where the latter displays the "normal" pattern with just one spike. The two waveforms in the center of this attachment (trace 2 and 3 ) give Pout and Pin both on the same scale, 50 mVV, to make visual comparisons more straightforward for you. If you think the Tektronix 3032 may be making a mistake when calculating the Mean power in the case where the power is sometimes negative and sometimes positive, I invite you to evaluate the areas under the Pin and Pout curves for one cycle, subtracting the opposite-signed power region, and then evaluate n from this integral (that is, using n = Ein/Eout, as I have demonstrated before). It would be a worthwhile check. I have done this roughly, and the Tek 3032 calculation seems good.
You have a dozen questions? I have many also... ;)
After seeing this result, I returned twice to the same circuit and getting the voltage as close as I could, but could not generate the unusual "spiky" Pout waveform again in the limited time I had on the Tek 3032 at the University. And those results came out with COP = n of about 90%.
I recall having seen such a waveform at home before, but I do not know just how to reproduce this spiky waveform -- wish I did. And I am very open to suggestions.
I will say that I looked first at the many-cycle Pout (attached), then looked at many-cycle Pin (moving the channel-1 probe to do so), then moved the channel-1 probe back in order to re-measure Pout and record the approx detailed Pout waveform (attached). The Pout waveform remained the same over the several minutes required to do these measurements and record them on the computer, about 15-20 minutes. So however I got in this mode, with the unusual waveforms, zero-crossing Pout and COP evidently greater than one, the condition remained for a while.
When I saw that n was coming out larger than one, I was a bit excited and did go back and get the detailed waveforms recorded. However, I was thinking that I could simply come back later and get more data at this condition after running at other voltages, which was not the case yesterday afternoon -- I'm glad I got as much data as I did and recorded it for you all to see.
Now the question is -- what does this all mean? and how can one get back to this out-of-phase relationship between V and I in the output circuit?? (I have reported this condition before as you may recall, some time ago, but that was with the LT-type circuit and this is a simple JT.)
To me the result is striking and noteworthy and something of a breakthrough. But can it be repeated? Repeatability is a core requirement for solid science and progress.
-
PhysicsProf,
Have you tried this variant? In a normal JT you waste the base current.
In my variant the base current is through the coil and is not wasted.
The R must be a high Ohm value. It is only to bias the transistor at
start up. When the oscillation starts then the capacitor takes over.
Suggested values: R=330K to 1M Ohm. The base coil capacitor
can be approx. 1nF. Some experimenting may be needed.
(EDIT) There was a small error in the drawing, uploaded the correct one.
Regards,
GL.
-
PhysicsProf,
Have you tried this variant? In a normal JT you waste the base current.
In my variant the base current is through the coil and is not wasted.
The R must be a high Ohm value. It is only to bias the transistor at
start up. When the oscillation starts then the capacitor takes over.
Suggested values: R=330K to 1M Ohm. The base coil capacitor
can be approx. 1nF. Some experimenting may be needed.
Regards,
GL.
Hmmm... another very good idea to test -- thank you, GL for sharing. If we all share notes like this, we can progress more rapidly. I haven't tried it yet but will soon... first to report on an effort to get the OOP waveform described above (see first attachment).
I don't have a scanner, so I will describe a circuit with an added capacitor. After a fair amount of trying different things (but not GL's idea...), a 151 pF cap was added after L2, in parallel with a 15.4Kohm resistor, and then into a 500ohm (instead of 1K) resistor that goes to the transistor base.
The result is a waveform that mimics somewhat the waveform observed at the University with the Tek 3032 -- clearly the out-of-phase spike is seen in Pout -- Attach #2 (sorry the camera is fuzzy for close-ups, but you can see the waveforms in green, Pin on the left, Pout on the right.) Comparing, we see that I have with this added cap and R, achieved a somewhat similar pattern as for the 113% condition... well, maybe. I will have to take the circuit to the Tek 3032 to make the detailed measurements and to get an accurate value for n.
Is it possible that the capacitance of the L2 winding came into play with the 113% condition?
Still working,... trying to ferret out the OU condition...
-
PhysicsProf,
Have you tried this variant? In a normal JT you waste the base current.
In my variant the base current is through the coil and is not wasted.
The R must be a high Ohm value. It is only to bias the transistor at
start up. When the oscillation starts then the capacitor takes over.
Suggested values: R=330K to 1M Ohm. The base coil capacitor
can be approx. 1nF. Some experimenting may be needed.
Regards,
GL.
I find that to be a highly unusual circuit Groundloop. There is no inductor discharging into a load. The "output" looks like it's just the battery source current flowing into the transistor collector and then out through the emitter and through the diode and into the load. In other words it's just the battery or power supply going into the load through the switched-on transistor.
When the transistor switches off, the second coil will discharge in an unusual way. It looks to me like the potential at the emitter will spike negative for a very short amount of time. That will cause the transistor to switch on again for a short amount of time. That will not conduct any power through the diode into the load.
Anyway, this is just a preliminary analysis in my head and I am not even covering the precise oscillation mechanism. It would be a fun pSpice simulation, I just have to install it first! From what I can see with a 1.5 volt power source this will not be able to light up 10 LEDs in series like a conventional JT can.
MileHigh
-
Physicsprof,
I have spent much time in the past with blocking oscillators and have noticed strange behavior. Not seeking ou operation but its reaction to external magnetic fields and their influence.
It was possible to even create a compass of sorts where changing the oreintation changed the mode considerably.
I achieved this condition by using a magnet and arranging things including supply to be sensitive to the magnet(sweet spot) . Not close to the device but some distance .
It might be interesting for you do tinker with this condition (if you have not already)as I am sure you will be surprised at how sensitive the units can be to the external field .
I found it perplexing and extremely interesting.
It just migh be that magnetic mode (non technical sorry) is a part of the unusual condition you have found
-
Physicsprof,
I have spent much time in the past with blocking oscillators and have noticed strange behavior. Not seeking ou operation but its reaction to external magnetic fields and their influence.
It was possible to even create a compass of sorts where changing the oreintation changed the mode considerably.
I achieved this condition by using a magnet and arranging things including supply to be sensitive to the magnet(sweet spot) . Not close to the device but some distance .
It might be interesting for you do tinker with this condition (if you have not already)as I am sure you will be surprised at how sensitive the units can be to the external field .
I found it perplexing and extremely interesting.
It just migh be that magnetic mode (non technical sorry) is a part of the unusual condition you have found
I will try it again -- I did try a small magnet once near the toroid, did not see much at that time (at least a month ago) -- but not with the toroid I'm using most of the time now. Thanks for the ideas.
@MH: will let you know if the LED lights up with GLoop's circuit ... certainly the location of the LED in Gl's schematic is most unusual (is that where you wanted the LED, GL?).
-
I find that to be a highly unusual circuit Groundloop. There is no inductor discharging into a load. The "output" looks like it's just the battery source current flowing into the transistor collector and then out through the emitter and through the diode and into the load. In other words it's just the battery or power supply going into the load through the switched-on transistor.
When the transistor switches off, the second coil will discharge in an unusual way. It looks to me like the potential at the emitter will spike negative for a very short amount of time. That will cause the transistor to switch on again for a short amount of time. That will not conduct any power through the diode into the load.
Anyway, this is just a preliminary analysis in my head and I am not even covering the precise oscillation mechanism. It would be a fun pSpice simulation, I just have to install it first! From what I can see with a 1.5 volt power source this will not be able to light up 10 LEDs in series like a conventional JT can.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
The output is via an 1N4148 with ref. to ground.
GL.
-
I will try it again -- I did try a small magnet once near the toroid, did not see much at that time (at least a month ago) -- but not with the toroid I'm using most of the time now. Thanks for the ideas.
@MH: will let you know if the LED lights up with GLoop's circuit ... certainly the location of the LED in Gl's schematic is most unusual (is that where you wanted the LED, GL?).
Physicsprof,
It's not a LED. It is just a 1N4148 to show where you can get the output.
Attached is a mosfet version that I did build and test.
GL.
-
Physicsprof,
It's not a LED. It is just a 1N4148 to show where you can get the output.
Attached is a mosfet version that I did build and test.
GL.
I built your transistor version above as well as I could -- and could not get it to "ring" after several tweaks. Your Mosfet version is impressive... have you measured n = Pout/Pin for this version??
I have also added a capacitor (call it C1) in parallel with L1 (see circuit schematic in first post) with interesting results. Adding C1 makes a tank circuit (along with the primary coil L1). I've tried this before, but now with different values of C1, seeking still to improve n. I will have to give details later as wife and I are traveling today.
-
I built your transistor version above as well as I could -- and could not get it to "ring" after several tweaks. Your Mosfet version is impressive... have you measured n = Pout/Pin for this version??
I have also added a capacitor (call it C1) in parallel with L1 (see circuit schematic in first post) with interesting results. Adding C1 makes a tank circuit (along with the primary coil L1). I've tried this before, but now with different values of C1, seeking still to improve n. I will have to give details later as wife and I are traveling today.
Physicsprof,
By "ring" do you mean run? The bipolar transistor version requires a little tweaking of the R and C value to get it to run well.
I have not measured the Pin and Pout for the mosfet version but runs OK.
GL.
-
I'm off to radio shack to pick up a couple of parts for this Joule Thief COP>1replication... it's going to be somewhat of a letdown to only evaluate this with a 1-channel scope, but you do what you can with what you've got.
By the way, groundloop, what's the fastest MOSFET driver chips you use? (ucc27322,ucc37322, FAN3228C)? I want to play around with cheaper MOSFET chips before I drop $200 on the IXDD414 monsters. I also don't want to fry expensive chips...
-
I'm off to radio shack to pick up a couple of parts for this Joule Thief COP>1replication... it's going to be somewhat of a letdown to only evaluate this with a 1-channel scope, but you do what you can with what you've got.
By the way, groundloop, what's the fastest MOSFET driver chips you use? (ucc27322,ucc37322, FAN3228C)? I want to play around with cheaper MOSFET chips before I drop $200 on the IXDD414 monsters. I also don't want to fry expensive chips...
Feynman,
I have only tried the IR2106 high/low end mosfet driver and that one is not fast, 180nSec switch on / switch off time.
I did use bipolar transistors as drivers in my three channel switch http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/fastswitch.rar (http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/fastswitch.rar)
that I used in some TPU research.
GL.
-
I'm off to radio shack to pick up a couple of parts for this Joule Thief COP>1replication... it's going to be somewhat of a letdown to only evaluate this with a 1-channel scope, but you do what you can with what you've got.
By the way, groundloop, what's the fastest MOSFET driver chips you use? (ucc27322,ucc37322, FAN3228C)? I want to play around with cheaper MOSFET chips before I drop $200 on the IXDD414 monsters. I also don't want to fry expensive chips...
Feynman:
You should simply get some ordinary MOSFET gate driver chips and some ordinary MOSFETs. There is no point in getting a super-high-end integrated MOSFET and driver module all in one. You are a long way off from ever needing the high-end stuff, if ever. You will be able to get high enough slew rates in your switching speed with ordinary MOSFETs as you understand how to use them.
I know that you want to get high slew rates and you believe that there is something special about them and that it's an unexplored topic in the realm of engineering. The truth is that's not the case; there is nothing special about high slew rates and these issues are completely and perfectly understood. High slew rates don't open a portal to "vacuum energy" but I know you won't take my word for it so you will have to do the experiments yourself.
A good primer even through it's not specifically about MOSFETs is "The CMOS Cookbook" by Don Lancaster. The first chapter is available on Scribid and it's the most important chapter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26629325/Cmos-Cookbook-chapter-1 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26629325/Cmos-Cookbook-chapter-1)
The whole book might be available for download somewhere covertly. From the Google search it's obvious there is a cat and mouse game going on. If you like the first chapter and are interested in the rest you can always buy the real book on Amazon.
MileHigh
-
I've been using mcp1406 drivers which i found a bit better than TC4429's with IRF840 fets but can only get about 40-60nS after delays ect
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=241.msg2732#msg2732 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=241.msg2732#msg2732)
-
Hi all,
i did a quick replication of "groundloop's" circuit in reply #2, and i can confirm it does oscillate after some tweaking.
I used R=1K, C=1NF, toroid with 24 turns each and a MJE13007 transistor.
Instead of the 1n4148 diode i used a led to ground which lit up on the 4.6 VPP.
Here a short video from this setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWWXZ7xDuM
I will do some additional tweaking / measurements.
Regards Itsu.
-
Feynman:
You should simply get some ordinary MOSFET gate driver chips and some ordinary MOSFETs. There is no point in getting a super-high-end integrated MOSFET and driver module all in one. You are a long way off from ever needing the high-end stuff, if ever. You will be able to get high enough slew rates in your switching speed with ordinary MOSFETs as you understand how to use them.
...
MileHigh
This is very good advice. Select an inexpensive Gate Driver chip
which will provide the needed high current impulse - some are
now rated at 9 Amperes or more.
The mounting techniques are of paramount importance. It is essential
to use good RF construction procedures with all leads as short as
possible. The gate driver and the MOSFET must be very intimately
located.
