I was contacted by a colleague of Lawrence Tseung's, and after some correspondence, I have accepted to look at his toroid-based, solid-state device. Unlike the Bedini motor, there are no moving parts.
LT claims COP>1. He sent me a simple prototype, called his "Prototype A" at OU where he seems to like to post (I do not like that forum very much...) You can see photos of the device and claims there.
I propose to look at the input power, from a single AA battery, and the output power, and compare the two. I will probably use oscilloscopes... realizing there is some danger in correctly assessing the actual (integrated) input and output power. I will be working with a colleague here... we will check each other.
Anyway, the prototype arrived via mail to my hands today. Lots of fun... I should say. I am new at this effort, and welcome comments both on LT's claims AND on pitfalls etc. so that I can do a thorough and accurate test.
Thanks.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.30, 03:11:28
Anyway, the prototype arrived via mail to my hands today. Lots of fun... I should say. I am new at this effort, and welcome comments both on LT's claims AND on pitfalls etc. so that I can do a thorough and accurate test.
Thanks.
You said it.... "thorough and accurate". The other thing to watch for is ..... test as the inventor intended THEN test it the way you think it should be done. Having both data can be a very good thing.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.30, 04:36:47
You said it.... "thorough and accurate". The other thing to watch for is ..... test as the inventor intended THEN test it the way you think it should be done. Having both data can be a very good thing.
Excellent point, WW.
The challenge will be what I'd call "energy bookkeeping", total energy in versus total energy out. Integrated power (over time).
Interesting -- Bob Boyce has just stated at the OU site that he rec'd his Prototype (C) from Lawrence today also... after I made the announcement there, and here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1680
So its a bit of a horse race, it appears, to see who can test his prototype first?? I mean, I'm not convinced this thing will work (OU) in the first place, but I'm willing to test it.
Interesting that Lawrence sent to Bob Boyce the "better" unit, the one he claims has much higher COP as well as tunability with the variable resistor. (My prototype has all fixed resistors...) Now if I can figure out where to put that variable R, I might try it.
Dang, this is interesting.
Does anyone know who Bob Boyce is? is he a serious engineer-type, or scientist?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.30, 07:13:51
Interesting -- Bob Boyce has just stated at the OU site that he rec'd his Prototype (C) from Lawrence today also... after I made the announcement there, and here.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1680
Does anyone know who Bob Boyce is? is he a serious engineer-type, or scientist?
Bob Boyce is a very serious player indeed. He is the originator of the Boyce 101 plate electroliser for cars. Actually,
it does not electrolise; it fractures the water molecules by hitting them with 3 frequencies, 42.8khz and the
two lower octaves. The gas does not come off at the plates but between them:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf
page 10 (et seq).
If you could supply more information on the device I / O requirements I would be happy to assist in designing a first cut simple test setup that would not require a DSO, or even an oscilloscope, and could be done with very simple measuring devices.
The DSO would be valuable later when you need to split hairs.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.30, 14:42:16
If you could supply more information on the device I / O requirements I would be happy to assist in designing a first cut simple test setup that would not require a DSO, or even an oscilloscope, and could be done with very simple measuring devices.
The DSO would be valuable later when you need to split hairs.
That would be deeply appreciated, ION. I agree that the DSO could be used later...
Lawrence Tseung is quite open with his descriptions of Prototype A (hereafter, A) which he gave to me, here --
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530
See post #1538 on page 103 of the thread above -- shows photos of A. Posted 20 Dec 2010. Other nearby posts give his instructions/suggestions on how to test the prototype.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.30, 15:52:24
That would be deeply appreciated, ION. I agree that the DSO could be used later...
Lawrence Tseung is quite open with his descriptions of Prototype A (hereafter, A) which he gave to me, here --
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530
See post #1538 on page 103 of the thread above -- shows photos of A. Posted 20 Dec 2010. Other nearby posts give his instructions/suggestions on how to test the prototype.
After reviewing the information you have supplied I hereby respectfully withdraw my offer to help. We have been down the blocking oscillator path many times before. Now it is called a Joule Thief and a rather poorly designed one at that. Contact me by PM for more details.
Maybe someone else will pick up the gauntlet, MH perhaps.
I had a look myself. It looks like a Joule Thief with an additional secondary winding. The standard JT output is driving one LED and the secondary winding is driving a second LED. Besides the fact that there is nothing to be found there, if you use LEDs as the loads then you have the agonizingly difficult task of measuring the power across the LEDs unless you go the full DSO route.
Lawrence Tseung's reputation is another thing that merits doing some due diligence on. It would not surprise me if he insists that you must use LEDs as the loads.
I will pass on any involvement here, thank you.
MileHigh
PhysicsProf,
Since this device wound up as a Joule Thief with LED loads, I will add to my earlier suggestion...
You may be aware but I'll mention these anyway...
LEDs may act as photo cells.
Many LED types will produce light from A.C. electric fields (as in the noisy switching of a blocking oscillator with spurious harmonics running into VHF).
The same types will produce a small DC current when they are immersed in a high frequency electric field (more than the expected rectifier with antenna leads).
In some applications LEDs create their own EMI.
Each light emitting mode/method has different performance characteristics and values.
Due to the above and things like the junction voltage drop / Zener-like action (clamping - mentioned by MH in another thread)...
Make sure you aren't talked into using a light meter or the visible indication of light intensity as a means of measuring P-Out.
Some of these circuits may run for months seemingly perpetual.
This time two years ago I had one that ran for 3 months off a AAA NiCad. As long as you didn't touch it, it would run down in a week or so. If you wanted to keep it running all you needed to do was make a change in a resistance, disconnect the battery and reconnect or make body contact to the right conductor or move some of the windings. The thing would 'perk-up' with almost any intervention.
These circuits take many folks including hook, line & sinker.
Wow, not a very popular approach, then.
My colleague and I had a look at it using an oscilloscope hooked to his laptop (so we can preserve the trace) and a few other instruments.
The output voltage was measured across the leads from the secondary winding on the toroid.
The paired-primary windings showed about 0.44 micro-Henrys each, while the secondary winding was 215 micro-Henrys. So not surprising there is a step-up in the output voltage from the battery (which sat at 1.45 V).
The output voltage showed an interesting small-h oscilloscope trace, with a rapid high pulse (the left leg of the h) that itself was quite ragged. How in the world does one measure the output power in a case like that?
Can I ask you guys to set aside for a moment your aversion to such a device and give me some of your experience on POWER MEASUREMENT?
The peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) on the output side was 11.7 volts. The Vpp for the 10 ohm resistor on the output circuit was 0.343 V, suggesting a current reading of 0.034 A. It pains me to multiply these together, given the weird shape of the output pulse (which was however uniform over the couple of hours we played with the thing) -- yields about 0.4 W out. And a Pout/Pin > 1. But I don't believe it. Yes, one could integrate the oscilloscope trace somehow, the product of the Vout and the current. Not sure how to do that reliably.
My colleague suggests that we charge a rechargeable battery with the output, which is basically pulsed-DC, compare with the drain on the input battery... That is a way to integrate the power out and the power in... perhaps not very elegant. But I like the simplicity of it. He says others are doing this in this community of researchers. (He's been at this for a while.)
Suggestions, please! I think RELIABLE, BELIEVABLE measurements are going to be a key in this field, and frankly, the simpler the better.
The Prof is learning... it ain't so easy.
@PhysicsProf
QuoteThe output voltage showed an interesting small-h oscilloscope trace, with a rapid high pulse (the left leg of the h) that itself was quite ragged. How in the world does one measure the output power in a case like that?
A small "h" you say, it may be due to the fact that the transistor base(trigger) and primary winding are both inducing the output winding which is not normally the case for a standard JT, could you post a picture?.
QuoteCan I ask you guys to set aside for a moment your aversion to such a device and give me some of your experience on POWER MEASUREMENT?
