PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2018-06-21, 05:41:16
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - Flux Change Systems  (Read 24398 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
This topic deals with the flux change systems.  These systems have no moving parts.  The electromagnetic flux changes replace motion as the driving mechanism.

The FLEET prototype being verified and discussed in this forum is a good example.  The FLEET prototypes are significant because of their extremely low cost - less than US$3.  Thus we can send dozens out for verification.

Much more information will come out with the verification process and the expected positive results.

Edit:  The “Lawrence Tseung sent me a prototype to test….” Thread started by PhysicsProf is getting too much noise.

Edit:
This thread will just highlight the relevant posts from that thread.  It will be locked.  All unsolicited messages will be deleted.  This will avoid the usual temperamental exchanges when different researchers hold different points of view.  Regard this thread as the Lawrence Tseung point of view.   This thread should help the beginner to understand what happened according to Lawrence Tseung.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-27, 12:07:21 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The Bird’s eye view of the FLEET prototype

The attached figure shows the overview picture of FLEET when using the Joule Thief circuit as the pulsing source and feedback mechanism.

It is to be noted that the pulsing source need not be a Joule Thief.  Other oscillating circuits are possible.  We are using the Joule Thief Circuit because of its economics and its wide spread use in the Overunity research community.

Note that we have three different places to put our LCR circuits.  At present the prototypes sent out for verification focus on position Y.  In future research, we should keep this overview picture in mind.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Explaining the workings of FLEET according to Lawrence Tseung

The Tseung hypothesis on the workings of FLEET and some background is as follows:

Part A
1.   Any pulse-vibrating object can theoretically impart some of its energy to the surrounding.  A tuning fork is a simple example in case of sound.
2.   The pulsing frequency can be compared to pushing a swing.  Any pushing frequency can move the swing higher.  But the swing will go really high only when pushed at its natural or resonance frequency.
3.   When a second identical tuning fork is placed in proximity, the pushing of air molecules by the first tuning fork will cause the second tuning fork into sympathetic vibration.  The resulting sound will be louder and last longer.  We can demonstrate this much better with additional tuning forks (2, 3, 4…20).
4.   The logical question is – where does the extra energy come from?
5.   The Tseung hypothesis is that the extra energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  The term lead-out or bring-in energy is used.

Part B
1.   Air exists on Earth because of the gravitational pull of the Earth.  The molecular velocities of the air molecules are less than the escape velocity.  Thus they remain on the surface of the Earth.  The gravitational pull on the Moon is much lower and thus all gases escape.  (If you are not familiar with escape velocity, use google to search for an explanation.)
2.   If we can use the kinetic energy of the gas molecules to produce a louder sound (or to do work), we should be able to use the gravitational energy of the Earth directly.

Part C
1.   In December 2004, Mr. Lee Cheung Kin stared at his swinging pendulum toy with a photo of 12 horses.  It dawned on him that the pulsing pendulum might be able to lead-out or bring-in gravitational energy.  He woke up Mr. Lawrence Tseung to share the discovery.  Mr. Tseung did the mathematics.
2.   In Physics, a horizontal force cannot do vertical work as Work = Force x Displacement (vector multiplication).
3.   In order for a horizontal force to do vertical work, some kind of simple machine such as a pulley is required.  In the case of a simple pendulum, no such simple machine is obvious.
4.   The other possible explanation is that the tension of the string provides the vertical force.  This vertical force and the resulting energy is NOT provided by the horizontal force.  The resulting vertical work is in fact the gravitational energy brought-into the system.  So long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be lead-out or brought-in!
5.   The mathematical calculation showed that two parts of horizontal energy can lead-out or bring-in one part of vertical (gravitational) energy.  This provides a Coefficient of Performance COP of 1.5!
6.   A quick check on the Internet showed that there is a two stage Milkovic pendulum that claimed COP > 1.  According to the Lee-Tseung Lead-out Energy theory, this is entirely possible.  The Law of Conservation of Energy has NOT been violated.