The Gate Driver chip must also have a good high quality capacitor
attached directly to it with very short leads to provide the gate
charge impulse - approximately 1.0 microFarad.
Bone up on how UHF power amplifier circuit boards are constructed
and laid out to optimize high frequency performance while minimizing
reflections which will produce standing wave interference.
Yes, it is possible to make your own.
-
Hi all,
i did a quick replication of "groundloop's" circuit in reply #2, and i can confirm it does oscillate after some tweaking.
I used R=1K, C=1NF, toroid with 24 turns each and a MJE13007 transistor.
Instead of the 1n4148 diode i used a led to ground which lit up on the 4.6 VPP.
Here a short video from this setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWWXZ7xDuM
I will do some additional tweaking / measurements.
Regards Itsu.
Ltsu,
Thank you for replicating my circuit and welcome to the forum.
I'm not surprised that you had to use that low resistor value.
The MJE13007 needs a lot of base bias in this setup.
GL.
-
Regardless of what anyone (paid disinformer, honest helpful experimenter, or otherwise) says to me, I'm going for the fastest rise time/fall times possible .
Saving money is always nice though, and I welcome suggestions in that regard. But from all the research and experience I have done in the past, the speed and performance of the switching and amplification circuitry is a critical variable in success of tapping anomalous electromagnetic behaviour.
The reason for this is that the sharp gradient is often necessary to modulate longitudinal waves -- also known as scalar waves. Tesla discovered these waves over 100 years ago, and I have posted experimental proof for the existence of these waves here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=754.msg11722#msg11722 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=754.msg11722#msg11722). I want to experiment with extreme and unusual electrodynamic conditions in order to learn more about the universe -- specifically scalar waves -- learning on an experimental workbench, not from brand new textbooks written by corrupt institutions with political and monetary agendas.
I have plenty of microcontroller experience, and have driven amplified MOSFETs in the past with crappy driver chips and got crappy results (piss-poor amplified waveforms).
I recommend anyone experimenting with square/pwm waves go for as FAST a risetime/falltime as possible, making sure to take into account propagation delay as well as MOSFET input capacitance in their frequency experiments. Phase, frequency, flux, permeability, hysteresis , inductive coupling etc are also critical factors that need to be considered. I will be building my equipment in this manner (going for the best performance for a given budget) and will be publishing all my research publicly.
Now that I've made it clear I will not be swayed from my conviction that risetime/falltimes are critical for square/pulse wave research, for I moment I would like to discuss my preliminary experiment from earlier:
JOULE THIEF RESULTS:
Resonant Frequency: approx 8kHz
Loaded LED voltage: 3-4V P-P
Unloaded Resistor Voltage: Up to 80V P-P , variable
I replicated the professors Joule Thief earlier , and I had interesting results. Replacing the LED with a 5K variable resistor resulted in a 'sweet spot' of very dynamic change , as well as significant variation of the oscillation waveform, including amplitude, shape, phase, etc. The waveform changed shape significantly on my oscilloscope, along with variations in frequency which were not as dramatic. I will publish further results once I get my digital camera back.
As others have observed, Joule Thief is a very sensitive circuit to its local environment, so waveforms changes as the circuit was moved around physically, leads were touched with the body, etc.
FUTURE FAST GRADIENT RESEARCH:
Joule Thief aside -- It is imperative for square/pwm based scalar wave research to have the fastest switching speed, risetimes/falltimes etc as possible . New experimenters -- do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Two of the authorities on this subject -- SM and Bob Boyce -- have both stated risetime/falltime is critical. You also want a crisp and clean a waveform as possible all the way up to your max VDS, with phase under complete and precise control for proper experimentation. Sloppy amplification of waves is a recipe for crappy results.
In terms of inexpensive MOSFET drivers, I am looking at the following: (I've left out other important statistics to focus on switching speed.)
IXDD414 -recommended to me here on OUR by a CTO of an energy technology company
(rise time 25ns , fall time 22ns , propagation delay 30ns)
FAN3228 - found these on digikey, and their specs seem to fit well with your standard IRF840, IRF820, IRF510 MOSFETS and related types.
(rise time 12ns , fall time 9ns, propegation delay 15ns)
UCC27322,UCC32322 - these were used by Bob Boyce in his HEX controller unit , which was successfully used for overunity experimentation with longitudinal energy (rise time 20ns, fall time 20ns, propegation delay 25-35ns)
I have a list of datasheets I am considering, and I will be using cheap (yet fast) MOSFET drivers first as I scale up to the experimental hardware for high voltage 200V - 1000V amplified pulse wave research. I have a 1kV regulated power supply with some HV capacitors, so there should be some interesting experiments here as well.
More Joule Thief results tomorrow..
-
Feynman:
I replicated the professors Joule Thief earlier , and I had interesting results. Replacing the LED with a 5K variable resistor resulted in a 'sweet spot' of very dynamic change , as well as significant variation of the oscillation waveform, including amplitude, shape, phase, etc. The waveform changed shape significantly on my oscilloscope, along with variations in frequency which were not as dramatic. I will publish further results once I get my digital camera back.
Sometimes it's wise to bite off a little bit at a time and digest that fully. I am assuming that in your test above you are talking about looking at the JT output going into a variable resistor. The setup still has an output diode which connects to the variable resistor and then to ground.
Here is my suggestion: Instead of a variable resistor, how about you look at the waveforms for three different low-valued resistors. I am not sure of the exact values, perhaps 100 ohms, 200 ohms, and 500 ohms. Try something like that and look at your scope data and then formulate your conclusions and share them with us. I hope that will be of interest to you.
MileHigh
-
Hi all,
i did a quick replication of "groundloop's" circuit in reply #2, and i can confirm it does oscillate after some tweaking.
I used R=1K, C=1NF, toroid with 24 turns each and a MJE13007 transistor.
Instead of the 1n4148 diode i used a led to ground which lit up on the 4.6 VPP.
Here a short video from this setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWWXZ7xDuM
I will do some additional tweaking / measurements.
Regards Itsu.
Quite a dramatic first post, Itsu == good work and welcome to the forum!
I looked at your video and look forward to seeing your other videos as time permits. Where did you get the toroid -- did you wind it yourself?
-
Feynman:
Sometimes it's wise to bite off a little bit at a time and digest that fully. I am assuming that in your test above you are talking about looking at the JT output going into a variable resistor. The setup still has an output diode which connects to the variable resistor and then to ground.
[snip]
MileHigh
No, I'm quite sure Feynman did as I did and reported earlier, actually replacing the LED with a resistor. I look forward to your scope screen shots, Feynman -- keep up the good work.
I like to see folks working with this JT circuit. Lots of interesting stuff here...
-
Interesting result while adding a capacitor (different values) to the JT circuit in various places.
An example is provided in the attached screen shots (again apologizing for the fuzziness of my little HP camera). Note that I drew a line with a black non-permanent marker to help identify the ZERO for the green POWER waveforms ( V * I as explained above). You see that in both Pin (first attached) and Pout that I have easily achieved the out-of-phase (OP) condition, as shown by both negative and positive output power. And this is with an LED in place! I will soon repeat this with a resistor replacing the LED (Not in addition to the LED, replacing).
I tweaked the input voltage until the Pin showed about equal positive and negative input (looking at AREAS above and below the zero line) -- best at this low voltage IN of 0.56 volts -- still oscillates (as you see from the waveforms).
So the mean Pin must be small.
Then the Pout is mostly from the OP situation, that is, output voltage and output current out-of-phase. And the positive and negative for Pout are not equal, from visual inspection.
STrange but intriguing result... I can hardly wait to get to the Tektronix 3032 and measure the MEAN Pin and Pout for this set-up... in a couple of days I'll get back up to the University.
OK -- so where did I put the cap? In this case, I used a 100 nF cap from the point between L2 (the feedback loop) and the 500 ohm resistor going to the transistor base -- connecting the Cap on the output side, that is, across both the LED and the transistor.
-
Hi groundloop,
thanks for the welcome.
I tried a BC547 transistor instead, but as it indeed needed less base bias, i did not manage to lit the led, varying the R between 1K and 1M.
Optimum was around 330K. Perhaps i need to vary the C as well.
So the MJE13007 was not such a bad pick i guess.
Hi PhysicsProf,
I got the toriod "as is" from our local dumpshop, see this link:
http://www.baco-army-goods.nl/componenten-elektronica-onderdelen/ferriet-en-ontstoorspoelen/ferriet-ringkern-met-spoel.html
Sorry for the Dutch, but it probably comes from some PC power supply vendor.
It reads "Ferrite toriod with coil", and mentioned the inductance as 2x 4mH (confirmed by my measurements).
Also the dimensions are mentioned (outsite D 32mm, inner D 18mm, thick 13mm).
I just build a joule thief with a similar toriod as above, and will start measuring/experimenting with it now.
Regards Itsu.
-
I replicated the LTJT2 as being used by PhysicsProf, but with these differences:
transistor is a BC547, toriod with L 7,2mH (both), outer d:37mm, wire:0,8mm 40 turns each.
The video of this setup/measurement is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS8XpOY3bLg
The values measured were:
Pitotal = Mean(V1*V2) = 1.291 * 0.021 = 0.027111
Pototal = Mean(V3*V2) = 1.272 * 0.021 = 0.026712
So, n = (Pototal/Pitotal)x100% = (0.026712/0.027111)x100% = 98.5%
Not bad for an initial run, but no breakthrough.
I will do some tweaking/tuning with C's.
Regards Itsu
-
I replicated the LTJT2 as being used by PhysicsProf, but with these differences:
transistor is a BC547, toriod with L 7,2mH (both), outer d:37mm, wire:0,8mm 40 turns each.
The video of this setup/measurement is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS8XpOY3bLg
The values measured were:
Pitotal = Mean(V1*V2) = 1.291 * 0.021 = 0.027111
Pototal = Mean(V3*V2) = 1.272 * 0.021 = 0.026712
So, n = (Pototal/Pitotal)x100% = (0.026712/0.027111)x100% = 98.5%
Not bad for an initial run, but no breakthrough.
I will do some tweaking/tuning with C's.
Regards Itsu
Good work, Itsu! Now, I do have a question. When you write,
Pitotal = Mean(V1*V2) = 1.291 * 0.021 = 0.027111
Pototal = Mean(V3*V2) = 1.272 * 0.021 = 0.026712
-- where do you get 1.291 and 0.021 (for example)? Are these RMS values? **See Note 1
What I've been doing is NOT to use RMS values to calculate n, but rather to have the oscilloscope generate the MATH product V1*V2, then (using the Tek 3032), to provide the MEAN of the MATH waveform. Is that what you did?
Meanwhile, I have replicated Itsu's variation of the "inductors-after-transistor" circuit proposed by Groundloop earlier in this thread. There are significant differences I find in Itsu's variation -- which one can readily see from the side-by-side comparison of the two schematics (see attached). Note that Itsu has BOTH inductor loops connected to the emitter,; Groundloop has one connected to the base and one to the emitter. Also, Itsu forms a tank-circuit with the feed-back loop (as I have also suggested earlier in this thread).
I replicated Itsu's variation (about 560 nF instead of 1uF however) and it worked GREAT! I will attach input and output waveforms shortly.
NOTE 1 added -- Sorry, Itsu -- I asked before I saw your vid, but I have seen it now. I like your method of showing vids to go along with your posts -- very informative. (I'm learning a lot here.)
I see that you get 1.291 and 0.021 as MEAN values of the input voltage and input current, so that you are taking Pin (= Pitotal) as Vin, mean * Iin, mean. But this is not the same as taking the instantaneous
Pin (t) = Vin (t) * Iin (t) (shown in the Math product waveforms on both my ATTEN scope and the Tek 3032 at the University) -- and then taking the MEAN value of P(t) over numerous cycles. Whew -- a mouthful.
But the latter method is what we have come to on this forum in other threads as the correct method -- for non-sinusoidal waveforms especially when the current and voltage are (or may be) out of phase -- as is the case with this circuit.
It takes a fancy oscilloscope to calculate the Mean of the Math product -- the Tek 3032 will do this... does yours have these functions? Difficult without these special functions, I think, to determine n accurately.
-
I like this variation proposed by Itsu -- photo shown in 1st attachment. You can see that I've added a one-ohm resistor on the input (and the output) -- as done in the JT circuit as shown in schematics earlier in the thread.
Hopefully the photo shows clearly enough the scope-probe connections. ** see added note below
Resultant Power Waveforms (V* I, where I is V over a one-ohm resistor) are shown in green, labeled Pin (left) and Pout (right). Recall that for the green Power waveforms, I take the downward Y axis to represent positive power. I compared the integral (E=P*t) under the waveforms, and it may be that Eout exceeds Ein, but I will await results from the MEAN function on the Tektronix 3032 for the Power waveforms, to check the result...
I highly recommend replicating Itsu's circuit variation.
NOTE: For Pout, the voltage across the output circuit is taken at the "triple point" where the diode connects to the emitter, along with both inductor legs. However, the more I study this circuit, I'm not sure this is sufficient for measuring Pout correctly -- I would appreciate input on this question of WHERE to measure the voltage for Pout. (My concern is that the left "branch" from this point, through the feed-back loop, carries back to the base of the transistor...)