I use the black box method where we assume any device is simply a black box with storage capacitors on both the input and output, I think this is acceptable in this case as long as the output winding is electrically isolated from the rest of the circuit which includes the input capacitor. Personally I do not like batteries or oscilloscopes because the results can be riddled with errors and to a large extent are open to interpretation. With input/output capacitors the result is a simple voltage measurement of each capacitor at start and finish and a few simple calculations however it relies on the fact that the output capacitance cannot couple to any other significant capacitance in the system.
Regards
AC
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.31, 05:20:25
Wow, not a very popular approach, then.
Can I ask you guys to set aside for a moment your aversion to such a device and give me some of your experience on POWER MEASUREMENT? [/b]
Suggestions, please! I think RELIABLE, BELIEVABLE measurements are going to be a key in this field, and frankly, the simpler the better.
The Prof is learning... it ain't so easy.
For something like this, and as a first cut for power out, I like to use the thermal RMS into a known resistor. This can be measured with a small thermocouple taped to a resistor, since temperature and power can be easily correlated.
The resistor can be characterized by putting known power levels in and recording temperature rise above ambient, which is also recorded.
Then the resistor is put on the output of the device and temperature is noted and compared to the known temperature rise vs. power curve you earlier created.
A more sophisticated differential thermocouple technique can be used to null ambient, and a readout in simple millivolts will equate to power, once your load resistor is "calibrated". You must use a non inductive resistor.
This is a foolproof thermal RMS technique that does not have crest factor limitations commonly found in true RMS instruments. I have decades of experience and success using these methods.
For power input, I generally use a current source power supply feeding a capacitor. I adjust and note input current required to produce the desired operating voltage, then multiply the current X voltage for power.
Alternately, for power input, you can use a voltage source power supply with shunt resistor of one ohm feeding the capacitor. Volts across the shunt resistor equates to Amps of power drain, then this is multiplied by voltage across the capacitor for Watts input.
A null balance technique can also be used where a differential thermocouple setup is used to sense the temperature rise of the load resistor under test as compared to an equivalent load resistor hooked up to a power supply. Adjust the power supply feeding the control resistor until a "null is obtained (the thermocouples are wired in inverse series and their millivolts will "null" when the temperatures of the load resistor under test and the "control" resistor are equal)
These techniques eliminate the tricky process of trying to use capacitors or batteries on the output and trying to measure charges stored over time.
The thermal methods give real power readings in real time while the unit is in operation without adverse loading or peak charging effects of batteries or capacitors on the output nor the necessity of gauging how much charge was actually stored in your battery.
While these techniques may seem simple, they are actually quite sophisticated, and thermal RMS meters are very expensive, and not fooled by irregular waveforms. All power is integrated as heat rise. This is a budget approach to the same.
I'll see if I can sketch something up for you.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.31, 05:20:25
Can I ask you guys to set aside for a moment your aversion to such a device and give me some of your experience on POWER MEASUREMENT?
I agree with ION.
I would add that in order to be fair, the DUT should in addition to the load resistor, include a thermal-couple on the transistor.
You are right Prof, for output power don't even bother multiplying V x I with anything other than a pure sine wave or clean pulse train.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.31, 13:46:57
I would add that in order to be fair, the DUT should in addition to the load resistor, include a thermal-couple on the transistor.
.99
Actually, this is not necessary as all circuit losses will be easily computed as the difference between power input and power output.
Temperature of the circuit components(transistor, core, bias resistors) is part of the internal "black box" losses.
Input power and Output power are considered external to the black box.
Guaranteed, with the blocking oscillator power output will be less than power input.
I should have clarified.
I think if one is using a control compared to the DUT, then you would want to account for dissipation in the switch as well, because the load will not be receiving all the available power. This of course assumes that the input power is set to an equal amount for both tests.
Is this not correct?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.31, 15:49:02
I should have clarified.
I think if one is using a control compared to the DUT, then you would want to account for dissipation in the switch as well, because the load will not be receiving all the available power. This of course assumes that the input power is set to an equal amount for both tests.
Is this not correct?
.99
In this differential "null" circuit, the control resistor is passively driven directly from a separate power supply, which is used to balance the thermal bridge. The power required to balance the thermal bridge must equal the power in the load resistor attached to the DUT.
Power In (total) minus Power Out = Power consumed by DUT
No need to account for transistor power as all components in the black box are accounted for as part of DUT power consumption.
Do not confuse this method with the specialized circuit I developed for the Ainslie resistor, whereby duty cycle must be taken into account if a control is actively driven. I will have to draw another circuit for this to be clear.
Thanks so much, ION, .99, all -- I'm reading and understanding. Busy day today -- more later.
ION,
May I offer a hypothetical scenario:
Once all has been adjusted as per the instructions and the null meter is balanced, we have a DUT input power of 10W and a control input power of 10W.
What would be the resulting conclusion?
.99
Great comments gentlemen:
I was thinking of going the budget route for a thermal approach myself, very low tech.
For starters I think it would be prudent if PhysicsProf checked with Lawrence to find out what the claimed COP is for "Prototype A." This device consists of a series of components. So the other piece of information that PhysicsProf would need to get from Lawrence is precisely which components constitute the "output." Note that there are two LEDs, some resistors, etc. If PhysicsProf could get those two questions answered by Lawrence and then post his reply in this thread, then we have a basis for doing a thermal evaluation of the energy in and energy out of this device.
For reference, here is a picture of the device:
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8825.0;attach=49625;image)
My budget route for the thermal approach would be as follows:
Apply black paint to the LEDs. Apply insulating lacquer to the exposed contacts of the components that constitute the "output." Get two medium-sized Styrofoam coffee cups and put one in the other to act as a thermally isolated container. Get a Popsicle stick to agitate the water and put insulating Styrofoam on the end that you will hold between your fingers. Fill the container with water to a fixed level and insert the "output" components. Power the setup with a power test circuit like Ion showed or equivalent. Monitor the temperature over time as you very slowly agitate the water with the Popsicle stick.
Once this is done then all that you have to do is do some more runs where you put some resistors in the water that are dissipating fixed amounts of DC power. By comparing the temperature profiles of the water over time you will easily be able to determine what the output power of the "Prototype A" circuit is.
All that you need is a good variable power supply, preferably one that can operate in both voltage source and current source mode, and a good thermometer with at least 0.1 C resolution. The lower the thermal mass of the thermometer the better.
If you are using a medium-sized coffee cup to hold the water and the COP claim is greater than 1.5 you should be able to prove or disprove the claim very easily like this. The thermal mass of the water will be so much larger than the thermometer or anything else such that the results will be irrefutable. My suggestion for a datum for the test runs would be the amount of time it takes for the water to rise by 10 degrees Celsius. Hopefully this would take around 10 minutes and you should be fine. You just have to use your common sense here to find a happy medium for running the temperature trials. They may need to be tweaked (eg: reduce the amount of water in the container) to get excellent results. Note that you need to agitate the water very slowly and do it exactly the same way for all trial runs.
Personally, I would have to get Lawrence to commit to the COP performance and "output" components in writing as I originally stated above before I would start any testing.
MileHigh
Just one more comment about my proposed setup. In this case the heat supplied by the components immersed in the water is being supplied at a fixed steady rate. That means that over a period of 10 minutes you should expect to see a nearly straight-line rise in the water temperature. It's worth it to record the temperature every 30 seconds (for example) so that you can see a nice near-linear rise in the temperature. That would be very satisfying.
Even if the temperature vs. time line starts to take a slight curve where the slope starts to decrease, the data is still 100% valid.
If you assume that the water is thermally isolated from the outside world with the two Styrofoam coffee cups and the water evaporation over the time of the test run is insignificant, then the temperature vs. time line should be almost perfectly straight. The equivalent electrical circuit for this thermal system is a fixed current source (the output components dissipating heat) charging a capacitor (the thermal mass of the water). When a fixed current source charges a capacitor the voltage (temperature) in the capacitor will increase linearly over time.
Naturally you should start the test with the water at room temperature.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.31, 17:58:18
ION,
May I offer a hypothetical scenario:
Once all has been adjusted as per the instructions and the null meter is balanced, we have a DUT input power of 10W and a control input power of 10W.
What would be the resulting conclusion?