Part D
1.   The next logical question is – if gravitational energy can be lead-out, can magnetic energy be lead-out or brought-in?
2.   The answer is the simple magnetic pendulum experiment done by Ms. Forever Yuen in 2006.  Initially many forum members at overunity.com claimed that they did the experiment and the resulting oscillation period never changed.
3.   Ms. Yuen replaced the pendulum bob with a small bar magnet.  She then placed another magnet below to either attract or repel it.  The period of oscillation was again measured.  She proved that all the posts by the forum members were wrong.  The period of oscillation changed.
4.   Leading-out magnetic energy is even easier than leading-out gravitational energy.  The magnitude and the direction can be changed.  The magnetic field can even be switched on or off.
5.   The smallest magnet or dipole is an electron orbiting around a nucleus.  There are trillions of atoms in any object surrounding us.  If we can lead-out or bring-in such electron motion energy, we have virtually inexhaustible energy.

Part E
1.   The next question is – can we replace the pulse-push oscillation by a pulsed rotation?
2.   On the Internet, there are many such claimed inventions.  Examples are Newman, ######, Adams, Liang, Wang, etc.  Initially, we thought that we could just work with one or more of these inventors and use their prototypes as conclusive evidence.  That turned out to be much more difficult than we thought.  We decided to build our own prototype.
3.   With the help of Mr. Tong Po Chi, we built a 1 meter diameter Tong Wheel with 16 magnets in the rotor and 15 coils on the stator.  A proximity switch was used to control the pulsing time and duration.
4.   The coils can be turned on or off.  They can be configured as Drive Coils or Collector Coils.  The tuning can be done by varying the Coil ratio and the positioning of the proximity switch.
5.   We used rms values to measure the Voltage and Current.  The result showed that COP was greater than 1.
6.   We demonstrated that openly at the Inno Tech Design Expo 2009 in Hong Kong and some professors raised the objection that the rms values could not truly represent the Input or Output Power as the waveforms seen on an oscilloscope were complex.  (Definitely not DC or sinusoidal AC).
7.   The Tong Wheel, however, was rated as an interesting invention worthy of additional research.

Part F
1.   An American Researcher, Rasa, working with a Chinese Group came to visit.  He initially placed an order for three Tong Wheels.  He casually asked whether the units can be reduced in size so that he could bring them back in his brief case.
2.   That triggered Mr. Tseung to work on Pulse only systems with no moving parts.  The full development history was recorded in overunity.com under the Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnet thread.  Unfortunately, that forum was not moderated.  The naysayers, insulters etc made meaningful discussion or presentation impossible.
3.   Mr. Conroy Cheng from the third richest family in Hong Kong gave HK$50,000 with no strings attached to do the two oscilloscope demonstration to see if COP could indeed be greater than 1.
4.   Mr. Tseung and team succeeded on July 13, 2010 using the Joule Thief circuit as the pulsing source and feedback mechanism.  They could show the Instantaneous Input Power Curve on one oscilloscope and the Instantaneous Output Power Curve on another oscilloscope.  The waveforms clearly indicated COP > 1.  However, Mr. Tseung and Team could not get the mean or the integrate functions to work (not even aware of the mean function).
5.   Two workshops were conducted at Hong Kong University.  In the second workshop a student, Felix, produced a FLEET prototype with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of greater than 280.

Part G
1.   On October 26, 2010, Mr. Tseung came to USA to visit and spend time with his daughter in Irvine.  He brought 8 working FLEET prototypes with him.  One teaching demonstration prototype has Tseung FLEET Comparison Index > 200.
2.   A retired Professor in Physics (PhysicsProf in this forum) was willing to test the prototype.  He lived 70 miles from his University and had to drive in the snow and icy roads to access the good oscilloscopes.
3.   The preliminary work was encouraging.  He could build high performance FLEET prototypes with a colleague with their own parts.
4.   The explanation by Mr. Tseung is that – FLEET is a pseudo resonance device.  The particular prototype under test happens to use a one-inch toroid with 13 turns wound with the Joule Thief technique and a 2N2222 transistor.  This basic Joule Thief circuit will try to resonate at a certain frequency.  These arrangements could lead-out or bring-in the electron motion energy of the orbiting electron in the surrounding environment.
5.   The secondary transformer type winding extracts the lead-out or bring-in energy to do work – lighting LEDs and heating up resistors in a pulsing fashion.
6.   With a pulsing load, the Joule Thief Circuit could go back to the original near resonance frequency.
7.   Thus a continuous process of leading-out or bringing-in of electron motion energy can be maintained.  Since it is a pseudo resonance set up, slight changes in physical configuration could affect the resulting Output Power value and waveform significantly.
8.   More research need to be done to turn this into a commercially viable product.

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Highlights from the “Lawrence Tseung sent me a prototype to test…” thread.