-
Wow, great results guys! Adding the capacitor was a good idea PhysicsProf, I'm glad to hear you were able to replace the OOP (out of phase) condition.
Same to itsu -- 98.5% efficiency is a really impressive place to start.
I'm still waiting on a camera , but I've moved my desk, table, and frequency counter etc to one place to set up my lab, as well as moved a variety of toroids and electronic components out of storage. No new results, but nearly complete in getting set up , so that I will be able to make relatively frequent open-source postings on my blogs, complete with photographs.
-
Hi prof,
I am glad you like the videos that goes with the posts.
My scope only can show the math (V1*V2 f.i.) as a trace, not as values.
So i have to do it this way, but you are right, its not that accurate.
Concerning the "itsu variation" of groundloops special circuit, this is the editted
version by groundloop himselve, see the post #2, so all credits goes to him.
I too played around with this "groundloop special" using a 5K potentiometer as R.
Without load (led), i can tune to about 7.6Vpp with my mje13007 transistor.
With the led, it decreases to 4.8Vpp, and some good light comming from the led.
I will try some different C's as well, and measure the efficiency.
Video to be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ
But i too have problems finding the correct point for measuring the output.
My Mean output voltage show no where near the values i expect when measuring at the "triple point".
Well, time to experiment some more i guess.
Regards Itsu.
-
Hi prof,
I am glad you like the videos that goes with the posts.
My scope only can show the math (V1*V2 f.i.) as a trace, not as values.
So i have to do it this way, but you are right, its not that accurate.
Concerning the "itsu variation" of groundloops special circuit, this is the editted
version by groundloop himselve, see the post #2, so all credits goes to him.
I too played around with this "groundloop special" using a 5K potentiometer as R.
Without load (led), i can tune to about 7.6Vpp with my mje13007 transistor.
With the led, it decreases to 4.8Vpp, and some good light comming from the led.
I will try some different C's as well, and measure the efficiency.
Video to be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ
But i too have problems finding the correct point for measuring the output.
My Mean output voltage show no where near the values i expect when measuring at the "triple point".
Well, time to experiment some more i guess.
Regards Itsu.
Ltsu,
Great video great test. Here is another idea to test out.
Make a L3 coil that has a resonant frequency of 210KHz.
Then tune the circuit with your variable resistor for maximum
output. Since we now are pumping energy back into the
rechargeable battery, then maybe we can light a LED much
longer than with a normal oscillator? Just thinking.......
GL.
-
Ah -- thanks for clarifying Itsu, And thanks much for the novel ideas Groundloop! Very interesting circuits.
I've gotta run this evening with wife and friends, but wanted to post the circuits (schematics) we've been studying -- trying to figure out the best way to determine Pout-total (total Power in the output leg) -- where to connect the leads. Numbers on the schematics will allow us to discuss where best to place the scope leads to get Pin, Pout and thereby, n. Tomorrow I'm going to use the Tek 3032, so any input by tomorrow morning would be VERY helpful.
Groundloop's circuit #1 is shown on the right (attached) -- that's the one we're puzzling over, where to connect the scope probes.
On the left, see the "standard" JT circuit, and the locations of where we (many of us) previously agreed to make the probe connections on that circuit. Here (right schematic) it is a bit more challenging!
(A visiting friend used his camera this evening to get good shots of the Numbered schematics. Thanks, Brian!)
-
PS -- I'm thinking of putting CSR's of 1 or even 1/2 ohm in the circuit to measure input and output Powers, without perturbing the circuit significantly...
Another approach (thanks, GL) is to use a Cap as both a power source and a power reserve for the output, especially interesting if Pout > Pin... Then the voltage on the Cap will rise, and this can be measured by switching circuit off and taking a measurement from time to time.
-
nice circuit isn't it.. old circuit i just found out.. hartley osc..
http://www.youtube.com/user/koolerization#p/u/15/AYuuGNV35Ys (http://www.youtube.com/user/koolerization#p/u/15/AYuuGNV35Ys)
if you need more ideas try some of these
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9733.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9733.0)
robbie
-
Feynman Joule Thief Experiment 001: Frequency Drift vs Circuit Placement
Okay guys, so I'm still setting up my lab, but this was a quick experiment I worked up to make use of my frequency counter.
Materials: I'm using the standard Joule Thief setup with a 2N3904 NPN transistor, a somewhat-new 1.5V AA battery, a trifilar wound 3cm ferrite toroid, with one of the windings left 'floating' and the other two windings in standard bifilar JT configuration. This matches the professor's circuit , minus the CSR resistor. This setup is also using a blue LED with a draw of approximately 30mA and it is very bright. No resistor or capacitor is connected in this JT. The frequency counter I used was a Vicor VC3165 , capable of 0.01hz - 2.6ghz measurements, measured with channel A and a 50% gate time (about 10-15 seconds).
Methods: I tested the circuit to see how time and position it's resonant frequency, as measured at the collector/emitter of the transistor. My previous rough scope calculations based on counting squares put it in the vicinity of 8khz. The more-accurate frequency counter measurements were closer to about 7khz. I used a 10-15 second sampling interval on the frequency counter, which then updated and displayed the mean frequency for this interval. In any case , I did this:
1) Connected up Joule thief and started taking notes. Noticed the freq counter number 'drifted' significantly over a few minutes, from about 7.013khz down to 7.009khz, then up to 7.043khz (<1% deviation). This placement of the circuit was next to my laptop. I decided to run two tests: one with the JT on the floor, and one next to the laptop.
2) I took the still-powered on Joule Thief and placed it on the floor , approx 1m from any potential localized EMI from the laptop / cell phone etc. I observed the frequency every 30 seconds and recorded it for the graph for 5 minutes, which is displayed as 'ground'.
3) I then picked up the still-powered on Joule Thief and placed it back next to my laptop on my desk, in the vicinity of both my laptop as well as the frequency counter and cell phone. Again, I recorded 5 minutes of measurements.
Results:
See attached graph.
-The 'floor' frequency was significantly lower than the 'table' frequency . I suspect this is experimental error from jostling the circuit when moving it to the floor, as you can see by the circuit beginning to creep back up to 7khz over the time interval. Further tests not included in this study show 'floor' frequency can be as high as 7.2khz, so the likely culprit was physical trauma to the circuit changing its resonance.
-Joule thief may be susceptible to localized EMI from laptops, but the effect is less than that of physical changes (movements) to the circuit configuration.
-The JT graph when it was placed near EMI is subjectively more volative, but more tests would be needed to confirm this effect.
-In both high-EMI and low-EMI conditions, Joule Thief experiences significant frequency drift.
Conclusions:
Joule Thief has a significant frequency drift, with potentially unexpectedly long period of oscillating drift (the drift period, if it exists, is measured in minutes, and may be aperiodic, or perhaps more complex, possibly even a mathematical attractor.) The drift is approximately +/- 1% of the fundamental frequency, and may be as high as 2%. Subjectively, physical movements of the JT circuit and apparatus appear to have more frequency-related effects than to localized EMI, but we do not have enough information to make definitive conclusions yet.
Future work may include the testing of Joule Thief within a Faraday Cage to minimize the effects of transverse EMI, as Faraday Cages are only permeable to Scalar EMI. This test would apply to any OU / Out-of-phase operation conditions as well.
Other work perhaps should also include a bifilar wound (rather than trifilar) toroid, as well as perhaps grounding the third winding to itself to minimize inductive effects of localized EMI.
Another important question that remains to be answered is does standard Joule Thief have a resonant frequency, or its resonant frequency a range depending on outside factors (temperature, EMI, internal effects, etc)?
The most significant finding is that Joule Thief has internal frequency drift which appears somewhat independent of local EMI.
-Feynman, 3/15/2011
P.S. I left the device running untouched on the floor for around an hour as I posted on overunity.com, and the frequency climbed up to 7.310 khz. So there's definitely at least a +/- 1% percent drift here. It began pouring rain, so perhaps humidity and/or RF attenuation is having an effect. . . Or perhaps the oscillator is simply a nonlinear dynamical system with chaotic features (sensitivity to initial conditions, density of periodic orbits, etc). Either way, it's important to know it's properties moving forward with this and other open-source, potential overunity projects.
-
Feynman:
If you look up the Joule Thief on Wikipedia you will see the formula for the oscillation frequency. This formula is for the approximate frequency.
In looking at your data it's arguable to say that the Joule Thief has very little drift as opposed to saying it has a significant frequency drift. I suppose it all depends on your criteria. I would suspect that the main reason you are seeing the slight frequency drift is due to the battery characteristics changing relatively slowly over time. The more discharged the battery the more you should observe these kinds of effects. You might try an experiment where you test fresh vs. nearly depleted AA batteries, or different types of AA batteries, to see what the frequency plots look like.
In addition, if you connected your Joule Thief to a very stable power supply, you might not see any perceptible drift at all. That would back up my theory that the battery is the main cause of the frequency drift. There is the possibility that the Joule Thief will not oscillate if it is directly connected to the power supply. You may have to put a 20 or 50-ohm resistor in series with the positive rail to emulate the battery's output impedance.
When you move the JT from your table to your floor it's not surprising to see the slight frequency shifts. Chances are you are changing what the ambient permeability is in 3D space around the Joule Thief. This will have very very slight effects on the absolute inductance of the two coils running at the Joule Thief operating frequency (it's actually a spectrum of frequencies) and as a result their mutual inductance. Almost any circuit oscillating at a relatively high frequency will do the same thing. Moving a magnet in the vicinity of the Joule Thief will likely have a more dramatic effect on the operating frequency. That's because the magnet will be an imperceptible load on the Joule Thief, and will be sucking a very small amount of power out of the circuit. At the same time it could influence the toroidal core of the JT transformer and change it's energy storage capacity very slightly, hence affecting the mutual coupling between the two coils, which should also affect the JT frequency.
MileHigh
-
@Kooler -- I looked at your video -- good work. I noted that your were using primary, feedback AND secondary windings, which differs from the present circuit (which lacks or does not use the secondary winding).
@Feynman --Yes, I've noticed drift in the resonator frequency... an interesting phenomenon.
I've been thinking more about the Pout/Pin measurements. In the "old" JT circuit, we agreed that measuring V3 as shown on the schematic (see attached) was the correct method. We measured the "output" Voltage between point 7 and point 8 (the same as, between point 1 and point 6, looking at direct connections.) But even there, note that there is a connection from point 7 around to the base, through L1 and L2.
In the present circuit, I've been taking the output Voltage between point 5 and point 9 (or 3, 3 connected directly to 9). Here the connection to the base of the transistor is through Cap C2 -- through which no NET current flows since this is a capacitor. Again, we find MEAN voltage over many cycles, so we can be assured that the NET current flow across the cap C2 is zero. Not the case for CSR1, of course, where the net current flow is crucial to our method of measuring the power. So I think that this is the proper place to extract the "output voltage" -- again, from point 3 to point 5. This measures voltage drop across the LED, and across L1 and L2. If there is any "input of energy" from an unknown source, it would likely come through the inductors (admittedly a wild, but educated, guess), so I like this arrangement.
However, if I find n>1 in this circuit, I predict that those who are silent now about WHERE to put the probes will be very vocal then...
-
Feynman:
If you look up the Joule Thief on Wikipedia you will see the formula for the oscillation frequency. This formula is for the approximate frequency.
...
moving a magnet in the vicinity of the Joule Thief will likely have a more dramatic effect on the operating frequency.
...
Sure the formula is approximate. And the higher the frequency, the more inaccurate the formula. Essential parameters are not taken into account, like transistor capacities between collector and base, or collector and emitter, which are temperature and voltage dependent. The capacity between the 2 coils is also not negligible. The ferrite can also be heated or saturated, reducing the inductance. A magnet near a ferrite lowers also the permeability. With a very sensitive device which was an HF oscillator based on a resonant coil with a ferrite rod like in AM radios and whose I monitored high frequency harmonics with a SSB receiver, I was able to detect a neodymium magnet at more than 3 meters from the ferrite, by the slight change of the beat audio tone.
When I was a very young and inexperienced experimenter, ignoring all the laws of physics and electronics, I was offered a box of "Philips electronics engineer" (http://radio.gort.dk/page089.htm :D) and I played for the first time with oscillators. I didn't know Colpitts or Hartley oscillators, the only one type I discovered were oscillators like JT, with the coil in the collector circuit. I can say that this type of oscillator is always very unstable. What a pain it was for me who wanted a stable frequency for radio operations!
From what I read about JT, I see no more than the weirdness of results only due to a quite incommensurable numbers of parameters, most of them not taken into account in the analysis but conventional, generating various phenomena, sometimes chaotic due to non linearities, threshold and hysteresis effects. But is it the reason for the interest for JT? Or is there serious signs of OU beyond this diversity?
-
Exnihiloest:
Yes I played with a similar very basic electronics experimenter's kit when I was a young adolescent! I had no real idea what I was doing but I was transfixed. I also built the child's crystal radio kit a few times. I wonder if they still make them.