.99
In that hypothetical situation, you have an overunity device, because some power must be dissipated in the DUT. There are several methods to arrive at total power dissipated by the DUT, not including load resistor.
Can you guess how this can be done using the same test setup with a slight re-arrangement?
I designed this test strictly for black box devices as a first cut trial. Most DUT's will be quickly vetted as underunity and not require more time be spent. I'm sure this will occur with the rather poorly designed blocking oscillator of LT.
The black box itself is exactly that, a small enclosure that will contain the circuit and allow input / output connections.
I chose the open air, resistor with taped thermocouple because it is quick responding and has fairly linear losses to air compared to the insulated water bath technique, which is more of a power integration method.
Both the "loss to ambient" method described by myself and the "insulated water bath" method described by MH are valuable and each has different merits.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.31, 20:25:29
In that hypothetical situation, you have an overunity device, because some power must be dissipated in the DUT. There are several methods to arrive at total power dissipated by the DUT, not including load resistor.
Can you guess how this can be done using the same test setup with a slight re-arrangement?
I designed this test strictly for black box devices as a first cut trial. Most DUT's will be quickly vetted as underunity and not require more time be spent. I'm sure this will occur with this rather poorly designed blocking oscillator.
The black box itself is exactly that, a small enclosure that will contain the circuit and allow input / output connections.
I chose the open air, resistor with taped thermocouple because it is quick responding and has fairly linear losses to air compared to the insulated water bath technique, which is more of a power integration method.
Sure,
Once the test is nulled, take the thermocouple that was on the DUT resistor, and place it inside the DUT box. Do not adjust the DUT input power, but adjust the control power to again null the meter.
The hypothetical test situation I gave would indeed indicate OU. Now, a slight adjustment to the scenario; what if the DUT input power indicates 15W, and the control power is still 10W. What would be the conclusion from these results?
.99
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.31, 20:25:29
In that hypothetical situation, you have an overunity device, because some power must be dissipated in the DUT. There are several methods to arrive at total power dissipated by the DUT, not including load resistor.
Can you guess how this can be done using the same test setup with a slight re-arrangement?
I designed this test strictly for black box devices as a first cut trial. Most DUT's will be quickly vetted as underunity and not require more time be spent. I'm sure this will occur with this rather poorly designed blocking oscillator.
The black box itself is exactly that, a small enclosure that will contain the circuit and allow input / output connections.
I chose the open air, resistor with taped thermocouple because it is quick responding and has fairly linear losses to air compared to the insulated water bath technique, which is more of a power integration method.
I prefer the simplicity of the open-air method of ION, especially for a quick test. But the water-bath method of MH is rather good -- I may have access to a precision calorimeter at the university... that would be fun. Note below, though -- the output power is small... for this prototype.
Thanks for posting the photo, MH. Your questions:
Quote
For starters I think it would be prudent if PhysicsProf checked with Lawrence to find out what the claimed COP is for "Prototype A." This device consists of a series of components. So the other piece of information that PhysicsProf would need to get from Lawrence is precisely which components constitute the "output." Note that there are two LEDs, some resistors, etc. If PhysicsProf could get those two questions answered by Lawrence and then post his reply in this thread, then we have a basis for doing a thermal evaluation of the energy in and energy out of this device.
I think Lawrence posted the results on the OU forum, but anyway I have this from him:
The output is between the bottom two copper wires in the photo (he numbers them 5 and 6), connecting to the output coil. I checked -- there is no direct coupling between this coil and the other wires in the prototype. The components on the output, starting at the bottom in the photo, are: 10 ohm resistor, 100 ohm resistor, and LED.
The claimed COP -- is done two ways by him, peak-to-peak (PP) and RMS. He measures the voltage output of the battery and the voltage drop (using an oscilloscope, as the DC is pulsed) across the 1.o-ohm resistor (connected to the black lead from the battery), both PP and RMS.
Then he measures the voltage across the output leads (5 and 6, described above) and to get the current, the voltage drop across the 10 ohm resistor (bottom of photo).
OK -- Input power PP is 0.117 W, RMS is 0.0023 W.
Output power PP is 0.37 W, RMS is 0.023 W.
Thus he calculates COP to be 3.2 = 0.37/0.117 from PP measurements, and from the RMS measurements, 10 = 0.023/0.0023.
As I said above, I don't like the multiplying of V*I when the voltage trace is so non-uniform, nothing like sinusoidal. And Lawrence intrinsically admits such when he says "the more accurate value from the integration of the power curves should be used." So let's be fair on that point.
Later, in a 20 Dec 2010 posting at OU, he says, "in the Workshop at Hong Kong University on Oct 9, 2010, ..one student, Felix, produced a prototype with COP > 280."
Probably calculated in a crude way, but that is not stated.
Hope that helps MH-- you see the output power is very small with this prototype A, would not warm water very fast at all. ;)
MH posts the photo of Prototype A above in reply 20. It is fairly obvious that with all the resistors and two LEDs, there is quite a bit of loss, not to mention losses in the toroidal "transformer". I would appreciate comments on how to reduce unnecessary losses... then we could test the suggestions on the Prototype.
@all
OK, I'm back on the forum. Staying in guest mode is too freaky. I felt like I was an OU Mutant Ninja crawling around this place and hiding behind this guest mode moniker. Not really my style. So anyways...
@PhysicsProf
Maybe one point to consider in testing this device is to make sure you do not leave the scope probe or volt meter probes connected to the device for any real length of time since just this one additional connection can aid in keeping the battery charged.
It is always very difficult with devices that work on low voltage, low amperage to separate the true effect from any induced effects as mentioned from others. Let's say you put your volt meter on the device and reading 1.47 volts, then put your scope probe on the device and immediately see a jump to read 1.49 volts, these are the type of problems one will run into. Or, the LED is lit, then when you put a scope probe on it lights brighter or dimmer.
wattsup
Welcome back Wattsup
Very good suggestion...best to eliminate all stray leakage paths that could inject current.
Sometimes an oxidized connection can rectify AC leakage currents or airborne RF enough to provide a fake charging path.
If using a scope or meter, best to follow POYNTS grounding techniques.
BTW...the power in this circuit is so small the chances of error are surely increased.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.31, 20:59:03
MH posts the photo of Prototype A above in reply 20. It is fairly obvious that with all the resistors and two LEDs, there is quite a bit of loss, not to mention losses in the toroidal "transformer". I would appreciate comments on how to reduce unnecessary losses... then we could test the suggestions on the Prototype.
I find your question unusual. Why should you need to modify a working prototype that was sent to you by the inventor? There is really not much that you can do to reduce unnecessary losses anyways. This device is outputting electrical power which is being turned into heat. The energy being burned off in the output components, the 10 ohm resistor, 100 ohm resistor, and LED are all that you have to worry about. You shouldn't have to worry about the heat looses in the wires, the ferrite core, and the transistor. These types of losses are part and parcel of any alleged over unity device.
There are a few other unusual things. For starters Lawrence is not counting the main JT output through the LED that's connected to the transistor. The concepts of "peak-to-peak" COP and "RMS" COP are superfluous and make no sense. For the "RMS" COP there are two issues that come to mind. There is a non-linear diode in the circuit so you can't use the RMS data. The second issue is that the JT circuit might be oscillating at 50 KHz or more and there is very little data provided for "True RMS" multimeters with respect to the sampling rate, bandwidth, etc. I am assuming that Lawrence is using a "True RMS" multimeter for his measurements. The COP is the average power out divided by the average power in. There is no wiggle room for that definition.
The power levels are indeed quite low so the water bath method may not work or it could be modified. You could put the three components that constitute the output in a Styrofoam cup and only put about one centimeter worth of water in the cup. You also put a standard thermocouple in the water. Put a cover on the cup and then gently move the cup with your hand to agitate the water. Do that for 10 minutes and the water should go up in temperature by a few degrees Celsius. Then with the very same components in the cup do your pure DC fixed power runs to determine the output power.
Another option is to simply gob the thermocouple, 10 ohm resistor, the 100 ohm resistor, and LED together into a ball of white thermal paste and suspend it in the air and do the open air tests like Ion said. It should take only about five minutes for that to reach thermal equilibrium. You could also use a non-contact infrared thermometer if you wanted.