Reply        2010-12-31 Start of the thread:  PhysicsProf asked for comments.
Reply 10:  2010-12-31 Use of oscilloscope hooked to laptop (Bitscope)
Reply 20:  2010-12-31 Picture of Prototype A and suggestion of thermal approach
Reply 80:  2011-1-10   First post by Lawrence Tseung providing workshop summary
Reply 100:  2011-1-11 Use of the term Tseung FLEET Comparison Index

Reply 106:  2011-1-11 Example of a working FLEET prototype in Hong Kong
Reply 108:  2011-1-11 Primitive Area Comparison to show true COP
Reply 127: 2011-1-12 China Made DSO used in Hong Kong
Reply 130: 2011-1-13 Exact position of the Scope Probes
Reply 131: 2011-1-13 PhysicsProf can get a Tektronix 3032 (DPO)

Reply 157: 2011-1-14 PhysicsProf found that moving components changed Index
Reply 172: 2011-1-14 Poynt99 pointed out the use of the mean function on DSO
Reply 205: 2011-1-16 PhysicsProf found the effect of using different resistors
Reply 225: 2011-1-18 PhysicsProf found the effect of changing Input Voltage
Reply 232: 2011-1-18 First screen shot with Bitscope on 4 replies

Reply 250: 2011-1-19 TinselKoala video showing effect of wire loop
Reply 255: 2011-1-19 Poynt99 offered to do testing with his 2 oscilloscopes
Reply 262: 2011-1-19 Comparison with Joule Ringer
Reply 295: 2011-1-20 Poynt99 provided schematic diagram
Reply 299: 2011-1-20 Lawrence provided improvement on schematics

Reply 300: 2011-1-20 Lawrence provided more improvement
Reply 303: 2011-1-21 PhysicsProf provided pictorial comparison with Joule Ringer
Reply 350: 2011-1-22 Preliminary result from the Tektronics 3032
Reply 351: 2011-1-22 First COP > 1 result using rms Power comparison
Reply 353: 2011-1-22 The apparent COP is 1.48 (6.486/4.388).

Reply 383: 2011-1-23 Proposed future tests for FLEET prototypes
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
This is modified from reply 425 on the “Lawrence Tseung sent prototype to test …” thread.

Let us try to understand the waveforms objectively

I am using the screen shots on reply 106 from the better prototype.  With the better prototype, the resulting voltages, current and power are much higher.  We did not operate at the noise level as some claimed.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 1 (top curve on the top LHS diagram) first.  That measurement was taken across the battery terminals.  Most people would expect to see a flat DC value.  What was actually observed was a pulsing curve.  In the FLEET prototype, the battery should be considered as part of the pulsing circuit.  The pulsing voltage across it might imply that it was being recharged at the same time.  The feedback element was there.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 2 (last curve on the top LHS diagram).  That measurement was across a one ohm resistor in the circuit.  Note that the wave cut across the zero axis with the negative component higher than the positive component.  This implied that the current was definitely not DC in one direction.  Obviously, the shape was not sinusoidal.  The large negative values implied that the back EMF might be responsible for part of the current.

Let us now focus on the Input Instantaneous Power (Middle Curve).  It had both positive and negative values.  The negative value should not be treated as “meaningless negative power”.  It should be treated as Power measured when the current was in the opposite direction.  The correct Input Energy measurement for one cycle should take both the positive part (above zero axis) PLUS the negative part (below zero axis).   The actual area values should be used. The integration method taking into account only the numeric value of the area was the accepted scientific measurement as explained to me by the Hong Kong University Professors.

If their explanations are correct, and we want to get a quick value without the integration, the rms value of the Instantaneous Power Curve should be used.  In other words, PhysicsProf and his colleagues are CORRECT in displaying the rms of the Instantaneous Power!

We can easy get the mean or the rms values of the Instantaneous Power Value easily once we have the raw Instantaneous Power Curve.  It is easy to list both values for comparison and learning purposes.


There will be more and better FLEET prototype experimental results in the near future.  But the ones in replay 106 and reply 350 are worth deeper analysis while we wait.

May God open our eyes and minds!  Amen.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Correct Input Instantaneous Power Curve integration (verse time) with one wave

I believe the correct Instantaneous Power Curve integration using only one wave is shown in the white area shown in the picture below.

Each wave is similar but not identical.  The most accurate measure is the integration or measuring the white area.