As far as the Joule Thief circuit goes, sometimes things can take on a life of their own. I think all the excitement started when people discovered the "magic" where a Joule Thief can light a string of 10 or 20 LEDs in series. With respect to the causes of the frequency shift, you have probably seen different Spice models for transformers. A basic Spice model may only consist of the two coils and a few parasitic capacitances. A more complex Spice model might have upwards of 15 or 20 components, just for a transformer! So indeed, the same principle can apply to the Joule Thief.
There is no over unity to be found in a Joule Thief circuit. But don't let that stop "les boys" from trying!
MileHigh
-
There is no over unity to be found in a Joule Thief circuit. But don't let that stop "les boys" from trying!
MileHigh
Do we not need to bother with experiments and measurements, then?
How do you know this, for sure, MH? You speak with such chutzpah...
-
Do we not need to bother with experiments and measurements, then?
How do you know this, for sure, MH? You speak with such chutzpah...
Because no combination of active and passive electronics components can be connected together to produce free energy. I am talking about transistors, FETs, diodes, inductors, transformers, capacitors, resistors, etc. Each individual component cannot produce free energy so you can try putting them together in any possible combination and you will not get free energy. The same thing applies to magnets, they are not a possible source of free energy.
So what about you PhysicsProf? Why do you think a Joule Thief can be a source of free energy? Note that it is simply a series of active and passive electronics components connected together.
If you speculate that a coil is a source of free energy, do you have a possible explanation for why this is the case? There is a good argument for running tests on the simplest possible coil-based circuit to test for free energy, and forget all about the Joule Thief. It's something that I have suggested many times.
Meanwhile Lawrence has departed the scene. His original data was abysmal. Then he sent what was supposedly an over unity Joule Thief to Poynt and it was tested and shown to be under unity. This was a foregone conclusion, but it was hopefully fun and a good learning experience for all involved.
If somebody actually had an over unity system and showed good data I would believe it. Whatever it was, it would be far outside the realm of what is discussed on all of the forums. If it was real it would shake the world right to its foundations and change everything.
MileHigh
-
Electronic switching circuits can be made to operate
in several different "modes." Some of those modes
are linear, some are non-linear and some are "strange."
What we are seeking to find are those "strange" modes
which exhibit very unusual properties and outputs.
When any circuit is operating in a stable mode there are
never any surprises. "Strangeness" always seems to
be accompanied by some sort of instability which makes
it so elusive and so difficult to reproduce and replicate.
Free running oscillators (non-crystal controlled) can be
designed to be quite stable. A preferred circuit for such
applications was traditionally the Colpitts Oscillator with
a temperature controlled oven to minimize frequency
drift. The tuned circuits in those oscillators were built
with maximum Capacitance in the LC combination which
developed the desired frequency range. High capacitance
always improves frequency stability.
Oscillators which employ little capacitance, or even stray
capacitance, are always very unstable and are easily
"pulled" by environmental conditions.
-
What we are seeking to find are those "strange" modes
which exhibit very unusual properties and outputs.
When any circuit is operating in a stable mode there are
never any surprises. "Strangeness" always seems to
be accompanied by some sort of instability which makes
it so elusive and so difficult to reproduce and replicate.
I would equate your use of the term "strangeness" somewhat akin to using the term "secret sauce." In the former case it holds the unproven but tantalizing proposition that something can be unlocked that hasn't been discovered yet. It almost implies that something is really there and it's just a question of doing your due diligence and you will eventually find it. So how many failed experiments with coils do you have to do until you finally concede that there is no magic energy from the vacuum that materializes out of nothingness when you pulse a coil?
I just don't buy it and I can see that you are a firm believer that "something is out there."
There are no "strange modes," there is just the requirement to do your own due diligence and try to understand what is going on. And that means if you are serious you can't just "bypass" all of the knowledge about energy and electronics that has been built up over time and just fork out on your own.
Perhaps I can put it this way... If you want to claim "strangeness" then show me your PhD in Electrical Engineering first. Otherwise chances are that "strangeness" is really just ignorance in action.
MileHigh
-
...
I just don't buy it and I can see that you are a firm believer that "something is out there."
There are no "strange modes," there is just the requirement to do your own due diligence and try to understand what is going on. And that means if you are serious you can't just "bypass" all of the knowledge about energy and electronics that has been built up over time and just fork out on your own.
Perhaps I can put it this way... If you want to claim "strangeness" then show me your PhD in Electrical Engineering first. Otherwise chances are that "strangeness" is really just ignorance in action.
MileHigh
Yes, I am a firm believer. I have seen it. All will see it soon.
Isn't it strange that "ignorance" has led to some of the most
incredible discoveries. The vast majority of those discoveries
by ordinary researchers who did not possess high levels of
academic degree.
I have eschewed all manner of education from approved
institutions of higher "learning" or education in favor of esoteric
"technical" programs within the military establishment.
Most citizens would be very much surprised to find what is
being done in the name of "national security." But then, with
the advent of this present apocalypse those secrets are soon
to be revealed as well...
Look to the skies. You will see it there first.
-
Dumped:
I respect your perspective but I am not sure that the majority of discoveries were stumbled upon. You have your own world view and I have mine and that's pluralism for you!
I can't agree with you about the notion that something big is going to be happening soon. It certainly feels like that, but I think that it's just coincidence. You haven't specifically mentioned 2012 so I am not sure if you are attaching any significance to that year. There has been lots of big news for sure, so I personally am hoping that 2012 is a "normal" year.
MileHigh
-
...
Isn't it strange that "ignorance" has led to some of the most
incredible discoveries. The vast majority of those discoveries
by ordinary researchers who did not possess high levels of
academic degree.
...
Whom and what are you talking about?
Ordinary technical inventions, or real discoveries and progress in ideas and human knowledge?
Here are some of the great figures of history whose the name has been associated with discoveries, physical effects, physics units, breakthrough in ideas or math methods, and are references in science, even today:
Tesla: electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz.
Ampère: polytechnic school, Paris.
Maxwell: Edinburgh Academy.
Weber: University of Wittenberg
Gauss: University of Göttingen
Helmholtz: University of Königsberg, University of Bonn
Newton: Trinity College, Cambridge
Lorentz: University of Leiden, NL
Heisenberg: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Copenhagen
Feynman: Far Rockaway High School, USA
Coulomb: Collège des Quatre-Nations, Paris
Fermi: Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa
Einstein: Polytechnic, Zurich
Bohr: Copenhagen University, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, NL
Brillouin: Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich
Curie (Marie): Faculté des sciences, École Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles, Paris
Dirac: University of Bristol, UK
Cherenkov: Voronezh State University, Russia
Ångström: Uppsala University, SW
Becquerel: École Polytechnique, École des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris
Volta: Royal School, Como, Italy
van der Waals: University of Leiden, NL
Wheeler: University of North Carolina, Princeton University
Sagnac: École Normale Supérieure, Paris
Schrödinger: Akademisches Gymnasium Aus, Zurich university
Seebeck: University of Göttingen
Röntgen: Federal Polytechnic Institute, Zurich
Rayleigh: Trinity College, University of Cambridge
Poincaré: École Polytechnique, École des Mines, Paris
Poynting: Cambridge University
Pauli: Döblinger-Gymnasium, Vienna
Mössbauer: Max Planck Institute for Medical Research, Heidelberg, D
Millikan: Columbia University
Henry: Albany Academy, USA
This list is far from being exhaustive. I filled it with physicists that I remembered at this moment. I surely forgot brilliant people among them, sorry if some of them are your favorites. The important point is: we see that all come from academic institutions, universities or high school, the most of these institutions being prestigious.
Where is the "vast majority of those discoveries" coming from the ignorance of genius inventors in their garage? We don't see one. It is an urban legend.
The vast majority of fundamental discoveries come from "prepared minds", which is a formula from Louis Pasteur, inventor of vaccination and modern medicine methodology: "In the field of observation, chance favors the prepared minds". It means that new phenomena appearing in front of unexperienced people can remain unnoticed. One of the best examples is the discovery of penicillin: only a "prepared mind" was able to understand there was something great behind orange mould that he observed.
I agree that today, the main stream science is a bit fossilized. But to refuse to acquire some real physics background, a demagogic or wishful thinking letting believe to be smarter because of a "not formatted" mind, is to act like a looser. The knowledge, not the ignorance, will favor the discovery of FE. It is already confirmed right now: Mills, Rossi or Focardi whose their devices are the only ones that I know with third party attested excess of energy, come from universities or engineering high schools.
-
Do we not need to bother with experiments and measurements, then?
How do you know this, for sure, MH? You speak with such chutzpah...
Dear Professor,
You are reversing the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof).
Why should we lead experiments on JT oscillators and not on Colpitts oscillators or whatever else?
We lead experiments either because we have a theory to check, or to confirm anomalous results that puzzled us.
Then what are the objective elements about the JT circuit, that should trigger the need of experiments?
It was my previous question and nobody replied.
-
Do we not need to bother with experiments and measurements, then?
Because no combination of active and passive electronics components can be connected together to produce free energy.
...
It is likely, MileHigh. But there is a simpler reason: no experiment can prove that something doesn't exist. Science is only about what we observe.
Therefore there must be something at the beginning of the research otherwise an infinite number of experiments would be to lead.
It can be a theoretical hypothesis that something new could appear in such or such situation, or we have already strange results from other experiments or from observations. Only then we need to check them.
-
@MH,
If you studied and believed Newtonian Mechanics, you have to agree with the following diagram of simple collisions. The two ball collision with a moving piston conclusively proves that a pulsed order of molecular motion can be created by the oscillating piston. The pulsing order can do work and the energy comes from the kinetic energy of the molecules.
@all,
Just ignore MH and carry on. You will hit the resonance or pseudo resonance conditions soon. Rosie and team have proved it. The coming trips from PhysicsProf will prove it.
Details isn:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory.html
-
@MH,
If you studied and believed Newtonian Mechanics, you have to agree with the following diagram of simple collisions. The two ball collision with a moving piston conclusively proves that a pulsed order of molecular motion can be created by the oscillating piston. The pulsing order can do work and the energy comes from the kinetic energy of the molecules.
@all,
Just ignore MH and carry on. You will hit the resonance or pseudo resonance conditions soon. Rosie and team have proved it. The coming trips from PhysicsProf will prove it.
Lawrence:
You claimed that your Joule Thief was an over unity device but in fact it is not. I issued a challenge to you to provide documented evidence that you had an over unity Joule Thief before you sent another sample to Poynt and you did not respond to that posting.
You can't extract energy from randomly moving gas molecules. The random motion cancels itself out. You need wind where there is a net motion in one direction to extract energy from moving gas molecules. I also made a long posting about your tuning fork example and how that is also not an over unity system. I don't believed you replied to it.
I don't know what world or "plane" you live on Lawrence but there is reality and fantasy. You appear to live in some sort of fantasy world when it comes to energy. Your speculations and proclamations about resonance and "pseudo resonance" are pure fantasy. In that sense you are the one that should be ignored.
I am all for people doing their experiments and learning and having some fun. The Joule Thief will never produce any excess energy. That's simply the reality. Resonance or no resonance or "pseudo resonance" it doesn't matter. These are meaningless concepts when it comes to a Joule Thief. In technical terms a Joule Thief is a form of "bistable multivibrator." There is nothing special about it.
MileHigh
-
@MH,
Will you be willing to have a scientific debate at the bench of a real Physics Professor. PhysicsProf can be the moderator. All he needs to do is to verify that every single equation I use is correct in Newtonian Mechanics.
The first debate will be on:
The two tuning fork in resonance experiments done in all Physics Courses do produce a louder and longer sound experimentally. The theoretical explanation is that the first vibrating tuning fork produces a pulsing order motion of the molecules. This pulsing order can do useful work (such as exciting or pulse-pushing other tuning forks). The energy to do such work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
The other debate on the resonance of FLEET can wait.
Either PhysicsProf or others will hit on the resonance condition. Or when I get back to Hong Kong and reproduce the waveforms from my Oscilloscopes. Or after the Hong Kong Government has given every Hong Kong Citizen HK$6000 as reported on the News. (I can then buy the Oscilloscopes, etc and set up a physical bench in USA.)
We can ask PhysicsProf to set up a separate thread at his bench. Or if you prefer, use the debate forum where Harvey was the moderator. I prefer using PhysicsProf as Moderator as There will be Physics equations.
A proper scientific debate will benefit all. Amen.
-
MH, it's not worth your time, just ignore him.
-
I glossed over the lengthy article and I didn't see any mention of temperature. In my JTs I always see a fairly wide range of frequencies, influenced largely by the temperature. I can see the frequency change just by putting my fingers on the transistor, or by blowing on the circuit. And if I have just soldered a joint or handled the circuit and it is warm, when the circuit is put down and cools off and power is applied the frequency will change quite a bit.
Try it and you should have the same experience. But to see the changes, you should monitor these frequency changes over a shorter period, such as every second or five seconds. Due to the lack of any tuned circuit, the frequency changes seem to make little or no difference in the performance.
Also, one has to remember that since the output is a constant string of pulses, the waveform actually consists of many waves each having its own frequency. Thanks go to Mr. Fourier for that observation.
-
MH, it's not worth your time, just ignore him.
Is MH the type who chickens out when faced with a real scientific challenge?
He seems to have very strong conviction that he is right. Is that conviction based on scientific knowledge?