Best of luck with whatever you choose to do!
MileHigh
I wil agree with MH....we are not here to redesign the inventor's device so he has yet another complaint of why the testing failed.
POYNT and I went through testing such JT devices a few years back. Based on this, I have little faith in Lawrence Tseung's prototype.
We have built a similar device, from scratch, that we're playing with.... Should I ask for your permission, fellas, to make some changes on this one?
I'm finding it educational, actually.
(Note: I was having trouble posting and hit clicked on "unlock", but I wonder if somehow I inadvertently locked the thread... sorry if so. Not intentional.)
This posted by LT at OU yesterday may be of interest:
QuotePrototype A and C have arrived at the hands of the intended verifiers. The first successful FLEET prototype was demonstrated on July 13 (reply 434 on page 29). Much historical information is available on this thread - thanks to Stefan. The diary form of posting does have its value.
Bob Boyce and I communicated via phone today. When I get back from the ski resort on Jan 2, 2011, we shall work more closely. Confirmation of COP greater than 1 with videos, scope shots, computer analysis results etc will be out soon. He also has the Bedini three magnet wheel.
We may combine the two in a future conference. The participants will have two working COP > 1 devices to take home. When hundreds or thousands of people have and can build such prototypes, the Energy Crisis will be over.
The bonus may be the HHO device with much higher output power from Bob.
@PhysicsProf
In answer to your question above as to should you make modifications, I would answer yes, but only after you have used your best efforts to analyze the device as is. There is a question of giving the device the justice it deserves based on the efforts the maker has made to put the device in your hands.
I think the hardest thing for the more traditional engineers (I am not one of them) is to both look at the device in the traditional sense, but thereafter, put those notions aside and try to see the device through the makers eyes in order to understand what the maker is trying to convey regarding any functional underpinnings.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.01, 19:18:42
@PhysicsProf
In answer to your question above as to should you make modifications, I would answer yes, but only after you have used your best efforts to analyze the device as is. There is a question of giving the device the justice it deserves based on the efforts the maker has made to put the device in your hands.
I think the hardest thing for the more traditional engineers (I am not one of them) is to both look at the device in the traditional sense, but thereafter, put those notions aside and try to see the device through the makers eyes in order to understand what the maker is trying to convey regarding any functional underpinnings.
wattsup
Thanks, wattsup, and I agree the device should be tested as-is -- with one caveat: The resistors are set into the device by Lawrence (1 ohm after the battery and 10 ohms on the output) with the intent to have the tester measure input and output voltages and currents using oscilloscope(s) and calculating power in and out that way (multiplying...IV). As I explained above... and I don't trust the power calculated in this way because the voltage traces are so very non-uniform (like an h, as I said). So I'm obliged already to modify the circuit somewhat in order to get a reliable measure of the input and output power -- something I can believe.
I did it "his way" (Lawrence's) and found COP >1... but now I'm moving on to better measurements, something I can hang my hat on.
In parallel, we have built a similar toroidal device and we're playing with variations... I'm not a conventional engineer either... ;)
Wattsup:
The notion of looking at the device in a "traditional sense" and then from the "maker's eyes" is false. You hope it will work and you hope that some sort of alternative way of looking at it or analyzing it will show that it works.
For the energy analysis, there is only one way of looking at this device. You have to try to measure the energy supplied to the device as accurately as possible and measure the energy output by the device as accurately as possible.
There is no 'tricking' the system. It has to be a level playing field no matter what the device.
For example, I look at the Bedini stuff and many people repeat what they have been told by John Bedini and Rick Friedrich and Aaron Murakami. They say, "It's really a COP > 1 device when you factor in the mechanical output from the rotor." The reality is that there is no mechanical output from the rotor. The spinning rotor in a Bedini motor only represents lost power and represents part of the inefficiencies inherent in the design. So the "alternative" viewpoint about the spinning rotor is false in this case. There is only one way to do an energy analysis for a Bedini motor.
A Joule Thief is just a transformer with a feedback loop that turns it into an oscillator. Lawrence Tseung has added an additional secondary winding to this transformer-oscillator and believes that he has created an over unity device. The measurements will speak for themselves.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.01, 19:29:36
Thanks, wattsup, and I agree the device should be tested as-is -- with one caveat: The resistors are set into the device by Lawrence (1 ohm after the battery and 10 ohms on the output) with the intent to have the tester measure input and output voltages and currents using oscilloscope(s) and calculating power in and out that way (multiplying...IV). As I explained above... and I don't trust the power calculated in this way because the voltage traces are so very non-uniform (like an h, as I said). So I'm obliged already to modify the circuit somewhat in order to get a reliable measure of the input and output power -- something I can believe.
I would advise you to proceed with caution here. For starters, the power supplied to the device should be measured after the one-ohm resistor. If you use a battery eliminator/power test circuit like Ion showed, then you don't need the one-ohm resistor at all.
If you change the 10-ohm resistor for a different value, then you change the overall impedance of the circuit as seen from the perspective of the power supply. Changing the value of the 10-ohm resistor will have an impact on the power input and the power power output of the circuit. It will also most likely change the frequency the JT operates at. So if you modify the circuit you will completely change the dynamics of the circuit. Assuming you measure under unity Lawrence will claim it's under unity because you modified his design. This is "standard practice" in this realm and Lawrence is fully aware of this.
If you were to not modify the circuit then the viable options for measuring the power output are to use a DSO or to do it thermally. In my opinion, my variation on Ion's method is the easiest and fastest. Gobbing the three output components together with thermal paste and then suspending that in the air and letting it reach thermal equilibrium would be very easy to do. After measuring the temperature from the running circuit, it would take another four or five runs at different DC power levels to be able to deduce the output power of the device. The whole thing could be done in a single afternoon.
MileHigh
MH:
Quote"If you were to not modify the circuit then the viable options for measuring the power output are to use a DSO or to do it thermally.'
Your thermal method would have to be calibrated -- I think this is the hardest part, frankly, with your method. How would you calibrate it?
Back to the DSO method for a moment, please. We have a lap-top based oscilloscope and can capture the traces easily. So how would we measure power out using this method? (I'm seriously trying to learn as we go along here.)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.01, 19:49:19
...
A Joule Thief is just a transformer with a feedback loop that turns it into an oscillator. Lawrence Tseung has added an additional secondary winding to this transformer-oscillator and believes that he has created an over unity device. The measurements will speak for themselves.
MileHigh
The basic circuit can be improved upon in innovative ways to
enhance switching efficiency. It is true that the Blocking Oscillator
configuration (bipolar transistor version) is not highly efficient
as it is.
I applaud the efforts of those who are pursuing an accurate means
of evaluating pulsed energy input/output on the small scale which
this type of circuit affords. The PhysicsProf is doing what he does
best and will surely arrive at an equitable solution in due time.
There is much to be said for pulsed energy systems. Even Nikola
Tesla was intrigued by their properties and came to some very
interesting conclusions in his time.
Perhaps I should have explained in more detail.
The thermal bridge "null" balance method is like the old time beam balance weighing scale, where the unknowns are put on one side and are "balanced" or "nulled" with a known quantity on the other side of the scale.
A system which converts electrical energy into heat by dissipation in resistors, transistors and other components is weighed against a known heat generating system.
The differential thermocouple system performs the function of the beam in the beam balance.
We are using a power supply and resistor on the known part of the bridge which we adjust to develop heat equal to that which our DUT is outputting (the unknown side of the bridge).
When the system is balanced we can simply read the power on the balancing power supplies meters.
Normal precalibration of the power supply used to provide balance, and the source power supply to the DUT is assumed.
We can get more detailed, and match the thermocouples, make sure we measure the value of the heat generating resistor as a double check etc. but this is normally unnecessary except for extreme precision.
This method can be broken down into the two step method MH has described. I just tend to prefer null balance techniques...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.01, 20:36:51
MH:
Your thermal method would have to be calibrated -- I think this is the hardest part, frankly, with your method. How would you calibrate it?