Because of the negative cycle represents current in the opposite direction, we need to use the rms value of the Instantaneous Power Curve for true comparison if we want a quick comparison.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Understanding rms value

A good explanation can be found in:
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Guidance_107.html

Explaining rms voltage and current
There are many ways of explaining root mean square (rms) voltage and current at different levels of complexity, to advanced level students.
 
For the simplest level, say you take the current (or potential difference) at each instant in turn, square it, add up the squares (which are all positive) and divide by the number of samples to find the average square or mean square. Then take the square root of that. This is the 'root mean square' (rms) average value.
 
 
 
For example: suppose the time samples are as shown in the diagram:
 
Values      0    7    10    7    0    -7    -10    -7
Squares   0   49   100   49   0   49   100   49

 
Sum of squares = 396
Average of squares = 396/8 = almost 50
Square root ~ 7
 
With more intervals the rms average turns out to be (peak value) / √2 = peak value/1.41 = 0.707peak value


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The Output waveforms

Let us focus on the Output waveform on Slide 4. 

The top curve in the Output diagram (Bottom LHS) shows the Instantaneous Voltage.  It has a peak-to-peak value of 32 volts.  It has a large negative component.  The strange thing about it is that the large Positive Values seem to occur at the same time as the large Negative Values.  If the Voltage changes were gradual or smooth, the Positive and Negative should cancel out. 

A few different explanations are raised here:
1. The voltage is pulsed at very high frequency.  There is one non-sinusoidal wave.  The sampling sometimes hit on the Positive and sometimes hit on the Negative.
2. There are multiple pulsing Voltages occurring at the same time.  The pulses were so short that they did not interfere with each other.  The sampling sometimes hit on Voltage A curve and sometimes hit on Voltage B curve.

Both these explanations indicate that there may be very high frequency pulsing voltage(s).  The classic explanation of voltage and current relationships should not be blindly applied.

The bottom curve in the same diagram shows the Instantaneous Current.  It also has both positive and negative values.  However, it does not show evidently the phenomenon of having them at the same time.

The middle curve in the same diagram is the same as the single curve shown on the RHS diagram.  It represents the product of the Instantaneous Current and Instantaneous Voltage.  Thus it is the Instantaneous Power Curve.  It is stretched horizontally 6 times to show the simultaneous positive and negative value.  It is clear that in some instants, the Instantaneous Power Line extended from high positive to high negative values.  Such an event cannot happen in classical electronics unless we accept the fact of rapid pulsing.

By comparing the top RHS and the bottom RHS curves, it is evident that the bottom RHS curve must cover a larger area.  That represented a larger amount of energy. 

Where does that energy come from?  If the Law of Conservation of Energy were to be obeyed, energy from the surrounding must be led-out or brought-in.  The moment we accept the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory, the entire electrical engineering teaching will change.

The fun starts.

God has shown us the way.  Who will walk, run or crawl on it?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Analyzing the waveforms from PhysicsProf on reply 350

Some people dismissed that as measurement error. 

I shall reproduce them here together with reply 399.

Let us focus on the top diagram labeled “In Prof Scope”.

The middle yellow curve is the Instantaneous Input Voltage across the battery.  That voltage is NOT a simple flat DC.  It is distinctly pulsed.  If you look at the zero reference line at the bottom and examine the position of the yellow curve, you can find that the Vrms value of 1.52V reasonable.

The top curve is the Instantaneous Current Curve.  It is of particular interest in that the current is sometimes positive and sometimes negative.  The negative value is actually larger than the positive value.  Some people attribute this to experimental error and dismissed the hard work by PhysicsProf completely.

I hold a different view.  The much better prototype also showed the same characteristics.  The Instantaneous current is in fact non-sinusoidal AC.  It is pulsed at high frequency.  The rise and fall coincides with the pulse signal on the top curve.  This suggests that a strong back emf may be at work.  Even though the net voltage is still positive, the current can flow in the opposite direction!  This is totally outside the “authoritative electrical engineering textbook” explanations.

How can current flow in the opposite direction against a positive voltage?

The bottom Instantaneous Power Curve showed the effect very clearly.  In order to get the correct Power value for comparison, the area enclosed by the curve with the zero line should be obtained via integration.  The negative values should be made positive.  That is commonly done by the rms value.  Thus the use of rms Power is CORRECT.