-
Whom and what are you talking about?
Ordinary technical inventions, or real discoveries and progress in ideas and human knowledge?
...
The important point is: we see that all come from academic institutions, universities or high school, the most of these institutions being prestigious.
...
Those institutions in earlier times were perhaps better
able to prepare fertile minds for the learning process.
When does real learning and the acquisition of experience
begin? Whatever is absorbed within the confines of the
"institution" is merely preparatory.
Most truly ingenious researchers will admit that discoveries
made are not due to traditional education, but in spite of it...
Where is the credit due? Not to the "institution" or the "degree"
but to the researcher who is sufficiently "rogue" to step beyond
the walls of the box. The mind is a terrible thing to waste.
-
Is MH the type who chickens out when faced with a real scientific challenge?
He seems to have very strong conviction that he is right. Is that conviction based on scientific knowledge?
Real scientific challenge? Sound like real mental retardation on your part, Mr. Tseung. You don't know when to quit do you?
cheers
chrisC
-
Real scientific challenge? Sound like real mental retardation on your part, Mr. Tseung. You don't know when to quit do you?
cheers
chrisC
I'm the moderator of this thread and will not tolerate further ad hominems, like this one from ChrisC --
"sound like real mental retartardation on your part, Mr. Tseung"
that is ad hominem, arguing to the man rather than to the science, and ad hominems will not be tolerated. (I retain this one from ChrisC only as a "bad" example.) Please be respectful.
If you need further explanation, pls see the "Rigor without Rancor..." thread on this bench.
-
Lidmotor posted a variation of the basic JT circuit that I find fascinating... and invite comments. His video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FoQWCzfq1w
You will note that he demonstrates (not a theoretical claim alone) that once the resonator rings, he can remove the 20Kohm resistor to the base -- and it keeps going...
From his vid, I extracted the schematic (attached).
I did a replication using an MPSA06 transistor, 17Kohm R, red LED. And three different tries at an inductor. No success yet in lighting the LED. Any ideas? Does anyone know on which forum this is being discussed also?
It may be that one needs to use an air-core inductor and movable core -- and "tune" it in... I haven't tried that yet.
I found the short across the diode to be very strange. -- but this from comments on the vid:
#
Hey, Lid is the diode really shorted as shown in the diagram ?
PoirierMike 1 day ago
#
@PoirierMike ----Yes. You wouldn't think that it would work that way but it does. Usually there are one or two small switching diodes in series there also. We got this idea from Dr. Stiffler who uses this arrangement on his circuits.
-
Measuring or Comparing the Sound Wave Energy
@PhysicsProf,
At this moment in time, I am not interested in the absolute Input or Output energy of the Sound waves. I am only interested in the comparison. The first comparison is the following:
1. A tuning fork on a resonance box is struck with the provided hammer alone. A speaker connected to an oscilloscope can be placed at a known and fixed distance. The waveform and the amplitude of the voltage can be measured and recorded. The duration of the sound can also be recorded by a stop watch (or if the scope can capture the waveform for a few minutes, which will be ideal.). Alternatively a Recorder or Video Camera can be used.
2. This result is then compared with placing another identical tuning fork next to the first one. The usual configuration is for the open ends of the resonance boxes facing each other. The first tuning fork is again struck with the speaker at the same known and fixed distance. The waveform, the amplitude and the duration of the voltage can be measured and recorded.
3. The result of these two tests is then compared. There may be some doubt on the exact force used to strike the first tuning fork. So the result can be averaged over a number of tries by the same experimenter.
4. If you can get hold of more identical tuning forks, you can try to put 3, 4…n and repeat the above three steps. The exact placements of the tuning forks on resonance boxes will be determined by actual experiment. Another academic team in China may have already done that but they are not releasing the results yet.
I hope the description of the experiment is clear. The theoretical part may interest you more. Only Newtonian Mechanics involving the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are used. In other words, I use elastic collisions as the model. Please consider starting a thread for the debate participants and another for the general public. Thank you.
Hope this effort will help to establish the validity of “resonance bringing-in environmental energy” faster. We do not need to rely on Nuclear Reactors and their dangers. Amen.
-
Dear Professor,
You are reversing the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof).
Why should we lead experiments on JT oscillators and not on Colpitts oscillators or whatever else?
We lead experiments either because we have a theory to check, or to confirm anomalous results that puzzled us.
Then what are the objective elements about the JT circuit, that should trigger the need of experiments?
It was my previous question and nobody replied.
If you will refer to my first TWO POSTS of this thread, you will see that I presented "anomalous results" that puzzle me and are the basis of starting this thread and pursuing the JT-type circuit. The observation of a measured n = 113% I consider anomalous (don't you?)
I am certainly not ruling out other approaches -- as you see in the other thread on this bench ("Rigor without Rancor..." thread) which lists several devices I would like to study, because of "anomalous results" claimed there.
@Lawrence -- I would like to test the tuning fork experiment you propose -- but only if you can propose a means of quantitatively measuring the energy (or power) outputs involved -- hopefully you have thought of a means to measure?
I have given this some thought -- I found a digital sound-level meter on sale at PartsExpress for $19.88. That's a start.
I should leave it to you to propose the experiment that would demonstrate the effect you claim or suggest.
For example, would you use an echo chamber, or an anechoic chamber? I probably have access to both types at the university.
Added: LT, I see that you have written while I was composing this post; I will digest what you wrote and get back later... gotta run, gone several hours.
-
I'm the moderator of this thread and will not tolerate further ad hominems, like this one from ChrisC --
that is ad hominem, arguing to the man rather than to the science, and ad hominems will not be tolerated. (I retain this one from ChrisC only as a "bad" example.) Please be respectful.
If you need further explanation, pls see the "Rigor without Rancor..." thread on this bench.
Well, I better be careful. This is a really important scientific thread, might even yield O.U under the proper medical conditions!
It's good that a real Physics Professor is learning about electronics and learning to use a DSO. Who knows, pigs might fly too!
cheers
chrisC
-
Lidmotor posted a variation of the basic JT circuit that I find fascinating... and invite comments. His video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FoQWCzfq1w
You will note that he demonstrates (not a theoretical claim alone) that once the resonator rings, he can remove the 20Kohm resistor to the base -- and it keeps going...
From his vid, I extracted the schematic (attached).
I did a replication using an MPSA06 transistor, 17Kohm R, red LED. And three different tries at an inductor. No success yet in lighting the LED. Any ideas? Does anyone know on which forum this is being discussed also?
It may be that one needs to use an air-core inductor and movable core -- and "tune" it in... I haven't tried that yet.
I found the short across the diode to be very strange. -- but this from comments on the vid:
The following thread is related to Joule Thief variants. Lidmotor & slayer007 are both posting there...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-10.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-10.html)
-
It appears as though someone has been changing the title of the posts when they reply. Please refrain fromm doing that as it makes it appear that there are two different threads, when in fact they are the same one.
.99
-
Interesting...
Slayer circuit 12 v 1m A Simply the Best
http://img534.imageshack.us/i/6rx.mp4/ (http://img534.imageshack.us/i/6rx.mp4/)
Forum link: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-55.html#post134504 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-55.html#post134504)
-
Interesting...
Slayer circuit 12 v 1m A Simply the Best
http://img534.imageshack.us/i/6rx.mp4/ (http://img534.imageshack.us/i/6rx.mp4/)
Forum link: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-55.html#post134504 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-55.html#post134504)
Duff -- thanks for the links, I looked at them. However -- I would appreciate a schematic and some words to explain how to do what is shown in the video, or how to get a basic slayer-circuit to resonate and get started.
I echo the request of Skywatcher at the above thread, in response to that same vid:
Hi totoalas, thanks for the informationa and pic.
I'm having trouble getting much of anything out of mine, could you give all the details of your setup if you please, thanks.
My L2 coil is on a 1-3/8" diameter tube at 4" long.
L2 coil is 18 gauge at 22 turns at 300 milliohms.
L1 coil is 24 gauge at 2 ohms.
tried mpsa92, tip42, 2n3906 transistors.
I have 6 yellow leds in series off one AV plug leg and another 6 leds off the other and they are about 50% of full brightness.
When using 12 volts and the smaller transistors i can slide L2 to a position where there is tolerable heat in transistor, though output isn't great.
Maybe i need to use smaller gauge for L2, or smaller for L1, any help appreciated.
\
What is the basic schematic here? for starters... I haven't had chance to read the whole thread over at that forum...
-
The 'strange' mode of operation is no less explainable in physical terms than the normal mode. Just because it is strange does not mean that it does not obey the laws of physics. The experimenter's inability to account for its strange operation is due to his lack of understanding.
Strangeness does not mean the experimenter should attempt to incorporate it into a circuit design.
-
If you will refer to my first TWO POSTS of this thread, you will see that I presented "anomalous results" that puzzle me and are the basis of starting this thread and pursuing the JT-type circuit. The observation of a measured n = 113% I consider anomalous (don't you?)
I am certainly not ruling out other approaches -- as you see in the other thread on this bench ("Rigor without Rancor..." thread) which lists several devices I would like to study, because of "anomalous results" claimed there.
...
113% is not much, an error can come either from the measurement itself (in JT circuits, there are many underlying phenomena) or from the evaluation of the measurement accuracy. Is it enough to trigger the curiosity of others? Perhaps yes or no. Isn't your alert premature? Such anomalies happened also in some of my own experiments, for example when I was trying to recover the energy from back emf, and after carefully verifying the measures, they were explainable. Another way was for me to try to loop the circuit, and by doing so, I have always found where the mistake came from.
Nevertheless I agree that you are right with the method. You saw anomalous results and you informed us about the fact, for verification or further experimentation. So forgive me about my previous post, I have no more objection, we are on this forum for this goal.
-
Nevertheless I agree that you are right with the method. You saw anomalous results and you informed us about the fact, for verification or further experimentation. So forgive me about my previous post, I have no more objection, we are on this forum for this goal.
To tell the truth, I might have proceeded with my experiments even without your approval, exnihiloest ("out of nothing"?)... :) But thanks.
"
Strangeness does not mean the experimenter should attempt to incorporate it into a circuit design." -- acmefixer
When "strangeness" (see my first two posts) possibly correlates with n>1, then this experimenter will certainly seek to incorporate it into circuit design.
Today I will get back to the Tek 3032 for further tests. Will report the results here, whatever they are, but it is likely to take a few days since will be on the road after the tests.
-
@all
It's unfortunate this thread has been slightly derailed by armchair physicists, but I've made my thoughts known about the purpose and agenda of detractors, disinformers, charlatans, and others.
I did some further experiments, namely with battery voltage vs frequency, and the correlation was present but not compelling. I will calculate the correlation coefficient, and post it. But to be honest, I am more interested in other basic research, which I think will yield higher correlation coefficients.
@acmefixer
I glossed over the lengthy article and I didn't see any mention of temperature.
-acmefixer
Good idea. Thank you.
Try it and you should have the same experience. But to see the changes, you should monitor these frequency changes over a shorter period, such as every second or five seconds. Due to the lack of any tuned circuit, the frequency changes seem to make little or no difference in the performance
-acmefixer
.
There is little variation , at least in my 7khz trifilar joule thief, of the frequency over short periods. Furthermore, I can only take data as fast as I can write (no digital capability on this scope unless I connect to the serial port). In any case, from my observations, the 'noise' (frequency fluctuation) at the 1second scale is at least one order of magnitude lower than the noise at the 10 second scale. The highest resolution I could get would probably be around 1second if I collect data via the serial port or a video camera.
Also, one has to remember that since the output is a constant string of pulses, the waveform actually consists of many waves each having its own frequency. Thanks go to Mr. Fourier for that observation.
-acmefixer
Indeed it does, there are always harmonics, but there is also a fundamental frequency. Are you arguing I'm not observing the fundamental frequency? Or just that there are an infinite series of harmonics above where I'm looking? Thanks
If you will refer to my first TWO POSTS of this thread, you will see that I presented "anomalous results" that puzzle me and are the basis of starting this thread and pursuing the JT-type circuit. The observation of a measured n = 113% I consider anomalous (don't you?)
-PhysicsProf
Absolutely PhysicsProf. Just ignore those who's purpose here is to derail research. This sort of basic R&D has tons of benefits, not limited to
-validating / invalidating 'official knowledge' (book knowledge)
-acquisition of relevant electronic components
-acquisition of relevant test equipment
-experience with test methodology
-experience with replication / replication speed and ability
-evaluation / classification of anomalies and/or potential OU conditions
-provide pool of basic research upon which to draw from
Anyone who's experimented with circuits long enough knows that sometimes really anomalous behavior can occur, and often these are related to conditions not predicted by conventional theory . We are also considering anomalies that may be caused by OU (overunity) conditions. For anyone who thinks this is impossible, then quit wasting your breath by posting here.
@all
I can only do experiments involving a single-channel scope and frequency counter at the moment (I need to purchase a four channel scope sometime in the near future), so for now, here are some future experiments I am considering to contribute to some basic research about this circuit.