Back to the DSO method for a moment, please. We have a lap-top based oscilloscope and can capture the traces easily. So how would we measure power out using this method? (I'm seriously trying to learn as we go along here.)
There is no requirement to calibrate the system. You can measure the output power by empirical observation. For example, suppose that you run the device and the three output components are suspended in mid air by the wires and scrunched together and covered with white thermal paste like previously described. You wait five minutes and you measure a temperature of 27.3 degrees. To be sure, you wait another five minutes and you measure again and the temperature is still 27.3 degrees. You are now certain that the the mass has reached thermal equilibrium.
You then disconnect the the JT circuit from the three suspended components and connect up the battery eliminator/power test circuit so that you can power it with pure DC at a measurable voltage and current flow. Suppose that you take a guesstimate that the Lawrence Tseung circuit was supplying 0.1 watts to the load. So the first thing that you do is dial-up 0.1 watts of power with the power test circuit by carefully adjusting the current output (preferably) from the variable power supply and monitoring the DC voltage and current readings until you are supplying exactly 0.1 watts to the load. Then you wait five minutes and take a temperature reading. Supposing you measure 27.3 degrees. We will also assume that the ambient temperature in the room has not changed and during both tests there has been no appreciable airflow around the hanging thermal mass, just the normal ambient airflow. Assuming that everything is true then your guess was dead-on and you now know that the power output of the Lawrence Tseung device is 0.1 watts. Naturally there is an error tolerance for this measurement but I am not going to discuss that.
With respect to your laptop-based oscilloscope I would not really put much faith in that as an accurate measuring device. If you are running software on the laptop that makes use of the built-in sound card's line input, it's doubtful that the setup is good enough to make the required measurements. I am just giving you my gut feel here. I am assuming that the sampling is limited to 8-bit quantization at 44 KHz which would not cut it.
If you were to use a "real" DSO of an older generation then you could export your voltage and current waveforms into Excel and do the multiply-accumulate function to calculate the average power over one or multiple cycles, making sure you satisfy the "enhanced" Nyquist sampling rate requirement. With a very modern DSO you could record the waveforms and push a few buttons and the DSO itself would calculate the average power for you.
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.01, 22:17:42
Perhaps I should have explained in more detail.
The thermal bridge "null" balance method is like the old time beam balance weighing scale, where the unknowns are put on one side and are "balanced" or "nulled" with a known quantity on the other side of the scale.
A system which converts electrical energy into heat by dissipation in resistors, transistors and other components is weighed against a known heat generating system.
The differential thermocouple system performs the function of the beam in the beam balance.
We are using a power supply and resistor on the known part of the bridge which we adjust to develop heat equal to that which our DUT is outputting (the unknown side of the bridge).
When the system is balanced we can simply read the power on the balancing power supplies meters.
Normal precalibration of the power supply used to provide balance, and the source power supply to the DUT is assumed.
We can get more detailed, and match the thermocouples, make sure we measure the value of the heat generating resistor as a double check etc. but this is normally unnecessary except for extreme precision.
This method can be broken down into the two step method MH has described. I just tend to prefer null balance techniques...
I agree with this except for one issue:
In accordance with your diagrams, you are only placing
part of the DUT on the balance beam, that part being the resistor.
Also, let me repeat part of a previous post that may have got overlooked:
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.31, 20:39:41
The hypothetical test situation I gave would indeed indicate OU. Now, a slight adjustment to the scenario; what if the DUT input power indicates 15W, and the control power is still 10W. What would be the conclusion from these results?
.99
I agree with Poynt here. Ion's proposed system allows you to tweak a test setup such that the absolute temperature of the resistor under test and the control resistor are the same. However, for the two resistors, the thermal resistance to the outside world is not necessarily the same unless you are very careful in how you set things up. The ultimate temperature that the two devices stabilize at is a function of the power dissipation and the thermal resistance to the outside world.
Of course, if you are testing two objects that are manufactured in exactly the same way, then you can expect the thermal resistance to the outside world for each object to be approximately the same. In this particular case, we are talking about three tiny components. It might be difficult to replicate the three tiny components such that they had the same thermal resistance to the outside world as the device under test.
Not to say that you couldn't get creative here. If you put the three components under test into a small plastic case filled with thermal paste, and compared that with the identical plastic case filled with thermal paste containing a single resistor, then you have two objects that have approximately the same thermal resistance to the outside world. You should get very good results like this. (At least when I do the thought experiment in my head!)
MileHigh
Hi MH.
I think you may be close, but that's not quite what I am getting at.
.99
Today we spent some time on the toroidal prototype. We actually came quite close to your null balance, ION, but not quite. We only had one thermocouple + meter system available (this is a small town) and so we did the balance a piece at a time. We found that we could match the heating of the output resistor from the DUT with 0.04 Watts of power over the same resistor from our battery+variable resistor (which substituted for our power supply -- again, a very small town). The thermocouple was taped to the resistor... It took some time for us to home in on the matching input power... but we feel the calibration is believable.
So great idea, ION -- it worked to this extent.\
1 -- Here is a potential problem I see with your null-balance drawing, ION... When we look at the INPUT voltage coming into the DUT, even though the "power supply" right now is a battery, the trace shows that the circuit is gating the input in a complex way, so that the INPUT voltage has the shape of a small "h", with a high peak followed by a shoulder. Now here is the question to you -- can I TRUST the power supply (PS) to give an accurate reading of the power (from V*I) given this actuality?
I can use/borrow some good power supplies (one for each side of the balance) from the university... if I can trust what they are telling me.
This is an important question. The main problem now is -- determining the input power.
2. It is interesting that this value for the output power, using the thermocouple, is BETWEEN the simple V*I calculations (PP and RMS) I discussed above, which gives about 0.39W (using PP values) and 0.027W (using RMS values for input and output). So a firm conclusion is that we need something better than just simple oscilloscope values and V*I... as we all apparently suspected.
3. MH and .99 are probably wondering -- how did you get ONE output resistor when the prototype has two resistors (in series) AND an LED on the output side? What a pain to work with three separate elements like that... We could try to put all three in a thermal paste as you suggest MH, but where to put the thermocouple to get a good measurement?? And how to arrange a null resistor for comparison?
It was easy to replace the two resistors in series with one resistor... But just with a resistor across the output wires (from the output winding), LED out, the trace of the output signal was much different than with the output-LED in place. We figured the LED had a diode function, but it also was pulling out quite a bit of power, compared to that from the two resistors (now replaced by one). So we tried -- one resistor of equivalent resistance (close enough) to the 2 resistors AND the LED -- plus a diode which draws essentially no power loss... Now the output trace was essentially the same.
I know, I know, Lawrence can complain that we "changed his circuit so the results are invalid" -- maybe he will, but we're getting results that we can understand at least... And then we may go back to the original circuit later, perhaps. Meanwhile, we have checked that the output signal-trace is very much the same replacing the LED with a simple diode and inserting the appropriate resistance in the output circuit.
4. Yes, we saved all important OSC traces from our various tests... but pls don't ask that I post these here yet... We're still learning. And I wish to get the MEASUREMENT methods down before talking about detailed results..
PhysicsProf:
Quote3. MH and .99 are probably wondering -- how did you get ONE output resistor when the prototype has two resistors (in series) AND an LED on the output side? What a pain to work with three separate elements like that... We could try to put all three in a thermal paste as you suggest MH, but where to put the thermocouple to get a good measurement?? And how to arrange a null resistor for comparison?
I am going to comment without considering the issue of a null resistor. The central issue that I will address is about getting valid temperature data from the thermal mass. The thermal mass may include the three components in the original setup, or the choice of components would be at your discretion. Because there is an non-linear LED or potentially a diode in the thermal mass, the higher the excitation voltage then proportionally higher power will be dissipated in the resistor(s) as compared to the LED (or diode). Therefore there is an inherent asymmetry in the relative heat production between the resistive components and the LED or diode relative to the excitation voltage. That means the relative heat production between the resistive components and the LED or diode is waveform dependent. If the thermocouple is placed very close to the resistive components, for example, it can induce errors in the temperature measurement when you compare the waveform-based and the DC-based heat production of the load. To be as precise as possible you want to reduce the waveform dependence affecting the temperature reading of the thermocouple.