Let us now focus on the middle diagram labeled “Out Prof Scope”

The middle yellow curve is the Instantaneous Output Voltage from the two ends of the secondary coil.  It clearly shows that the voltage has positive and negative components and that the waveform is not sinusoidal.  This is not surprising as the source is from the secondary of a transformer.

The top curve is the Instantaneous Current Curve.  It has similar shape as that in the top diagram.  It is sometimes positive and sometimes negative.  The negative value is larger than the positive value.  A diode in the form of a LED was used but the current was definitely not DC!

The bottom curve is the Instantaneous Power.  Since it crosses the zero reference line, we must not use the mean value.  Negative power is meaningless.  The negative positions indicate that the current is in the opposite direction.

In the last diagram labeled True COP, the Input and Output Powers are compared side-by-side.  It is clear that the RHS Output Power Curve is larger than the LHS Input Power Curve.  The Power rms values displayed are meaningful.  The COP value given by 6.486/4.388 = 1.48 can be trusted.
The hard work by PhysicsProf produced logical and consistent results with the better prototypes.  Why dismiss it?  Experts can be wrong.  Examine the scientific evidence objectively.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-26, 15:38:02 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Helpers and air core toroids

The initial successful FLEET prototypes were done with student helpers on air core toroids.  Various sizes were tried.  
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
More waveforms

In reply 469, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg248893#msg248893

We have the following:
Wave 1 and Wave 2 diagrams.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The two LEDs

Poynt99 raised the following question with PhysicsProf: Why is the Joule Thief LED (JT-LED) not considered as an Output Load?

My answer is simple – I have so many prototypes with COP >> 1.  My purpose of sending the FLEET prototypes for testing is to demonstrate that COP > 1.  I do not care about the actual COP value at this point.  Even if I ignore this Output power, the two oscilloscope experiment will still demonstrate conclusively that COP can be greater than 1.  There is no need for the added complication of accounting for this.

Another more subtle thought is:
1.   The basic Joule Thief is a pseudo resonance circuit.  It undisturbed, it would “resonate at a particular frequency” and the lead-out or bring-in energy would be dissipated as heat at the JT-LED and the 1 ohm resistor.
2.   I treat this basic Joule Thief Circuit as a feedback system.  From the observed Input Voltage waveform, we see the pulsing even though the measurement is taken across the terminals of the battery.
3.   The current observed on the Input is NOT DC in all my FLEET prototypes.  It always shows a negative component hinting that the back EMF may be responsible.  This will appear puzzling to the textbook trained engineer.
4.   In the textbook, if there is a DC voltage, the current will go only one way.  It may fluctuate in value but should always be in one direction (from Positive to Negative).  The fact that it moves also in the opposite direction is like a log.  The log should just flow downstream – sometimes faster, sometimes slower.  But it cannot swim upstream!  Something not explained by textbook is at work here!
5.   Thus, I treat the Secondary Circuit as a disturbance circuit that can suck out some energy from the basic Joule Thief Circuit.  The suck out action would enable electron motion energy to be led-out or brought-in.  Thus the energy in the secondary circuit is the sum of the suck out energy PLUS the lead-out energy. 
6.   The energy appearing on the secondary circuit can then be higher than that supplied by the battery in the Joule Thief Circuit.
7.   Thus I simply ignore the energy consumed in the JT-LED.  I know that it works to my disadvantage.  But if the goal is just to show COP > 1, that is acceptable.

God gives us much electron motion energy in lead-out or bring-in energy systems.  Ignoring a faction will not affect the COP > 1 conclusion.  Amen

Edit: I do not believe in simulation software in this case.  Simulation software is based on textbook knowledge.  We clearly have a non-textbook situation here.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Purposes of the Postings

One of the questions of relevance is – what is the purpose of posting in this or other Open Forums?

My answer is:
1.   Share the information so that the World will benefit.
2.   Provide a historical record of what is happening via the daily postings.
3.   Develop a better understanding with the helpful interactions.
4.   Promote the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory that will explain why that the Law of Conservation of Energy is NOT violated in the many inventions.
5.   Help others to build and tune LCR circuits similar to FLEET so that they can build their own Lead-out/Bring-in Energy devices.

Serve the Lord.  All Honor and Glory are His.  Amen.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Answer to an interesting question

The question is – if the Joule Ringer is shown to have COP > 1 and generates an output power much higher than the FLEET prototypes, would your effort be wasted?