On the agenda for Joule Thief:
Frequency vs Temperature
Frequency vs Voltage
Frequency vs Battery Capacitance
Frequency vs Battery Resistance
Frequency vs Time
Waveform vs Output Resistance
Waveform vs Output Configuration (diode or not)
Waveform vs Load
Output Configuration (diode or not) vs Current Draw
Output Resistance vs Current Draw
Cheers,
Feynman
-
@PhysicsProf
I noticed the thread duff linked to (the lidmotor thread on Energetic Forums) has the subject "SEC Exciter and other Variants"
I actually have about 5 or 6 original SEC Exciters that I purchased several years ago from Dr Stiffler. You can google his information, and the associated electromagnetic anomalies. These are the original boards Dr Stiffler was sending out a few years back to anyone interested in research and replication. They are PCB boards and the coil inductance is already tuned etc. I've tested them and they work.
SEC Exciter Resources:
Stiffler Cold Electricity Circuit (PESWiki) (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Stiffler_Cold_Electricity_Circuit)
SEC Exciter Hydrogen Production (PESWiki) (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Dr._Stiffler%27s_Spatial_Energy_Coherence_%28SEC%29_Exciter_Hydrogen_Production_via_Diodes)
Example blog of a replicator of SEC Exiters (http://creatorguy.com/)
Dr Stiffler's official site (www.stifflerscientific.com) (http://www.stifflerscientific.com/)
SEC Exciter Official Order Page (http://67.76.235.52/SEC18_1.htm)
My SEC Exciter boards are prior to March 2011, probably more like March 2007 or March 2008 or so.
The SEC Exciters oscillate in the megahertz range, provide one-wire power and other interesting behavior. They may have something to do with longitudinal EM, but I haven't gotten that far. I only recently moved all my research gear out of storage.
PhysicsProf, I will be happy to part with a couple of these SEC Exciter boards for free -- so just PM me. The same goes for anyone here doing actual research and publishing public results -- I will be willing to part with an SEC Exciter, I probably can give away 3 of them.
They look like this
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KvkJLREs7Oo/0.jpg)
-Feynman
-
To tell the truth, I might have proceeded with my experiments even without your approval, exnihiloest ("out of nothing"?)... :) But thanks.
...
Of course every one acts like he wants, my point was certainly not to play censor. Similarly an objection such mine about the relevance of a method, must also be possibly expressed. At times when free speech was not so easy as today, a French philosophe said: "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it". I share Voltaire's disposition.
Yes, "out of nothing"! Here is the proof:
0: nothing, 1: something. 0 = 1 - 1 . Extract 1 and -1 from 0, and you win! Ex nihilo... est! ;)
-
Lawrence:
Will you be willing to have a scientific debate at the bench of a real Physics Professor. PhysicsProf can be the moderator. All he needs to do is to verify that every single equation I use is correct in Newtonian Mechanics.
The first debate will be on:
The two tuning fork in resonance experiments done in all Physics Courses do produce a louder and longer sound experimentally. The theoretical explanation is that the first vibrating tuning fork produces a pulsing order motion of the molecules. This pulsing order can do useful work (such as exciting or pulse-pushing other tuning forks). The energy to do such work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
If you want to start a thread I am willing. However, I have already stated that it's almost impossible to make the measurements to confirm or deny that your tuning fork experiment can produce over unity. You did not reply. If you can propose a way to make the measurements then we have something to talk about.
About kinetic energy from air molecules: I saw a diagram from you about that, can you give me the link for that? At risk of repeating myself, you cannot extract energy from random motion.
Feynman:
It's unfortunate this thread has been slightly derailed by armchair physicists, but I've made my thoughts known about the purpose and agenda of detractors, disinformers, charlatans, and others.
The thread is healthy because both sides of an argument are being debated. I am not a detractor, disinformer, or charlatan nor do I have an agenda. I am just interested in the truth and having some fun.
You have already read several astute and thoughtful technical comments from me to some of your postings and you ignore them. Try "breaking on through to the other side" and expanding your horizons.
I have a question for you: How do you know if you are looking at scalar waves or longitudinal waves?
Anyone who's experimented with circuits long enough knows that sometimes really anomalous behavior can occur, and often these are related to conditions not predicted by conventional theory.
I know that you would like to believe that. It makes it seem that you have "edge" and are really doing some hot shit. Unfortunately it's not true. I can almost guarantee you that everything that you claim you observe that is "not predicted by conventional theory" is in fact 100% conventional and predicted by theory. It's simply due to your ignorance, and I am not saying that in a pejorative way. The issue is do you Feynman have the character to open your mind and listen to what others have to say when they explain the phenomena to you. Are you willing to try to get up the learning curve or will you persist in claiming that you are on the "cutting edge?" You can use this forum to learn and grow or you can put your wagons in a circle and be in your own little alternative world. It's all up to you.
MileHigh
-
Feynman:
On the agenda for Joule Thief:
Frequency vs Temperature
Frequency vs Voltage
Frequency vs Battery Capacitance
Frequency vs Battery Resistance
Frequency vs Time
Waveform vs Output Resistance
Waveform vs Output Configuration (diode or not)
Waveform vs Load
Output Configuration (diode or not) vs Current Draw
Output Resistance vs Current Draw
I also suggested that you try looking at the Joule Thief output for three different load resistors instead of using a potentiometer. The reason I suggested that to you is because it allows you to deduce some things about a discharging inductor. Both the Joule Thief and the Bedini motor are excellent examples of a discharging inductor in action.
So I have a challenge for you Feynman: Can you write a two or three paragraph description about how a discharging inductor works? What are the salient points and what about different loads? Can you articulate that to enlighten everyone reading this thread?
Here is the big kicker behind that question: Probably 95% of the free energy experimenters that work with coils don't understand how an inductor works. I know that sounds crazy but it's true. I am almost sure that you fall within that 95% grouping.
Now, don't you think that something is out of whack when people researching free energy with coils and coils and coils don't really understand how they work? What is the point of working with circuits and playing with scopes and multimeters when you don't understand how the basic building blocks that you are experimenting with work, especially since you may be using them on a daily basis?
So again Feynman, can you write out three paragraphs that will explain how an inductor works? This is a reality check for you, perhaps a time to do some soul-searching.
There is no point in you continuing on with your experimenting if you don't have a fundamental understanding about how coils work.
MileHigh
-
...
There is no point in you continuing on with your experimenting
if you don't have a fundamental understanding about how coils
work.
...
This sort of discouragement has been the bane of virtually all
who research the unknown. Fortunately, this expressed
sentiment does little to diminish the researchers' passion to
find answers - in fact it stokes it.
Can you imagine what our world would be like today if all
past researchers had taken this advice to heart?
But then, perhaps that is your real purpose MH - to offer
encouragement in a left-handed sort of way?
I suspect so. People are rarely ever as they seem to be...
"Role playing" is an effective strategy.
-
Dumped:
Call it "tough love." If you have a passion to find answers then your passion to learn should be even stronger. Are the forums a place to exchange ideas and learn or are they just a place for a free-for-all exchange of ideas where anything goes? Are the forums a place for a thousand monkeys to bang on typewrites in an attempt to produce a coherent sentence or do you want to make them become more than that? Are these places just an adult electronics sandbox where people play like children with pink and blue plastic shovels?
For you to take offense and label my comments discouragement is just the wrong way of looking at things. If you play with coils and talk about pulsing them day in and day out you sure as hell should understand how they work. It's politically incorrect in the extreme on the forums to say these things. It's an unwritten code that you can't discuss this. Know what the end result is? The end result is Aaron Murakami in 2009 trying to do an Ainslie replication where it was obvious that he had no clue what he was doing. He had no understanding about how an inductor works and he was not even competent enough to operate his oscilloscope. This represented 10 years worth of intellectual stagnation on his part, the amount of time he was in the "free energy game" by then.
So you had better believe it that Feynman and others should understand how an inductor works. Self-honesty is so unbelievably difficult around these forums. I find the whole thing bizarre.
Look at the example of Rosemary Ainslie. Perhaps a half-dozen people in the past few weeks have told her that her battery output power measurement is suspect. She brushes it off. Part of the reason that she brushes it off is because the vast majority of the "free energy masses" will say nothing and be mute like such good sheep. Some of them will offer her blind encouragement ignoring the serious issues raised about her measurement techniques.
So I would like to see if Feynman understands how a discharging inductor works. I will help him understand it if he doesn't know. Hence the challenge to him. Then there is always the option to ignore the issue and go back to "playing electronics" in the sandbox and marveling at Rosie's big sandcastle.
MileHigh
-
I will help him understand it if he doesn't know.
MileHigh
I've seen you emphasized the important of how an inductor works for a while. I'm still much curious on how it works. You must have put a lot of thoughts into it. I'd like to know your thinking. This is how I think it works ( not much of a few paragraphs... probably why I always get bad grades on essays ;D ).
We put x amount of energy into an inductor call it 1/2 Li^2 . On discharge, we gain 1/2 Li^2.
Thanks
-
@GibbsHelmholtz
I've seen you emphasized the important of how an inductor works for a while. I'm still much curious on how it works. You must have put a lot of thoughts into it. I'd like to know your thinking. This is how I think it works ( not much of a few paragraphs... probably why I always get bad grades on essays ).
We put x amount of energy into an inductor call it 1/2 Li^2 . On discharge, we gain 1/2 Li^2.
I think fundamentally your equations are incomplete, for one we would have to assume the inductor can have no influence nor be influenced by anything external to it, that is according to standard theory the entire universe external to the inductor is irrelevant-- Does this sound logical?. You see it is not the fact that some do not understand how an inductance works it is the fact that some have ignored everything external to it. One would think the fact that we can simply add a small capacitance to the inductance and recieve radio signals would have clued many in or the fact that we can always hear static noise from such a circuit as well, where did this "static" come from?. According to standard theory an inductance and capacitance should do nothing and be lifeless but this is not the case which is odd don't you think?
Regards
AC
-
Lawrence:
If you want to start a thread I am willing. However, I have already stated that it's almost impossible to make the measurements to confirm or deny that your tuning fork experiment can produce over unity. You did not reply. If you can propose a way to make the measurements then we have something to talk about.
About kinetic energy from air molecules: I saw a diagram from you about that, can you give me the link for that? At risk of repeating myself, you cannot extract energy from random motion.
Dear MH,
Thank you for taking up the challenge. I outlined a simple comparison sound energy test on reply 57 on this thread. That simple comparison may not be exact but can be performed anywhere by any University or Organization with common equipment.
In reply 58, PhysicProf suggested that he may be able to use the echo chamber or the anechoic chamber at his University.
Since PhysicsProf may be the moderator, I propose to use his bench where he has the moderator privilege. Another task he may be able to perform is to verify every single equation I quote. Every equation is based on Newtonian Mechanics. Without a Physics Degree, you may not be familiar with every one of them. He would be in a position to verify the correctness of every one of them. He may even be able to quote authoritative academic references.
I shall repost the few important diagrams here. The spreadsheet references are at my bench under the What is New Thread. You may want to examine and play with the spreadsheets first before engaging in the scientific debate.
We can wait for PhysicsProf to set up the threads before the debate. You may also want to find some friends with strong background in Physics, Mathematics or Mechanical Engineering to participate or support you in the debate. I may also have one or two academic supporters.
I plan to remove any “dogma” in this proper scientific debate. Hopefully this single debate will establish the validity of resonance bringing-in surrounding energy. The same theory applies not only to sound but to electrical LCR resonance. This single debate will establish the theoretical solidity of many other claimed OU devices. (e.g. Rosemary, FLEET, Bedini, Adams, Steven Mark, Stan Meyer etc.)
God provided us with almost infinite, pollution free energy surrounding us since creation. Men did not realize that and polluted the Earth with fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. With the Divine Revelations, this will change. Amen.
-
Tough Love can be good.
We are all born with an intense desire to learn.
We want to learn and to do; we each have certain
drives and interests which propel us towards a
desired state of self sufficiency - being able to
provide for ourselves and to look after others.
These natural instincts can however, be altered
and even distorted or twisted. During our formative
years and beyond we are susceptible to "programming"
by authority figures and/or respected superiors.
Consequently, while we are naturally driven to do good,
we can be "programmed" by behavior modification to do
bad; to actually derive intense pleasure from harming
other beings. Programs have long been in place in most
nations of the world to produce behavior modified minions.
But we are all capable of being "programmed" by our daily
exposure to the media, the movies, the "news," our social
environment. As we grow and learn and emulate we are
changed for good or for bad. None of us is exempt.
No, I take no offense at what you, or any others, put forth as
opinions or advice within this forum. It is very interesting to
observe the exchanges and to take note of the styles of
expression; the emotional intensity; the spirit.
Understanding 'coils' and their various properties and capabilities
is evolutionary over a period of time by experimentation. If we
were unable to experiment until we understood all that there is
to know about 'coils' when could we start?
Our 'beginnings' are most often very short in understanding. But
as we progress down the road of discovery we learn how things
work. We adapt, we innovate, we adjust, we share.
For a new twist on 'coils' have a look HERE. (http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Components/Page,locale=en,a=2045254.html)
For a peek at the new, "hardened" high temperature MOSFETs
look HERE. (http://www.globenewswire.com//newsroom/news.html?ref=rss&d=216501)
-
GibbsHelmholtz:
Your answer is too simplistic and there is no gain. Let's see if Feynman who seems to be deeply involved in research can answer the request for a few paragraphs describing how an inductor discharges. A good starting point is with my example for the three different resistor values but that's up to him.