So, the easy way around this is to increase the thermal mass and keep the thermocouple relatively far away from the individual components. The first idea that comes to mind is as follows: Get a metal thimble and put the load components in the bottom of the thimble. Make sure that they are at the bottom of the thimble. Then fill the thimble up with thermal paste. Then embed the thermocouple in the thermal paste near the top of the thimble in the center of the thimble. Put a piece of tape on the top of the thimble to secure everything in place and then suspend the whole thing by the wires. This should guarantee you enough thermal low pass filtering to ensure that your temperature readings are completely waveform independent. It may take a few extra minutes for this larger thermal mass to reach temperature equilibrium.
Just some ideas, you can use them if you choose to or perhaps not. At this point I am officially switching over to lurker mode on your project and wish you good luck. I look forward to seeing the results of your testing.
MileHigh
Thanks for the comment, MH...
My thought is that when the COP for a device is sufficiently large, it will not require heroics to demonstrate that the COP>1. We may have to for this one.
It is interesting to me that the output power is as large as it is for this little toroidal device... still not convinced that the COP >1 at all, though...
The problem has to do with power measurements as noted.
I do like ION's idea of using good power supplies to keep track of the input power... although I have some questions about this as delineated above.
See you all Monday...
Regarding some of the questions I have been asked about the thermal bridge method.
The method and schematic supplied is a general purpose design for most devices where it is desired to have an estimate of input / output power into a resistor load. DUT losses can be easily calculated separately.
e.g 10 Watts input power and 8 Watts output power = 2 Watts lost in the DUT circuitry.
Be creative, the method I supplied is a rudimentary starting point for power measurement on a budget. It may not be an exact fit for the Tseung device, but can be adapted to it.
The case presented by POYNT of 10 Watts input and 10 Watts output is unique and unrealistic. In this case the device can be assumed to have some overunity and the output power plus DUT losses / input power will equal the COP. We have not come very close to needing to test for this unique case yet. It is, however easily accomplished as I stated in an earlier post.
Yes, in the matched load resistor bridge, the losses to ambient must be made equal on both sides of the bridge......I thought this was common sense and would not have to be explained.
QuoteHere is a potential problem I see with your null-balance drawing, ION... When we look at the INPUT voltage coming into the DUT, even though the "power supply" right now is a battery, the trace shows that the circuit is gating the input in a complex way, so that the INPUT voltage has the shape of a small "h", with a high peak followed by a shoulder.
You say when you are "looking at the input voltage" and you see a small "h"...this should not be happening if you have a good battery that represents a good "voltage source". I would guess your battery has a higher than normal impedance (internal resistance) and so is acting as a partial current source. You can parallel the battery with a large electrolytic capacitor, such as used to stiffen car stereo systems. This should eliminate transient sag in your test setup. Chances are that you will not need a cap that large to do the job.
More info would be helpful (battery type, battery condition etc.)
QuoteNow here is the question to you -- can I TRUST the power supply (PS) to give an accurate reading of the power (from V*I) given this actuality?
Depends on the design of the power supply, but generally it should be accurate enough.
Please supply a schematic and photo of your test setup, then we can comment further.
In many instances replacing the battery with a power supply is not a good idea since you will be losing any potential throughput that may be required for the device to operate properly.
If the device is producing any level of flyback, that 1.5vdc battery will not be able to handle it all and simply pass it through to the other side where this effect could be unknowingly aiding the overall device to work. Sorry if I am saying this is a crude manner.
@MH
The above is what I mean by thinking out of the box on these devices. You see it in a conventional manner and treat it as such which is not bad in essence, but "maybe" and I say it again "maybe" the actual effect is occurring via some method that you would not have considered. That's why when we see devices, we try to look at it from the makers point of view and often enough the maker does not even know why it works in the manner it does.
@all
On these low voltage systems, is there a way where you can use a high enough mF capacitor with a germanium diode that together have been "pre-quantified'. I just made that word up but what I mean is that you already know in advance that to hold a voltage at x level in y seconds would required z joules, with a good range of known values. Then you switch the device inline to the cap tank and measure how long it takes for the voltage to stabilize.
Well, I don't really know fully how to do it and also it may again play against the overall function of the device.
The other option may be to get the coil ohmage values and wire guages and make a new device but with a larger toroid and comparable windings but run it at a higher voltage/amperage, high enough to be able to determine any OU without the low voltage hassles.
wattsup
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.31, 20:39:41
The hypothetical test situation I gave would indeed indicate OU. Now, a slight adjustment to the scenario; what if the DUT input power indicates 15W, and the control power is still 10W. What would be the conclusion from these results?
.99
As no one has yet taken a stab at this, I'll explain where I was attempting to go with it.
ION, you mentioned this:
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.02, 20:39:18
The method and schematic supplied is a general purpose design for most devices where it is desired to have an estimate of input / output power into a resistor load. DUT losses can be easily calculated separately.
e.g 10 Watts input power and 8 Watts output power = 2 Watts lost in the DUT circuitry.
Be creative, the method I supplied is a rudimentary starting point for power measurement on a budget. It may not be an exact fit for the Tseung device, but can be adapted to it.
The case presented by POYNT of 10 Watts input and 10 Watts output is unique and unrealistic. In this case the device can be assumed to have some overunity and the output power plus DUT losses / input power will equal the COP. We have not come very close to needing to test for this unique case yet. It is, however easily accomplished as I stated in an earlier post.
I understand your points, however imho there are some assumptions being made there that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
First and foremost, when we are vetting any "black box", we should not make any assumptions regarding whether or not the DUT is OU, nor what degree of OU it may exhibit, no matter what prior tests on similar devices may have shown. We are simply making a purely objective measurement and assessment on the device based on the outcome. From the purely scientific standpoint, we can not make any assumptions or pre-judgments on the device we are about to test with the black box method.
My example of 10W input and 10W output should be considered a possibility. Judging it as "unique" and "unrealistic" is irrelevant to the test, if we are using the scientific method and we are being objective and unbiased.
Quotee.g 10 Watts input power and 8 Watts output power = 2 Watts lost in the DUT circuitry.
This is also an assumption, which by its nature, eliminates another possibility. In the similar example I gave at the top of this post, I asked what the conclusion of these results would be. Did most conclude that the DUT was under-unity in this case? If so, that would be an erroneous conclusion. We did not measure the DUT as a whole, therefore we can not assume that we obtained the "whole" picture regarding what the total output power is for the DUT.
Black box testing assumes
all possibilities, therefore we can not exclude the possibility of an "OU device" before we commence testing any DUT. In my example where 15W was measured as a DUT input power and 10W at the DUT resistor, we are tempted to conclude that 5W is lost in the DUT circuitry, but we have not yet captured the whole picture. It is entirely possible that there is significantly more than 5W of power being dissipated in the DUT circuitry, such as 20W, 50W, or even 100W for example. This of course would represent poor power transfer to the resistor (especially if the goal was to heat that resistor as much as possible), however that is irrelevant.
The point being this: In order to obtain a true representation of the DUT's output power and in keeping with the scientific method and objective black box testing, the
entire DUT as a whole must be measured, not just the output element itself. In the case of the device in this topic, and with reference to ION's test setup, this would involve either encasing the DUT circuitry and placing a second series DUT thermal couple on the enclosure, or placing all the DUT components inside a single enclosure, including the output resistor, and measuring this enclosure with a single thermal-couple.
And that, in essence, was the reason for my original post suggesting the requirement of a second thermal-couple on the DUT switch.
Respectfully,
.99
@poynt99
OK I understand about trying to measure the heat dissipation but how can that be included into a determination of OU or not. Seems to me that the thermocouple positioning will always be left to some speculation. If the hot point surface is 2 cm square and is 400 degrees versus another that is 25 cm square and all the surface area is at 300 degrees, will you say the first one dissipates more heat energy? This is the part I do not understand.