The Answer is simple.  I am here to serve the Almighty and benefit the World.  It does not matter who wins or gets the credit.  The lead-out or bring-in energy theory has been out and documented since December 2004.  Using this theory, I concluded that many so called hoaxes are theoretically acceptable lead-out energy machines.

These hoaxes or claimed Over Unity devices are actually lead-out energy devices.  Examples include the late Stan Meyer HHO machine, the two-stage Milkovic Pendulum, the Steven Mark TPU, the Joseph Newman Machines, the ###### Wheels, the Wang ShenHe Motor, the Dr. Liang Sing Yan Car, the Tsinghua University Electricity Magnifier, the Tong Po Chi Wheel and many of the devices described in the excellent Patrick Kelly Book – Practical Guide to Free Energy Devices.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/

The FLEET prototypes are designed to be cheap, easy to verify with good oscilloscopes and illustrate the importance of LCR tuning to match physical characteristics.  It has already been beaten by the above devices such as the Steven Mark TPU.  If the Joule Ringer beats it, so what?

God has already given us lead-out energy.  Are we that stupid or blind not to recognize and use it?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
The lesson from the debate

The debate was moderated by Harvey and the details can be found in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=710.0

Poynt99 won that debate.  Lawrence learned an important lesson.

The key issue was how to measure true average power with oscilloscopes?  Should the mean or the rms value of Power be used?

Lawrence Tseung had the wrong belief that the average power should be the sum of all areas under the Instantaneous Power Curve.  The sum of all positive areas should be added together (+ve area sum, +A1).  The sum of all negative areas should be added together (-ve area sum, -A2)  The resulting energy is represented by A1+A2.

The correct answer should be that presented by Poynt99 – A1-A2.  The negative area represents energy flowing back to the source!  See the argument and references quoted in the debate.

The result will actually help the development of FLEET prototypes.  In any resonance systems, there will be feedback.  We can now look for a negative area with the Input Power Waveform.  That represents the feedback energy.  That area should be reasonably large if the JT LED is brightly lighted.

If there were zero or negligible negative area, the condition is likely to be far away from resonance.  All the known FLEET prototypes with Lawrence Tseung showed a significant negative area!

This is another small piece of knowledge gained via sweat and sharing.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Getting another prototype ready

It looks like I may be able to free up another prototype that was reserved for a semi-government organization.  This organization will not be able to do any testing for sometime. 

They told me that to get the correct approval to do the experiment would take many more months.  That is the reality of Government Organizations. 

It appears Government Organizations are the same in China, USA and everywhere.  The Officials would not take any risks.  They would avoid being labeled as supporting the impossible perpetual motion machines at all costs.  They prefer to have someone else confirm the fact first.  They have few to gain and much to lose.

This prototype has a Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of 64 (rms) when tested on Oct 10, 2010 in Hong Kong.  It has 11 JT turns and 22 transformer turns.  That puts it in a higher ranking than that mailed to Beijing.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2611
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Lawrence,

It would be great to have a unit that you claim is well COP>1, without having to make any adjustments or tuning on my part. Send this one to me and I will test it. Afterward, I will send it back to you or to wherever you wish.

Still no mail from LT.  >:(

.99
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Lawrence,

It would be great to have a unit that you claim is well COP>1, without having to make any adjustments or tuning on my part. Send this one to me and I will test it. Afterward, I will send it back to you or to wherever you wish.

Still no mail from LT.  >:(

.99

Dear Poynt99,

I shall ready this particular prototype for you.  I can Federal Express to you.  Do you have any one to receive at your end?

The normal Post Office route would take 7-10 days.  It is 7 days since I mailed it.  So the components package is still within schedule.

With Federal Express, we can track it on-line.  However, I might have to really package it carefully.  The last one I Federal Expressed to Bob Boyce got one of the connections broken.  The last report I read was that the Federal Express parcels got more bumps than the regular Post Office.

Enjoy the fun and the challenge, O0

Lawrence
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Dear Poynt99,

This particular prototype showed Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of 64 rms when built on Oct 10, 2010 in Hong Kong.  It is soldered and not much tuning can be done.

