I was rather impressed by the action of this simple cct in this Lasersaber Youtube vid and thought it might be of interest to some of you boys. Of particular interest is just how long this cct oscillates after the batteries are removed, and the results of the parallel cap bank.
Thought it might have some relevance to the Janost's selfrunner, but did not want to contaminate that thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEXCweMxhk&feature=relmfu
Good call Farrah! "Bird's nest" wiring technique, although it looks messy,
can be very mysteriously efficient in certain applications.
LaserSaber said in the video that he'd clean it up in an effort to make it
even more efficient but I always wonder whether that ever makes any
difference or improvement. Sometimes lots of distributed inductance
and capacitance can give it just the touch it needs...
Aye, this one certainly bears a closer look at.
Here is his cleaned up version, one of them anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbLQATOjZhE&feature=channel&list=UL
He has made many improvements to this device. This is a very interesting cct and I have replicated it and it works. One of the interesting things that I observed in my replication was that the frequency of it, as seen on my scope, would always be in a run a way mode. The frequency would keep increasing until it took itself out of resonance and then it quickly faded out. I was unable to stabilize the run a way frequency, but wondered what would happen if I did stabilize it.....
P.S. This is his old stuff!
Hello,
Lasersaber has done it again and has updated his crt to a 3.0 version.
Here is the link
http://www.laserhacker.com/SuperJouleRinger3.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcFHZMhnV2g
And here is my failed attempt to replicate, maybe some can help! ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7EdlzlZoJU&feature=plcp
In your video you said that the secondary winding was
16 Gauge wire and that the primary was 28 Gauge wire.
You may have the windings connected in reverse: the
primary winding should be the heavier wire (fewer turns)
and the secondary should be the smaller wire (more
turns.)
Also, it is unclear in the video how your neon lamp load
is connected. Whatever load is in series with the secondary
winding to feed the base of the transistor must be
electrically conductive at a fairly low voltage to enable
startup base current.
Hello Dumped,
So regardless of what I said in the video, I have a first winding of 28 gauge around the ferrite rod core. I the wound a second winding of 16 gauge on top of that. The hook up of the wires is the same as presented. I'm not sure why I am not getting the effect. I wish LS would post some values or a scope shot!
P.S.
I also tried various other setup's to try to achieve the effect with no results. My video shows my menial success, which can light an LED but killed it in about 10 seconds.
Could it be that your power source (the two
series connected 9 Volt batteries) is too weak?
The circuit should operate at down to about
1 Volt - have you tried other cells/batteries?
I've replicated Lasersaber's 3.0, based on an operating 2.0 version that I had previously. Then, I simply took the output wire that was connected to the emitter on the 2N3055 (2.0 version) and moved it to the collector. (Other than the coil, that's the major change between 2.0 and 3.0 as I see it.)
It worked great! Thanks, LS.
I then ran with 6 LED bulbs in my light-box, as I had done with the 2.0. I found that the light output was about the same for the two versions (109 Lm/W for the 3.0 versus 112 Lm/W for the older 2.0 -- at 12.8V input).
Next, I hooked up the output to my "Davey-bell" system and observed a LOT of electrolysis; but no xs heat. (I've pointed out elsewhere how I see many similarities between so-called "cold-fusion" experiments which I've done for many years and the Davey invention patented in 1944 by Peter Davey. Both have electrodes and electrolysis; both claim "excess (xs) heat" under certain circumstances. )
I made a quick vid of this effort today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtvKnZk9iM&feature=youtu.be
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.09.29, 21:52:24
Could it be that your power source (the two
series connected 9 Volt batteries) is too weak?
The circuit should operate at down to about
1 Volt - have you tried other cells/batteries?
They are pretty old I will have to check. I also realized that i actually used 26 guage mag wire as opposed to the recommended 28. I'm not sure how much of a difference this would make though.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.09.30, 01:00:47
I've replicated Lasersaber's 3.0, based on an operating 2.0 version that I had previously. Then, I simply took the output wire that was connected to the emitter on the 2N3055 (2.0 version) and moved it to the collector. (Other than the coil, that's the major change between 2.0 and 3.0 as I see it.)