Lawrence:
In your diagram with the multiple tuning forks you are claiming that there is extra energy as if that is a fact. It's not a fact it's your belief. You haven't made any measurements to back up your claim, and it's almost impossible to make the measurements anyways unless you have very sophisticated equipment. You don't have the equipment. Making claims with no solid evidence is very tiring.
With respect to your example of the two balls and the moving piston and the perfectly elastic collisions you are basically claiming conservation of energy. You show an energy gain when you look at the two balls. However, you show that the piston has slowed down. Therefore energy is conserved. So there is no energy gain and the whole point is moot.
Your numbers are also too simplistic. It's actually a tricky problem and I am rusty so I am not sure how to get the final solution. When the B1 ball hits the moving piston the piston slows down and the ball speeds up. After the collision you have two unknowns, the new speed of the B1 ball and the new speed of the piston. We learned in school that if you have two unknowns you need two equations to solve for the two unknowns. You know that momentum has to be conserved and you know that energy has to be conserved. There are your two equations. So I believe this is solvable without having to do a mathematical iteration to arrive at the final solution. It could be an interesting thread in itself.
Anyway, the bottom line is that energy is conserved with your ball-piston example. You even indicate this. So what is the point? There is no excess energy.
MileHigh
-
I think fundamentally your equations are incomplete, for one we would have to assume the inductor can have no influence nor be influenced by anything external to it, that is according to standard theory the entire universe external to the inductor is irrelevant-- Does this sound logical?. You see it is not the fact that some do not understand how an inductance works it is the fact that some have ignored everything external to it. One would think the fact that we can simply add a small capacitance to the inductance and recieve radio signals would have clued many in or the fact that we can always hear static noise from such a circuit as well, where did this "static" come from?. According to standard theory an inductance and capacitance should do nothing and be lifeless but this is not the case which is odd don't you think?
Regards
AC
You've set the boundary condition with the universe. The situation has then changed to an open system. It does makes sense, but I'm more concern with something even more...fundamental. Suppose my questions are
1/ How much energy required to charge an inductor to 1/2Li^2.
2/ How much energy can be gain from 1/2Li^2.
Or let me rephrase it in Newtonian equilvalent
1/ How much energy does it takes to cause a mass M to velocity V from relative rest position.
2/ How much energy can we gain from stopping mass M with velocity V to its relative rest.
Simple, don't you think? ;D
-
@GibbsHelmholtz
You've set the boundary condition with the universe. The situation has then changed to an open system. It does makes sense, but I'm more concern with something even more...fundamental. Suppose my questions are
I'm not sure that the situation has changed to an open system simply because a closed system would imply that the inductance has been isolated from all other forms of energy which seems unlikely to say the least.
1/ How much energy required to charge an inductor to 1/2Li^2.
This question sounds easy but I find it very difficult, :D, first the term "energy" is not defined and can take any known form, second the term "charge" is misleading as the inductor is already charged as neutralized charges which is matter, free electrons having a negative field associated with them and any surface charge, a potential, relative to the environment. We should also consider that we do not "charge" an inductor as it is commonly understood, we produce an imbalance of the distribution of pre-existing charges across an inductor which we call a potential difference or voltage. As such when we move our hand near an inductor we have "charged" it because our body has a positive charge due to our environment and this surface charge induces a charge imbalance across the inductor. However under the extremely limited confines of the popular understanding of "charging" a completely isolated inductor from a completely isolated source, that is a source having a charge density imbalance and this imbalance applied across an inductor, then the energy loss of the source equals the energy gain of the inductor minus any energy which has been transformed into another form, energy is conserved locally.
2/ How much energy can be gain from 1/2Li^2.
First I would state that we cannot gain energy from an equation, 1/2Li^2, an equation is simply numbers and signs which represent conditions(phenomena) or measures as they usually relate to one another due to interactions. I tend to practice fundamental physics which is a little different, for example Voltage is not something it is a measure of something, it is a measure of the imbalance or differential charge density between two singular points. The charge density is not something it is a measure of something, that is the distribution of particles having field properties intrinsic to them, we should never confuse a measure of something with tangible things because this obviously leads to a great deal of confusion :D. As such I am not overly pre-occupied with simple equations, terminology or measures of things and concentrate on particles, their fields and the field interactions. So to answer your question, how much energy can a discharging inductor gain?, it would depend on how much energy it had initially prior to charging, the extent of interactions as well as the extent of interaction with it's environment.
Or let me rephrase it in Newtonian equilvalent
1/ How much energy does it takes to cause a mass M to velocity V from relative rest position.
2/ How much energy can we gain from stopping mass M with velocity V to its relative rest
This may be where our perceptions diverge, if you want to compare the property of inductance to a simple mass then the result will probably be exactly what one would expect however I look past this down to the fundamental interactions between particles and fields where things are seldom so cut and dry. Here is an example, take the inductor and add enough "energy" to have the material undergo nuclear fusion which liberates energy inherent in the matter stored from reactions which occured billions of billions of years ago in another part of the universe, how do these interactions relate to a simple mass M at a velocity of V?. You see the form of the energy input to the inductor was never defined nor was the magnitude and when these variables change we should expect our outcome to change as well, this is why I usually ignore the more simplistic "popular" understanding of things and concentrate on fundamental physics. I understand this example is a little extreme but I have found more than a few cases whereby a simple coil of wire can interact with it's environment and produce an energy gain but the devil is always in the details.
Regards
AC
-
:) Take it easy AC.
-
Good comments, will require digesting on my part.
This from Dumped was particularly insightful IMO, as was the url pointed to:
Our 'beginnings' are most often very short in understanding. But
as we progress down the road of discovery we learn how things
work. We adapt, we innovate, we adjust, we share.
For a new twist on 'coils' have a look HERE.
A few days ago, I was able to spend some time with the Tektronix 3032 and several variations on the basic JT circuit. Measuring Pout, Pin and n as discussed above, I might summarize n values to show the spread in values obtained and recorded:
n = .81, .52,.59, .63, .52, .35, .45, .80, .13, .77, .61, .79, .88, .62, .94, .99, .92, 1.0, .69, 1.06
So yes, there were some "interesting values", though I would say the last value is still consistent with unity (given the +-3% errors as previously stated, 2 sigma).
In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken, and the importance of simulations AS A WAY OF CHECKING THE MEASUREMENT METHOD, for example where the probes are attached. Also, if there is an input of power in the circuit somewhere (and somehow) -- just how will this show up? as an increase in current at some point, or an increase in voltage along a path? I think the latter, from observations, but all this has to be checked -- and then re-checked.
I believe simulations will help in this effort of re-checking.
This issue is so important that I propose to come back to this tomorrow on another thread I'll start -- "Measuring Pin, Pout, n -- Simulations etc."
-
In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken, and the importance of simulations AS A WAY OF CHECKING THE MEASUREMENT METHOD, for example where the probes are attached. Also, if there is an input of power in the circuit somewhere (and somehow) -- just how will this show up? as an increase in current at some point, or an increase in voltage along a path? I think the latter, from observations, but all this has to be checked -- and then re-checked.
I believe simulations will help in this effort of re-checking.
This issue is so important that I propose to come back to this tomorrow on another thread I'll start -- "Measuring Pin, Pout, n -- Simulations etc."
Sounds like a very good plan Professor. O0 I'll help out where I can.
One thing I will suggest, is that you try the RC filter/two-DVM method for obtaining a Pin figure. I will draw up an amendment to the schematic to show exactly how to do it. This will not only provide you with another method to obtain Pin, but a way of checking your scope Pin measurements. If you do not have two DMM's (digital multi-meters), you can buy them quite cheaply. As a bonus to this method, not only is it inexpensive, accurate, and accessible (not requiring a scope channel), it allows more freedom as to where and how the Pout can be measured, because there is no longer a common ground between the two measurements, i.e. the scope grounds always limit this flexibility. The Pin measurement is essentially "floating" wrt the scope ground.
.99
-
Hi all,
i did some experimenting on the "groundloop special" aka the Hartley osc. circuit. The overall the results are not very impressive.
As i have no rocksolid method of determining the efficiency (n) of this circuit i should be carefull, but via severall methods, the "n" was in the 42% range.
Peak voltages are high (up till 10 Vpp), but it drops fast when putting a load (led) on the output.
I also tried a joule thief as a load to this GL circuit, but allthough it was able to run this JT, the input power into the JT (= output power from GL circuit) dropped to 800mV.
Also the added L3 coil and the feedback to the battery did not improve the overall "n".
It seems that the resonance of the L3 coil (i tried severall) does not have a big impact on the frequency this circuit oscillates on, nor does the feedback diode to the battery seem to prolong the discharge time.
Well anyway, it was fun experimenting with it, but i will continue looking into the LTJT2 circuit now.
Video of the above experiments to be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntFxscwi00
Regards Itsu.
-
I enjoyed your latest video, Itsu, and your comments. I have some results on the same circuit, with different values tho for components, here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=773.msg12313#new
I have found that this circuit is particularly sensitive to the L of each coil...
Also, I raise several questions there, and .99 has provided particularly helpful input.
-
In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken
-PhysicsProf
Absolutely. That 1.06 figure is interesting, but within the range of error, as you mentioned. Bolt has said that a carefully tuned JT can get over 100% COP, but not much above that. I do not know if that claim is accurate or not, but I absolutely respect Bolt's abilities. So this may in fact be true, that a carefully tuned JT can exceed COP=1. I suppose that's why we are here experimenting. I am curious as to whether your COP=1.13 figure was a measurement anomaly or not, as it's outside that +/- 3%error range.
Was there any significant waveform difference between the COP=1.06 / COP=1.13 figure and the others? For example, maybe this have something to do with the voltage/current phase of the circuit's self-oscillation.
One thing that is occurring to me lately, is that for any 'method' that provides COP>1 (which I believe there are several existing already, for example HHO into a generator) must provide higher than about COP>2.0 or COP>2.5 to become an effective self-runner , due to inherent conversion losses (rectification, etc) as well as losses due to heat, leakage flux, etc .
My ultimate goal is to open-source a solid-state self-running circuit , and I'm not sure JT will be able to provide this level of performance. It is useful however, for basic research , due to its simplicity and easy replication.
Overall Plan:
Currently, I'm experimenting with electromagnets (and experimental behavior of ferrite in near-saturation and saturation states), as well as behavior of a pulsed electromagnet in the higher-voltage range (63V DC or so). I built a 555 PWM circuit over the weekend, which can provide simple pulsed DC for a variety of experiments in the range of 200hz - 2khz.
I'm also winding an electromagnet on ferrite with 26/28 AWG magnet wire, but this takes forever , due to the wait for the superglue to set (each 8 winds takes about 5 minutes). So this is a bit tedious, but I think it will be worth it due to the experience gained in craftsmanship.
JT Plan:
I may try to do another JT circuit this week as I wait for these electromagnet windings to set, though I'm curious as to the most important information that would be useful for basic research in JT circuit / blocking oscillator.
I think circuit resistance / capacitance / inductance vs frequency might be a good bet, as with the equipment I have now I can confirm (or disprove) the formula provided on Wikipedia. Sometimes Wikipedia can be a very good source of information, but other times it can be a source of profound disinformation and error, so I think it would be useful to try to verify some of the 'official knowledge' regarding Joule Thief via experiment.
The oscillating frequency (in Hz) is approximately equal to the battery (or source) voltage (in volts) multiplied by the battery's Thévenin-equivalent resistance (or output impedance) (in ohms), divided by the transformer's mutual inductance (in Henrys).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief)
Is the above claim accurate? This might be a good place to start.
According to Wikipedia,
JT_osc_hz = V_battery * R_battery
---------------------
T_mutual_inductance
V_battery = Battery Voltage
R_battery = Battery's Thevenin Equiv. Resistance (aka Output Impedence)
T_mutual_inductance = F0 = (Vs*Rs) / Lm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/7/e/a7ef61835488877d44645c140cdb459f.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief)
Knowing whether this Wikipedia article (specifically, the oscillation formula) is 'accurate' (aka. experimentally predictive) or not might be the best way I can contribute for the time being.
-
Absolutely. That 1.06 figure is interesting, but within the range of error, as you mentioned. Bolt has said that a carefully tuned JT can get over 100% COP, but not much above that. I do not know if that claim is accurate or not, but I absolutely respect Bolt's abilities. So this may in fact be true, that a carefully tuned JT can exceed COP=1. I suppose that's why we are here experimenting. I am curious as to whether your COP=1.13 figure was a measurement anomaly or not, as it's outside that +/- 3%error range.
Was there any significant waveform difference between the COP=1.06 / COP=1.13 figure and the others? For example, maybe this have something to do with the voltage/current phase of the circuit's self-oscillation.
One thing that is occurring to me lately, is that for any 'method' that provides COP>1 (which I believe there are several existing already, for example HHO into a generator) must provide higher than about COP>2.0 or COP>2.5 to become an effective self-runner , due to inherent conversion losses (rectification, etc) as well as losses due to heat, leakage flux, etc .