The details are as follows:

Windings:
11 turns Joule Thief type
22 turns Transformer type
0.5 mm diameter wire
Frequency = 147 KHz

Input
Channel 1 (Instantaneous Voltage)
         Vpp  = 600 mV
       Vrms  = 80 mV
Channel 2 (Instantaneous Current, 1 ohm resistor)
         Vpp = 188 mV
       Vrms = 60 mV

Output
Channel 1 (Instantaneous Voltage)
       Vpp  = 10.4 V
     Vrms  = 3.4 V
 Channel 2 (Instantaneous Current 10 Ohm resistor)
      Vpp  = 324 mV
    Vrms  = 92 mV

Calculations:
   Input Power pp  = 0.6 x 0.188 = 0.1128 watt
  Input Power rms = 0.08 x 0.06 = 0.0048 watt

  Output Power pp  = (10.4 x 0.324)/10 = 3.369 watt
 Output Power rms = (3.4 x0.092)/10 = 0.0306 watt

COPpp   = 30
COPrms = 64

The verification is simply to display the waveforms and check whether the true COP is greater than 1.  The actual numbers are unlikely to come out identical as in all pseudo resonance experiments.

*** Please do not modify this particular prototype as it may be shipped to other sites for additional verification later.  Use the components package to build another one.  Thank you.

Lawrence
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2611
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Thank you Lawrence.

I will gladly test this unit for you, and I have already sent you the shipping details.

Looking forward to it.  O0

.99
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
I now have ONE Atten Oscilloscope in USA.  I used it on one of the prototypes built in USA.  As expected, a single Oscilloscope could not really do the tuning function.  When I measured Output, I had to take away the connections to the Input.  The results could not be reproduced with consistency.

The Output peak-to-peak voltage (voltage across the secondary) varied from 750V, 630V, 570V, 392V, 140V.

The Output peak-to-peak current (voltage across an one ohm resistor) varied from 400mV to 44mV.  The values kept changing during the experiments.

I shall show the Input from a camera shot and the Output from a camera shot with the same values of electronic components.  The wire distances and physical layout could not be identical. Since the two configurations could not be guaranteed to be identical, the results could only be used as indication of a trend.

Looks like the use of another oscilloscope is necessary to claim any scientific value, I have to wait for a few more weeks to get the funds and arrange shipment.

Meanwhile, have fun and interpret what you can from the following pictures.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
One of the strangest experimental observations on Michael's Prototype is as follows:

1.   The prototype was a Joule Thief on breadboard with two Secondaries A and B.

2.   The voltage across the 1.5 V battery was Vpp = 15V and Vrms = 57V.  This occurred on the Primary Side of the toroid.

3.   When the voltages of the Secondaries A and B were compared with the Input, both Secondary A and Secondary B showed similar logical results.

4.   When the two Seconardies were compared by themselves, Secondary A showed 310 Vpp and 110Vrms!

What is going on?  This Michael Prototype is worth much deeper investigation.

God helps those who help themselves.  Thousands have played with the basic Joule Thief Circuit.  How many observed this result???
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
After examining the various multiple LCR circuits with ferrite core, it is time to examine the air core.

Certain results from experimenting with the ferrite core toroid include:

1.   The AC and DC voltage measurements across the 1.5V battery were no longer 1.5 V DC.  The result was very different.  It appeared that the battery became part of the circuit and the voltage was no longer 1.5V DC when treated as part of the circuit.

2.   The peak-to-peak voltage across the Secondary could be over 300V.  The highest observed was 750V.  That figure was very different from what was expected from transformer windings.

3.   Slight changes in physical configuration (especially when the wires were close to each other) could have significantly different results.  This is an expected outcome for configurations close to resonance.

The air core is of special interest.  The LED at the Joule Thief Circuit was OFF while the LEDs on both Secondary A and B were ON.  Many LEDs could be put on Secondary A and Secondary B.

This configuration will be further investigated with the Oscilloscope.

The scope probes and set up were tested with the output from the signal generator.  The waveforms, the amplitude and frequency all checked out. 

God’s timing?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
Remember that this prototype showed Input LED OFF and secondary LEDs ON.

One striking difference with the ferrite core toroids is that the Input voltage goes down.

The three pictures were taken.  Note the waveforms.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 931
This set was taken after 1 ohm resistors were added to the Joule Thief Input, Secondary A and Secondary B circuits.

The Tseung FLEET Comparison Index (COP?) on both the Secondary A and B were overunity.

However, the waveform on Secondary A and B did not show the expected standing wave or sine wave yet.

More tuning will be required.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2018-06-21, 05:41:16