It worked great! Thanks, LS.
I then ran with 6 LED bulbs in my light-box, as I had done with the 2.0. I found that the light output was about the same for the two versions (109 Lm/W for the 3.0 versus 112 Lm/W for the older 2.0 -- at 12.8V input).
Next, I hooked up the output to my "Davey-bell" system and observed a LOT of electrolysis; but no xs heat. (I've pointed out elsewhere how I see many similarities between so-called "cold-fusion" experiments which I've done for many years and the Davey invention patented in 1944 by Peter Davey. Both have electrodes and electrolysis; both claim "excess (xs) heat" under certain circumstances. )
I made a quick vid of this effort today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtvKnZk9iM&feature=youtu.be
Those are great results...congrats
Stprue:
Try reversing one of the windings (switch the wires on one winding only), sounds like you are not getting the right direction of feedback and your circuit is oscillating at some much higher frequency where the phase shift from the distributed capacitance of the windings inverts the feedback polarity.
Also depending on the primary current, the gain could be as low as 5. Lasersaber may have a 2n3055 device that has a higher gain (they do vary from different manufacturers.)
In looking closely at Lasersabers device and the data sheet for a 2n3055, it requires a robust device such as the 2n3055 since all of the load current passes through the B-E junction. In the case of the 2n3055 it is allowed maximum of 7 amps and will drop up to 1.3 volts in that junction.
The use of an open ended core such as a ferrite rod means you need more turns to get the same inductance you could get with fewer turns and a gapped inductor. This means you need to use heavier gauge wire if you are to have an equivalent ohmic loss over a gapped ferrite.
What Lasesaber does not show is the power drain from the battery. Circuits should be evaluated from the standpoint of efficiency. If we are not considering efficiency many things are possible.
Other than that, the circuit is indeed novel.
@ION
Thanks for the info, this all makes sense and will give me something to look into. I was also wondering about the draw of his crt. it may not be much better then an inverter but how knows. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Thanks again.
Quote from: stprue on 2012.10.01, 18:35:01
@ION
Thanks for the info, this all makes sense and will give me something to look into. I was also wondering about the draw of his crt. it may not be much better then an inverter but how knows. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Thanks again.
For a better understanding read reply #1 here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=602.0
From my own tests made two years ago, using a single MOSFET transistor controlled by a generator, I could recover near 95% of the back emf, in the best cases. I suppose that we can recover a bit less with the jouleringer due to the efficiency of the oscillator but more than 80% should be surely obtainable.
Nevertheless if we connect directly the electrolytic capacitors to the load, we can get 100% efficiency, which is better. ;)
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.04, 08:33:11
From my own tests made two years ago, using a single MOSFET transistor controlled by a generator, I could recover near 95% of the back emf, in the best cases. I suppose that we can recover a bit less with the jouleringer due to the efficiency of the oscillator but more than 80% should be surely obtainable.
Nevertheless if we connect directly the electrolytic capacitors to the load, we can get 100% efficiency, which is better. ;)
Agreed, the blocking oscillator is best used to provide a better impedance match between source and load when there exists an otherwise severe mismatch.
Other than that, best to connect the load directly to the battery.
Quote from: ION on 2012.10.04, 11:04:47
...
the blocking oscillator is best used to provide a better impedance match between source and load when there exists an otherwise severe mismatch.
...
I agree 100%. I wonder why some people see a way for overunity in a setup that so many electronics amateurs played with, from the 70's, without having seen the least anomaly.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.05, 12:22:55
I agree 100%. I wonder why some people see a way for overunity in a setup that so many electronics amateurs played with, from the 70's, without having seen the least anomaly.
Actually the blocking oscillator goes back probably to the 20's or earlier and was accomplished with vacuum tubes.
My first was built in the mid 50's using transistor CK722 when they first became available to hobbyists for less than a dollar.
It was used to illuminate a four foot fluorescent tube held in the hand as we walked the streets as part of a halloween prank.
Maybe this was the first actual lasersaber.