My ultimate goal is to open-source a solid-state self-running circuit , and I'm not sure JT will be able to provide this level of performance. It is useful however, for basic research , due to its simplicity and easy replication.
The 1.13 was obtained with a JT circuit that somehow got into a mode where there was a significant out-of-phase relationship between output voltage and current, as described very early in this thread. The 1.06 was obtained with the reverse-JT (inductors on the output side of the transistor), described in another thread regarding measurement of n, and again with that result, there was a significant out-of-phase (OOP) relationship between output voltage and current... I have found that CAPACITANCE added to the circuit has this effect generally of producing the OOP, and I note that the inductors themselves have capacitance -- which is dependent on the frequency...
Feynman:
Overall Plan:
Currently, I'm experimenting with electromagnets (and experimental behavior of ferrite in near-saturation and saturation states), as well as behavior of a pulsed electromagnet in the higher-voltage range (63V DC or so). I built a 555 PWM circuit over the weekend, which can provide simple pulsed DC for a variety of experiments in the range of 200hz - 2khz.
I'm also winding an electromagnet on ferrite with 26/28 AWG magnet wire, but this takes forever , due to the wait for the superglue to set (each 8 winds takes about 5 minutes). So this is a bit tedious, but I think it will be worth it due to the experience gained in craftsmanship.
JT Plan:
I may try to do another JT circuit this week as I wait for these electromagnet windings to set, though I'm curious as to the most important information that would be useful for basic research in JT circuit / blocking oscillator.
I think circuit resistance / capacitance / inductance vs frequency might be a good bet, as with the equipment I have now I can confirm (or disprove) the formula provided on Wikipedia. Sometimes Wikipedia can be a very good source of information, but other times it can be a source of profound disinformation and error, so I think it would be useful to try to verify some of the 'official knowledge' regarding Joule Thief via experiment.
Is the above claim accurate? This might be a good place to start.
According to Wikipedia,
Knowing whether this Wikipedia article (specifically, the oscillation formula) is 'accurate' (aka. experimentally predictive) or not might be the best way I can contribute for the time being.
We've talked about the formula in Wikipedia, and I found it was not accurate. I've done some further checking this morning with a simple JT circuit, no caps added, MPS2222 transistor, 500 ohms R to base. Here are the data I obtained using a power supply to vary the input voltage:
Vin V Frequency KHz
0.49V 625
0.56 363
0.61 282
0.78 182
0.91 150
1.00 135
1.1 122
1.15 118 = minimum frequency, found using the scope to catch f-min
1.27 123
1.35 133
1.45 147
Strikingly, the frequency DECREASES with increasing Vin from 0.49 to 1.15 volts in (for this particular set of parameters), contrary to the prediction of the formula in Wikipedia -- then the frequency goes up again.
-
@PhysicsProf
The [COP=]1.06 was obtained with the reverse-JT (inductors on the output side of the transistor)
-PhysicsProf
Interesting... so it seems there is (for now) no significant energetic benefit to using Reverse JT over a regular JT for testing.
The 1.13 was obtained with a JT circuit that somehow got into a mode where there was a significant out-of-phase relationship between output voltage and current, ...
there was a significant out-of-phase (OOP) relationship between output voltage and current...
-PhysicsProf
Okay, so I think we can infer the OOP condition is somehow critical to these anomalous COP>1 values. It's happened multiple times now. This is good becomes it gives us someplace to look.
(http://I have found that CAPACITANCE added to the circuit has this effect generally of producing the OOP)
Where did you add the capacitance , and in what ball-park (pF, nF, uF?)?
Thanks,
Feynman
-
@PhysicsProf
Interesting... so it seems there is (for now) no significant energetic benefit to using Reverse JT over a regular JT for testing.
Okay, so I think we can infer the OOP condition is somehow critical to these anomalous COP>1 values. It's happened multiple times now. This is good becomes it gives us someplace to look.
(http://I have found that CAPACITANCE added to the circuit has this effect generally of producing the OOP)
Where did you add the capacitance , and in what ball-park (pF, nF, uF?)?
Thanks,
Feynman
Good questions. In testing the JT circuit, I added capacitance parallel to the L1 coil, also parallel to the L2 coil. I have tried 1, 10, 100 nF in tests. Note that these coils THEMSELVES have some capacitance, which is frequency-dependent interestingly. I will be doing further tests at the University in the next few days and plan to report results in this forum.
How is your work going, Feynman? I hope well... kindly point us to links for your work as it goes forward.
-
OK, i retested my JT with the bc547 and the mps2222a transistor, and used both the earlier used 1 ohm input resistor with scope measurements (98.5% see post #24), and the newly proposed Dual DMM method ("Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n"thread post #10).
Results with the 1 ohm-scope method was (multiplying mean V with mean i which seems to be wrong):
Pin: 1.276 x 0.013 = 0.016588 (16.5mW)
Pout: 1.272 x 0.013 = 0.016536
n is (0.016536/0.016588)100% = 99.6%
Results with the dual DMM method:
Pin: 1.3 x 0.008 = 0.0104 (10.4mW)
Pout: no way to measure using a 1 ohm output resistor as the Mean value fluctuates to much
But we see already a significant difference in the Pin measured with the 1 ohm r/scope method compared to the Dual DMM method (16.5mW verses 10.4mW).
Similar results where obtained when using a MPS2222a transistor:
result with 1 ohm-scope (wrong):
Pin: 1.275 x 0.011 = 0.014025 (14mW)
Pout: 1.261 x 0.011 = 0.013871
n is (0.013871/0.014025)100% = 98.9%
Results with the dual DMM method:
Pin: 1.303 x 0.0082 = 0.0106846 (10.6mW)
Pout: no way to measure using a 1 ohm output resistor as the Mean value fluctuates to much.
Also here big difference in the 2 used input measurement methods.
See the attachments on the used measurements methods.
Waiting for a clever way to accurately measure both Pin as Pout.
Regards Itsu
-
Itsu,
I wonder if you have some offset in your scope channels? This might explain the discrepancy between the DDMM method, and the scope method.
Try this test on your scope:
1) connect the scope ground lead to the probe tip. Set the time base to 1ms or so.
2) set the vertical gain on that channel to the highest setting (i.e. most sensitive).
3) move the zero reference tick (left cursor) to the center line on the display and note what the offset is on the scope trace.
.99
-
Poynt99,
i am impressed, as indeed my channel 1 probe had a (slight) offset.
It came out clearly with the method mentioned (Hor. 1mS, vert. 2mV) as it was half a div. down (1mV).
After auto calibrate it was solved.
Now i have to redo my tests :-\
Regards Itsu
-
Itsu,
I was hoping it might be more on the order of 5mV or so, to make up for the difference between the scope and the DMM. Not to say that the DMM is perfect either.
Cheers,
.99
-
PhysicsProf:
We've talked about the formula in Wikipedia, and I found it was not accurate. I've done some further checking this morning with a simple JT circuit, no caps added, MPS2222 transistor, 500 ohms R to base. Here are the data I obtained using a power supply to vary the input voltage:
Vin V Frequency KHz
0.49V 625
0.56 363
0.61 282
0.78 182
0.91 150
1.00 135
1.1 122
1.15 118 = minimum frequency, found using the scope to catch f-min
1.27 123
1.35 133
1.45 147
Strikingly, the frequency DECREASES with increasing Vin from 0.49 to 1.15 volts in (for this particular set of parameters), contrary to the prediction of the formula in Wikipedia -- then the frequency goes up again.
You are missing some key points here. When you are in the sub-one-volt range and looking at the Joule Thief frequency you are outside of the normal voltage range for operating the Joule Thief. The formula probably assumes 1.25 volts and higher. That's because the transistor will operate correctly in this range. Below that supply voltage and you are in a region where the base-collector diode of the transistor may not conduct normally hence the observed frequencies.
The frequency was increasing above 1.25 volts in your observations and that is in line with the formula.
I am also going to assume that you ignored the battery output resistance component of the formula and connected the power supply directly to the Joule Thief. You should put a resistance in series with the power supply output to emulate the output resistance of an AA battery. You would have to look it up but I will hazard a guess that the output resistance for a fresh alkaline AA battery is a few ohms. So you can experiment with a series resistor of that value and higher.
As long as you are in the normal operating voltage range and the normal battery output resistance range you should see that the formula holds true. Note that the formula gives you an approximate frequency and other parameters that have slight effects on the Joule Thief operating frequency are ignored.
MileHigh
-
Somebody else said this as well,
You can not average the current and voltage separately, and then multiply the values together to get average power. No no no.
AVG(I) * AVG(V) not = to AVG(I * V) in all cases.
so even though I endorsed the RC filtering approach before, for the 1 ohm resistor, I realized this is an erroneous approach because the voltage does fluctuate a little bit. If it would be constant than maybe.
EM
-
Somebody else said this as well,
You can not average the current and voltage separately, and then multiply the values together to get average power. No no no.
AVG(I) * AVG(V) not = to AVG(I * V) in all cases.
so even though I endorsed the RC filtering approach before, for the 1 ohm resistor, I realized this is an erroneous approach because the voltage does fluctuate a little bit. If it would be constant than maybe.
EM
I'm well aware of this EMDevices, and I'm not making that mistake. I let the Tek 3032 take V(t)*I(t) giving the power waveform and then it calculates the Mean(V*I) over a number of cycles. Or one cycle if I select that.
MH: The formula probably assumes 1.25 volts and higher.
Then the formula should state what it assumes. I would take a data table like the one I produced EXPERIMENTALLY over a formula like that any day -- because a data table tells me what to expect over a range of input voltages (no guessing at assumptions).
-
Dear PhysicsProf,
Now that I have completed the simple computer model that conclusively showed that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in via two or more tuning forks in resonance.
I can confidently project that:
1. An LCR circuit can be compared with a Tuning Fork.
2. If we need two or more tuning forks to resonate and bring-in energy, we shall need two or more LCR circuits.
3. You have been working on the simple Joule Thief circuit for some time. You did the experiments in a vigorous and scientific way.
4. Now should be a good time to introduce another LCR circuit to see if you can get the two LCR circuits to resonate. (FLEET or LTJT is a possibility.)
5. I believe that the Steven Mark Device is a two LCR circuit in resonance. A Chinese Researcher indicated that he had some luck with that approach. Theoretically, two or more LCR circuits will be closer to the tuning forks in sympathetic vibrations.
I do not have the equipment in USA to check it out yet. You and others may be in a better position to experimentally check it out first.
Regards,
Lawrence
O0
-
Dear PhysicsProf,
Now that I have completed the simple computer model that conclusively showed that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in via two or more tuning forks in resonance.
I can confidently project that:
1. An LCR circuit can be compared with a Tuning Fork.
2. If we need two or more tuning forks to resonate and bring-in energy, we shall need two or more LCR circuits.
3. You have been working on the simple Joule Thief circuit for some time. You did the experiments in a vigorous and scientific way.
4. Now should be a good time to introduce another LCR circuit to see if you can get the two LCR circuits to resonate. (FLEET or LTJT is a possibility.)
5. I believe that the Steven Mark Device is a two LCR circuit in resonance. A Chinese Researcher indicated that he had some luck with that approach. Theoretically, two or more LCR circuits will be closer to the tuning forks in sympathetic vibrations.
I do not have the equipment in USA to check it out yet. You and others may be in a better position to experimentally check it out first.
Regards,
Lawrence
O0
Yes, I would like to try something new, Lawrence, and I'm certainly willing to look at the two-LCR circuit. (Thanks for sending me some detail via email.)
It will be a few days before I can get set up and testing, including a decent signal generator for this purpose... I now have two air-core inductors for this purpose, and a ferrite rod.
I'm also curious how Feynman's effort to replicate the Gabriel device is faring...?
-
Lidmotor posted a variation of the basic JT circuit that I find fascinating... and invite comments. His video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FoQWCzfq1w
You will note that he demonstrates (not a theoretical claim alone) that once the resonator rings, he can remove the 20Kohm resistor to the base -- and it keeps going...
From his vid, I extracted the schematic (attached).
I did a replication using an MPSA06 transistor, 17Kohm R, red LED. And three different tries at an inductor. No success yet in lighting the LED. Any ideas? Does anyone know on which forum this is being discussed also?
It may be that one needs to use an air-core inductor and movable core -- and "tune" it in... I haven't tried that yet.
I found the short across the diode to be very strange. -- but this from comments on the vid:
Hello PhysicsProf
The led should be from the emitter to the base through a 1n4148 diode.
The L1 coil is is only one layer with the one end free for the AV plug or FL tubes.
Once this is started you can remove the base resistor.
-
Hello PhysicsProf
The led should be from the emitter to the base through a 1n4148 diode.
The L1 coil is is only one layer with the one end free for the AV plug or FL tubes.
Once this is started you can remove the base resistor.
Hello, Slayer007 and welcome! With your suggestions, I'll have to revisit this fascinating little circuit.
I should note that I will be traveling in just a couple of days to see friends and family in the midwest. Therefore my posts here will be limited for a couple of weeks. But I will try to keep up from motels, etc.