I think the first criteria is to listen to the maker of the device. If the maker says the device is OU without factoring in any heat dissipation, then this is what we should be checking out. If the device proves to be OU, then factoring in the heat is pointless. Of course that would increase the OU factor but it is not the makers point. If the device is showing unity, then the heat factor would push it over to the OU side. But if the device is under OU, the heat factor could push it to unity. If the device is way below OU on its own, then heat or not does not matter anymore.
When we measure power or energy (power x time), we are effectively measuring heat dissipation.
In electrical devices, a calorimetric measurement is king, if possible to perform. This involves measuring the temperature rise of the DUT and a control, as explained in ION's posts. The method described there utilizes a rudimentary calorimeter. ION has also decribed methods more true to the form of calorimeteric measurements.
Most of what "the maker says" is irrelevant to obtaining an objective assessment of the device. The only thing that need be acquired before-hand from the inventor, is what the required source of input energy is, and what form of energy (electrical, heat, mechanical etc.) the "output" takes, so both can be properly measured and compared.
.99
Poynt:
You have a valid argument about looking at the whole DUT. You may have noticed that I specifically asked what the "output" from the device was. I was basically getting confirmation that there was a reasonable assumption that there was indeed an "output" that was separate and distinct from the rest of the hardware. The rest of the Joule Thief hardware can be viewed as the "overhead," if you will, where the possible "over unity generation process" takes place. So my intention was to simplify the test process in a reasonable fashion. Of course in the strictest sense you are correct and looking at the entire DUT is the way to go.
Wattsup:
The premise for the thermal testing is that any electrical power output from the device is, by virtue of the design of the testing process, converted into heat power. So when you measure the heat power output you are also measuring the electrical power output. You greatly simplify the Joule Thief testing by looking at its heat power output and comparing it to the electrical power input.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.03, 17:46:40
As no one has yet taken a stab at this, I'll explain where I was attempting to go with it.
ION, you mentioned this:
I understand your points, however imho there are some assumptions being made there that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
First and foremost, when we are vetting any "black box", we should not make any assumptions regarding whether or not the DUT is OU, nor what degree of OU it may exhibit, no matter what prior tests on similar devices may have shown. We are simply making a purely objective measurement and assessment on the device based on the outcome. From the purely scientific standpoint, we can not make any assumptions or pre-judgments on the device we are about to test with the black box method.
My example of 10W input and 10W output should be considered a possibility. Judging it as "unique" and "unrealistic" is irrelevant to the test, if we are using the scientific method and we are being objective and unbiased.
This is also an assumption, which by its nature, eliminates another possibility. In the similar example I gave at the top of this post, I asked what the conclusion of these results would be. Did most conclude that the DUT was under-unity in this case? If so, that would be an erroneous conclusion. We did not measure the DUT as a whole, therefore we can not assume that we obtained the "whole" picture regarding what the total output power is for the DUT.
Black box testing assumes all possibilities, therefore we can not exclude the possibility of an "OU device" before we commence testing any DUT. In my example where 15W was measured as a DUT input power and 10W at the DUT resistor, we are tempted to conclude that 5W is lost in the DUT circuitry, but we have not yet captured the whole picture. It is entirely possible that there is significantly more than 5W of power being dissipated in the DUT circuitry, such as 20W, 50W, or even 100W for example. This of course would represent poor power transfer to the resistor (especially if the goal was to heat that resistor as much as possible), however that is irrelevant.
The point being this: In order to obtain a true representation of the DUT's output power and in keeping with the scientific method and objective black box testing, the entire DUT as a whole must be measured, not just the output element itself. In the case of the device in this topic, and with reference to ION's test setup, this would involve either encasing the DUT circuitry and placing a second series DUT thermal couple on the enclosure, or placing all the DUT components inside a single enclosure, including the output resistor, and measuring this enclosure with a single thermal-couple.
And that, in essence, was the reason for my original post suggesting the requirement of a second thermal-couple on the DUT switch.
Respectfully,
.99
Your points are well stated. I agree there are holes in the method unless the whole picture is considered.
The best method is considering all power in / power dissipated. I was merely trying to give some pointers in methods I have used over the years. Yes you can lump the load output resistor as part of the DUT, and get a total output power measurement.
I thought this was common sense and took for granted that it would be obvious the method could also be adapted to do this.
I have used the thermal method and it's variations for 30 or so years as part of my professional laboratory practice. It is not that difficult and one can be very creative on a budget.
I apologize if I have not offered every single possible configuration of the thermal method and left a lot to the hoped for imagination and enthusiasm of the audience to which it was presented.
Ultimately anyone who does not like the method can always use a DSO and bias the testing anyway they like by hiding behind wrong filter settings or cherry picking from hours and hours of data logging with questionable outcome and much argument, as we have seen before.
At this point I'm out and tired of trying to explain. Use whatever method you all like. :(
Administrators: I respectfully request permission to move all that I have written on the subject of thermal test methods to my bench as a method of preservation for those who can appreciate it.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.03, 19:22:34
At this point I'm out and tired of trying to explain. Use whatever method you all like. :(
Sometimes it's more fun to watch than to participate! :)
ION,
I fear you've taken the spirit of my post in a way not intended.
I fully support the method you have espoused. I am cautious however to assume that everyone in the audience will apply the technique properly by including the entire DUT, based on the essence of the method as described and illustrated.
Clearly in the illustration the DUT circuitry heat is not being accounted for, and my goal was to respectfully and constructively point this out to ensure that those entertaining the idea of implementing this method, ought to be aware of this. In my opinion, it was not obvious, and I suspect the Professor is or was not going to take this into account, should he decide to use this method. His last post seems to indicate that he did not take the DUT circuitry heat dissipation into account.
Apologies if I offended. Your inputs are always highly appreciated.
Respectfully,
.99
I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also.
IMO:
1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed.
2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree.
3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two.
4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise.
5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.04, 14:05:20
I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also.
IMO:
1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed.
2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree.
3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two.
4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise.
5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question.
I agree, especially point 5
All simple test methods have holes or Achilles Heels whereby energy may not all be accounted for.
As an example even the thermal method will not account for radiated RF, efficient particle production and radiation etc. unless special radio absorptive enclosures are defined as part of the test protocol.
As we know, the blocking oscillator emits a tiny amount of RF since it is a switching circuit with high frequency transients.
In this case the radiated RF energy will not be accounted for by many methods of normal testing, and granted, it will be extremely small.
Audible emissions are also a form of energy release that may be difficult to account for, and ferrite cores will "sing" at certain frequencies.
So when does a test become "reasonable" as a first cut attempt to determine usable, practical energy production into a known load?
We will have to use common sense to arrive at this, and common sense is often not so common.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.04, 14:05:20
4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise.
This is an important guideline that seems to get overlooked in the effort to find "something" that might be scaled up.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.04, 14:05:20
I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also.
IMO:
1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed.
2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree.
3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two.
4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise.
5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question.
Hello Professor.
I've been watching this thread with interest - precisely to see if there would be some defined protocols to get to proof. If, as you record here - this is sufficient proof - in other words if there is reasonable evidence of the amount of energy delivered by a supply determined by some integrated analysis of the power measured by DSO - if dissipated energies can be determined by the thermal method - if the device is well 'over unity' and if the results are both scaleable and repeatable - then that would be nice.
What actually happens is that when push comes to shove - a million other criteria are brought into the picture and all is justified under the requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Frankly I've lost all confidence in Open Source. I think that there's actually a jealous requirement of all players here to be produce that 'first'. And to serve this interest they ignore competing claims. You see we've reached all those standards that you stipulated - and more.
I've advised Poynty about this when I asked if I could used his forum to publish our new report. But now, as a for instance - Poynty won't regard any claim as valid unless we first use a differential probe. Others require our system is to operate perpetually. Others require that we disconnect from the battery. Others require that the effect is only proven from a utility supply source. Others require ONLY a capacitor. And so it goes. No-one takes such simple criteria as sufficient - albeit that they won't say this here and to you. It's an ego thing. No level of 'proof of concept' will ever be allowed on these forums. I know that now. There'll always be insufficient evidence. What's worse - Poynty won't even allow the publication of a report on our latest tests on this forum unless he's first approved it. And his first requirement is that we use that differential probe which we simply can neither access nor afford.