It is always interesting and often humorous to watch persons completely unskilled in switchmode designs attempting to build these things.
Sometimes they get lucky and even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. LOL
I have always been an electronics amateur at heart. (one who loves what they do) and also an engineering professional that was paid $$$$ for a more rigorous skillset, but essentially doing what I love.
A blocking oscillator can be a simple tool to act as a catalyst for some other process. In itself, and with traditional materials it will not yield OU. Most folks that play with these things never make accurate input / output power measurements and as a result believe they have discovered something new. They have not.
In essence, a blocking oscillator turns a voltage source e.g. a 1.5 volt battery into a current source.
As a current source it can illuminate strings of LED's far in excess of the battery terminal voltage (which to the uninitiated seems to be a miracle), but the power is always accounted for. Power in = Power out - losses.
Lasersaber never does a careful accounting of power. His videos resemble a magician doing tricks, not an engineering assessment of the circuits merits, because he has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding power magnetics design.
Tektronix uses blocking oscillators which are rigorously and robustly designed as part of the HV generation circuits in some of their older oscilloscopes.
I am willing to discuss the merit and downsideof Lasersabers latest circuit if anyone is interested. It does show some accidental novelty.
@Ion
QuoteIt is always interesting and often humorous to watch persons completely unskilled in switchmode designs attempting to build these things.
I would agree it can be interesting especially when someone unskilled in the art does something nobody could ever have predicted that just blows you away, such is the art of creativity which may supercede skill in many respects.
QuoteLasersaber never does a careful accounting of power. His videos resemble a magician doing tricks, not an engineering assessment of the circuits merits, because he has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding power magnetics design.
It would seem to me his fundamental lack of knowledge has not hindered his success very much which in the end may be all that matters. In fact if you look back through history much of our science could be considered as blind luck or "accidental science", that is when someone does something wrong or by accident then say's "well that's odd" at the result.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.06, 13:22:45
@Ion
I would agree it can be interesting especially when someone unskilled in the art does something nobody could ever have predicted that just blows you away, such is the art of creativity which may supercede skill in many respects.
Please specify exactly what work of Lasersaber's has "blown
you away"?
Quote
It would seem to me his fundamental lack of knowledge has not hindered his success very much...
Please specify exactly what this "success" is that you are referring to.
And in the future AC, refrain from making blanket unsubstantiated statements such as those you made above, it's rather offensive.
@Poynt99
QuotePlease specify exactly what work of Lasersaber's has "blown you away"?
Well I found his video's running banks of LED's off a few small caps very interesting considering I have worked with similar caps since I could damn near walk, I figure 35+ years. I understand all about Energy and Power and Voltage so we don't have to go there, I just found it very interesting that with all the LED's and balls of wire and coils and DIY transformers and poor transistors he still managed to produce what is obviously a high efficiency circuit. You see I don't need a $10K oscilloscope to tell me this because I know exactly how much energy his capacitors can store from experience based on the rating which he discloses. In a world where average efficiency, which I know from real world testing, is lucky to break 60% I found his work refreshing.
QuotePlease specify exactly what this "success" is that you are referring to.
His success in producing what are obviously some very high efficiency circuits, I think any fool can build a high power circuit but show me a person who can build a very high efficiency circuit and they will have my attention.
QuoteAnd in the future AC, refrain from making blanket unsubstantiated statements such as those you made above, it's rather offensive.
I don't believe I made any unsubstantiated statements, I basically said it was interesting that despite what appears to be a lack of experience by Lasersaber he has found success in building some very neat and efficient circuits. I may be wrong but I think people find it offensive because they think I am criticizing a person who considers themselves to be an expert. I have 30+ years experience in electronics, computer science, applied mechanics etc... and have worked in power stations over 260MW as a Power Engineer so I think I have earned the right to criticize any "Expert" I please.
What I find offensive is when people believe experts are not to be questioned nor criticized, I will decide who is an expert and who is not for myself.
AC
History is rife with accidental solutions. More so than intentional efforts.
While many a knowledged person struggles with the problem, the successor defies the obstacle.
Unintentional corrections seems to be the law of of the land.
Oh S)omething H)appens I)n T)ime is inescapable.
@GK
QuoteHistory is rife with accidental solutions. More so than intentional efforts.
I see this moreso than most because I find history fascinating, not so much popular opinions which are usually misguided but real history documented by credible sources. For instance all this relatively recent hubub about Sonoluminescence which was accidentally discovered tens of years prior by some french men I believe who were trying to stir their developing solution with ultrasonic waves. Then Lo and Behold these odd white dots started appearing on their photographic paper and Sonoluminescence was born .... then forgotten. Then some people stumble onto their documentation and say " that's odd" and Sonoluminescence is reborn and hits the headlines as a new discovery which is really an old accidental discovery. History and science can be funny that way :D.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.06, 15:26:53
I don't believe I made any unsubstantiated statements,
Actually, you do quite often; it's your MO.
Quote
I have 30+ years experience in electronics, computer science, applied mechanics etc... and have worked in power stations over 260MW as a Power Engineer so I think I have earned the right to criticize any "Expert" I please.
So you say, but you've actually shown sweet bugger all to that effect. You've never shown any of your so-called work because according to you, we're all not worthy of it as I recall you saying. Gimme a break man. C.C Why are you here then, just to criticize?
Quote
What I find offensive is when people believe experts are not to be questioned nor criticized, I will decide who is an expert and who is not for myself.
Question all you like, but have something more to back up your assertions than just what amounts to hearsay. ION IS an expert, that is clear. But so far all I've seen from your end is armchair criticism and philosophical babble. I find it especially offensive when you try to argue in areas where clearly you have no experience.
@Poynt99
QuoteActually, you do quite often; it's your MO.
I didn't know I had an MO, lol, I like that..... MO, I think your right.
QuoteSo you say, but you've actually shown sweet bugger all to that effect. You've never shown any of your so-called work because according to you, we're all not worthy of it as I recall you saying. Gimme a break man. Why are you here then, just to criticize?
Not worthy?, I don't think I would ever say anything to that effect because you and everyone else are the reason I am here. At best I try to add balance and when the critics start bashing people I criticize them which I don't imagine they like very much.
QuoteQuestion all you like, but have something more to back up your assertions than just what amounts to hearsay. ION IS an expert, that is clear. But so far all I've seen from your end is armchair criticism and philosophical babble. I find it especially offensive when you try to argue in areas where clearly you have no experience.
I think argue is a strong word and would rather call it debate, debating the topic by offering counterpoints which even I may not agree with but they are a counterpoint none the less. The problem comes about when people believe there should be no debate because they think they are certain of the answer which is simply an opinion. Or that debate requires knowledge of the topic at hand which is false because we can simply offer counterpoints in the form of questions towards the person we are debating a topic with. You see real debate does not require that I know or have experience of anything concerning the topic nor that I be right about anything only that I offer a counterpoint..... it is healthy debate nothing more nothing less in my opinion.
What I have found truely bizarre is the fact that some people do find "debate" offensive or off limits, can you imagine such a thing?. That we shouldn't talk about a subject, that a subject is somehow taboo or that we are in some way incapable of considering it?. Who in the hell do they think they are that they should decide what people can talk about and what they cannot, that is truely offensive in every sense of the word in my opinion.
For the record .... we are debating right now ;)
AC
Talking of balance. I think the balance is in favor of claimants not the skeptics or critics.
People see almost any comment as a criticism or "bashing" when most offer "balance".
Some folks like to excite others by talking up a simple oscillator, others like to point out it's nothing special and why.
What I seen in the past is people make a comment which goes against the hype and they are set upon by a gang of
unthinking internet bullies. I must say though things are improving but there are regressions. Many of the younger experimenters
have big notions of how easy it is to get OU, they get them from people not to unlike like LaserSaber, we all know who they are,
people see OU everywhere and post about it.
Should people ignore them, or should we do what we think is right and offer some balance and logic based on our own observations.
I've asked before and I'll do it again, he who says there is OU should show it and give evidence first hand, not hearsay. Show it.
Anomalies with measurements of LED power level devices means little. People should be showing reliable measurements of input and output.
When it all boils down these things are interesting, but show me one that is evaluated properly showing real work done as OU.
I have yet to see it. But the claims are so numerous it's crazy. Many of us are novices at electronics but we are intelligent people.
Anyone can do anything anyone else can do if they want to do it bad enough providing the playing field is even.
It can be insulting at times when some take the high ground and belittle people trying to learn or those who have been misled.
Not saying anyone here is, just my 20 cents worth. Misunderstandings are common. And they go both ways.
Some of us have allowed ourselves to be misled by supposed experts before and will not allow it again. We require proof of claims
and the onus of providing the proof is on the claimant. It all gives the free energy movement a bad name.
So I will ask. What exactly is so special about this circuit ? Anyone.
It looks like a transformer to me and as such should be very efficient, almost unity.
Cheers
Aye, and the debate is inspirational!
Within the experimenter community there will always
be lively debate between the two major groupings:
The Thomas Edison types and the Nikola Tesla types.
The Thomas Edison group advocates full steam ahead
with 99% Perspiration and 1% Inspiration [ analytical
thinking.] Try everything and anything just to see if
even the "far off the wall" is good enough.
The Nikola Tesla group, contrarily, believes every
endeavor should be fully thought out and understood
to the maximum before "perspiration" is expended in
pursuit of experimental proofs.
Naturally, each grouping firmly believes that their
approach to seeking answers is the best; so the
debate, with demands for proofs, goes on and on...
Yeah I would agree with that. But just to clarify my position, I don't think commenting that something is not convincing
or opinions on what should be measured is a "demand" as such. People do seem to take it that way at times though.
Misunderstandings. :)
@Farmhand
QuoteYeah I would agree with that. But just to clarify my position, I don't think commenting that something is not convincing
or opinions on what should be measured is a "demand" as such. People do seem to take it that way at times though.
Misunderstandings.
I think you found the key word here "convincing" ie... "Serving to convince: a convincing argument; a convincing manner", "To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action" not unlike the concept of marketing where one wishes to convince another that what they are saying is true regardless of whether it is or not. Notice the term "belief" rather "firm belief" which again has no bearing on whether something is true or false only that it is convincing. In the end we can be conviced that we are correct about almost anything which may have no basis to reality, be it religion or science or anything inbetween, and many times what we call facts are based on who has the most convincing arguement.
My favorite is the electron... the atom is indivisible, no it has particles including an electron, no it is not a particle it is a cloud of particles, no there are no particles only virtual particles popping in and out of existence from a parallel universe, no there are no real particles only waves ... but waves in what?, what are the facts when the facts keep changing?. I'm quite sure everyone in history knew what the real undeniable facts were however it is a good thing for us their kids didn't believe them.
AC
The problem is when people refuse to progress step by step in the knowledge on the pretext that they want right now an absolute truth that we have not even the evidence that it exists. An atom is indivisible until the moment where we can break it, or where we have a solid theory that it could be done.
Nothing comes from the ignorance. You can propose all kinds of pseudo-theories about everything, and even be later right about some of them because among any things that can be imagined, statistically some can fit the reality. But this is completely useless as long as you don't know how to get operational results from your imaginary production which has more chance to be wrong than to be right. There come the facts.
Quote from: Dumped on 2012.10.07, 06:56:48
...
Naturally, each grouping firmly believes that their
approach to seeking answers is the best; so the
debate, with demands for proofs, goes on and on...
This is the problem in my opinion. Each group should not firmly believes that their approach is the best but rather know your style and place and respect others. I am a mix of both types. At time I just want to get my hands dirty without thinking and other time I just want to do experiments in my head. Theoretical people should not call experimental stupid or experimental should not call theoretical crackpots. I guess working together is my point. There is also a problem with theoretical vs theoretical and experimental vs experimental. Pretty much one think they better than the other. Like Einstein and Niels Bohr, but even they have their own unique part in physics that made them respect each other. Recognize what you're good at and respect what others good at.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.10.06, 13:22:45
...
I would agree it can be interesting especially when someone unskilled in the art does something nobody could ever have predicted that just blows you away, such is the art of creativity which may supercede skill in many respects.
...
This never happens.
"In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared minds."
Louis Pasteur
Quote from: ION on 2012.10.05, 12:52:19
Actually the blocking oscillator goes back probably to the 20's or earlier and was accomplished with vacuum tubes.
My first was built in the mid 50's using transistor CK722 when they first became available to hobbyists for less than a dollar.
It was used to illuminate a four foot fluorescent tube held in the hand as we walked the streets as part of a halloween prank.
Maybe this was the first actual lasersaber.
In the 50's, it's likely. You was a real pioneer.
Quote
It is always interesting and often humorous to watch persons completely unskilled in switchmode designs attempting to build these things.
Sometimes they get lucky and even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. LOL
If the experimenter is intelligent enough and modest, he knows that he doesn't know what many others know about his setup, and so he can progress in his knowledge. If he is a pretentious egocentric who is convinced to have discovered something new in conventional effects that all people more skilled than him already know, he will remain a fruitless idiot for ever.
I have doubts about the ability of both categories to discover something new. For discovering what is new, you must know what is old, otherwise you can't remark what is unusual or inversely, you take an old effect for a new one.
Quote
...
Lasersaber never does a careful accounting of power. His videos resemble a magician doing tricks, not an engineering assessment of the circuits merits, because he has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding power magnetics design.
Tektronix uses blocking oscillators which are rigorously and robustly designed as part of the HV generation circuits in some of their older oscilloscopes.
I am willing to discuss the merit and downsideof Lasersabers latest circuit if anyone is interested. It does show some accidental novelty.
From what I understand in the video (spoken English is not obvious for me), Lasersaber says there is a supercapacitor in the circuit, but an electrolytic capacitor seems also required. Did I well understand? If so, this could just be a question of impedance, the lower impedance of the electrlolytic capacitor is required for the circuit to oscillate, and the role of the supercapacitor is to provide energy. I wonder also why he put 8 capacitors when only one is enough (probably for his effects of "magician" when removing them one by one...).
Lasersaber's use of a ferrite rod will likely generate lots's of EMI since the gap is at the maximum it acts as a dipole and is a very effectivre radiator of EMI.
As such it is difficult to get a lot of inductance, which means you need to add more wire, which has resistance and will contribute to losses.
A closed magnetic circuit or one with a small gap such as EI ferrites or the appropriate toroidal material will be more efficient pound for pound. It will also require fewer turns.
Losses generally go up as a function of frequency, so keeping the inductance high and the frequency low is one path toward higher efficiency.
If size is not a constraint, you can take this to the limits and be very efficient.
Going the other way, attempting to get the smallest size and highest power transfer, you are compounding switching losses.
This latter (compact design) has always been the aim of switchmode power supply designers, so they are constantly tweaking the switching circuit to get fast transition times for low loss.
Auto radios of the forties and fifties used a vibrator switch at low frequency ( around 100 to 120 Hz.) to chop the DC battery supply into AC, and very large magnetics to get an efficiently derived plate supply for the tubes
Here's a fun walk through of the old vibrator circuits which were used before power transistors were developed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp6PkRTmb8U
Quote from: ION on 2012.10.08, 16:27:13
...
Auto radios of the forties and fifties used a vibrator switch at low frequency ( around 100 to 120 Hz.) to chop the DC battery supply into AC, and very large magnetics to get an efficiently derived plate supply for the tubes
Here's a fun walk through of the old vibrator circuits which were used before power transistors were developed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp6PkRTmb8U
It reminds me my student time of the end 70's. The autoradios had transistors, but a friend had still an old autoradio based on tubes. He had open the housing and I wondered at the mini-tubes. I was not aware of their existence.
I have never known the time of the rectification with mechanical circuits. In the 60's my first rectifier was a selenium bridge, that ended in smoke. We can't imagine today how a simple 1N4004 diode could have been an inestimable treasure at this time. :)