Tough going here Professor. But I've learned to my cost that if you want your technology entirely discredited and suppressed - then publish it on these forums. They do a remarkably good job of this. They'll either ban you or allow
your threads to be flamed or they'll diminish you somehow. It's very interesting to me that Ion has been testing this and claims all that noise - or incorrect readings due to ringing?
Something like that. If there's no noise? What then? Do we simply pretend that there is noise to satisfy his requirement. Because he'll deny our claim based on his own experience of this. That's the way it works. They entirely overlook any experimental evidence as if it's never even been offered. And then they complain that OU has never been achieved. What they really mean is that they personally have never managed it. Therefore nor can anyone else. If I thought for one moment that you could successfully promote our own test then I'd also send you a prototype. But it'll never happen. Your colleagues will also just scratch their heads and walk away. It's the way it works. An entire planet crying out for need of some cheap and clean energy - and a whole lot of egotists insisting that if they can't do it no-one can.
Rosemary
edited
@aetherevarising
Sorry but you should take a little walk outside and cool down and try to not exaggerate things here.
None of what you are saying is the case, especially nothing has to do with ego. The ego race you are having is in that Ether thread.
Specifically there is a device that works at a low voltage range and trying to see if it is OU or not is not an easy task. Whatever you add to it to probe may effect it. Also, seeing OU of .01 mV would not be easy to separate from the actual energy consumed.
Imagine should the guys at OUR clearly stipulate that this device is in fact OU, do you think they will not be asked to look at it from a more critical angle. You bet. So trying to think out and work out the OU testing now will just save all a great deal of aggravation if in fact it turns out to be OU. No one will be able to attack us on the method because it has already been looked at.
@all
Every type of device will have its OU measurement challenges for sure unless or course if the device is so above the OU mark that just watching it operate is convincing enough.
I would go for the scalable method if the device is so small, but again you will have problems with finding the exact ratio in scalability and match that to the right type of toroid and wind lengths, etc, etc. You would actually have to take the original coil apart to count turns, measure lengths, etc., and in many cases that is not a viable option unless the maker provides a precise build spec when he supplies a test device.
Maybe, just maybe if for smaller devices, like I tried to explain previously, you can take the battery out and replace it with a comparable capacitor of generous mF range charged to 1.5vdc and run the device off of that feed capacitor. Then you send the output to another dioded capacitor (selenium diode consumes the least) to see how much can be put back into the output capacitor. There may also be a possibility to then add a small zener diode off the output capacitor leading back to the feed capacitor to see if the device can run in a loop. This would remove the battery from the equation but still provide a means of throughput where you do not have to wait hours to see if something is normal or not.
About the RF, I doubt it at 1.5vdc feed on that toroid that you will have any RF to be concerned about even at higher frequencies.
wattsup
Rose.
We have discussed at length how claims of overunity will be vetted at OUR.
Differential and current probes are not always required, nor is it stated so in the OUR guidelines. I have let you know in advance that the chances of your reported results making it past the vetting stage will be greatly improved if your tests are performed with the required probes. Your circuit requires particular attention to this requirement, and denying this fact has no benefit to furthering your case.
I have never denied your intention to submit your report to OUR for vetting. You are welcome to do so. However, know that if through the vetting process it is determined that the claim is not fully substantiated with credible and accurate evidence, it won't likely be posted.
I trust that you understand why these measures are in place and respect the fact that they exist here. There are always other options if an open source forum does not suit you.
.99
I've decided to delete that post. It's hardly going to make an ounce of difference in the general attitudes.
It's nice, at least - that Professor is sorting out some acceptable test parameters. Hopefully you'll all see these as reasonable. And I think it's long over due that these be established. Not one rule for one person and another for another. Just a general guideline that you all stick to. What a welcome change would that be.
Rosemary
and the signal is lost in the noise...
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.05, 03:01:27
Well Poynty. We, unlike the Lawrence Tseung prototype have got our resistor cooking at 120 degrees centigrade and we can't measure any energy delivered by the battery...
That is
precisely the reason why your measurements are not adequate.
Quote
We're also in the happy position of having Le Croy guarantee the results within certain margins which are well exceeded - provided only we do integral analaysis. Which we do. And with this analysis we get even better results than with the simple mean averaging.
I can assure you, LeCroy will never guarantee that the measurements you are taking with those passive probes to produce power and energy traces are accurate.
Quote
We have expert advices endorsing the instrument.
There is nothing wrong or inadequate with the oscilloscope.
Quote
Expert advices endorsing the test results.
Whom may that be? If you are referring to the LeCroy guys, that's pure bullshit.
Quote
Expert advices endorsing the protocols.
Whom may that be? From what I could gather through your responses on this, your "protocols" are either non-existent, mis-applied, or haphazardly pulled from a hat.
Quote
Now you seem to require a differential probe for reasons which I absolutely do not know. I just know that you require this. Perhaps, if it's not an imposition, you could explain this.
Either your memory serves you extremely poorly, or you are attempting to stoke the fire. It has been explained to you several times, and you have in your possession a document which I produced that outlines the problems associated with measuring the voltage and current in these circuits using an oscilloscope, and it provides a graduated process for improving the accuracy of these said measurements.
Quote
I'm reasonably satisfied that the Lawrence Tseung Prototype circuit is not that much different to our own. My guess is that it's claiming the use of some kind of back emf principle. Why do they not need differential probes?
Yes there are similarities, but then you should know that. Who said that it
doesn't require the same precision and care as yours does
IF it was to be measured with an oscilloscope? (currently, the Professor has chosen to use the thermal-couple technique espoused by ION, and I fully support that method, if performed correctly.)
Quote
Because their numbers are too marginal in the first instance? Which surely means that if they were good enough then that probe would have been required? Which actually means that any circuit must first be tested with differential probes. Which, by my reckoning - puts every possible OU claim out of reach of the pockets of the most of your contributors here.
Because the circuit exhibits a similar pattern of transients which are troublesome to acquiring accurate measurements. You can not go wrong using the proper tools for the job. If the circuit operates at a low enough frequency (including rise/fall times) and power, then it
may be possible to acquire usable measurements with a good set of passive probes, depending on the characteristics and dynamics of the circuit.
Quote
You see - what's intriguing to me is that Stefan also will not allow us to publish that report.
Without first analyzing the data, results, and conclusions, yes he would be wise not to.
Quote
I'm of the opinion that our report would first need to should be vetted by acknowledged experts and then published by them. Hopefully we'll manage this. Or some variation of this.
Finally, some sensible mentation! I've advised this several times. But "variations" are not advised. Get a
real expert.
Quote
Certainly, as I said, to publish on any of these open forums is a certain recipe for failure. And it's not as if everyone's objections here are reasonable. It's only required that they're voiced. And why not? It's a forum. That's it's beauty. It does not need to actively advance anything. It just needs to be representative of the interests of the controlling members.
Rosemary
Sounds hopelessly despondent. We're not here to satisfy the "controlling members". Part of what needs to be represented here is truth, integrity, and objectivity. A tiny dash of humility on your part wouldn't hurt.
If you're dissatisfied with this forum to the degree which emanates from your posts, I would encourage you to find more suitable ground.
.99
Is it not possible to "publish" a "report" with "caveats?"
Is there some need to "endorse" a report before it
is "published" for general perusal and evaluation?
If any "report" should prove to be faulty who would
tend to suffer harm?
The "Originator?"
The "Forum?"
Is it feared that there may be some loss of "credibility?"
Hoops...
I must admit I deleted my post precisely to stay out of this argument. It seems that I was too late. In any event. Here's my reply.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35
That is precisely the reason why your measurements are not adequate.
Really? Because the measurements show a negative delivery they must be wrong? It conforms to prediction - yet it is wrong? That's a new take Poynty. Ignore the evidence because it doesn't satisfy mainstream prediction? Proof of inadequacy vested in the fact that the numbers are 'going the wrong way?' They must therefore be inadquate? What does one do then - if one cannot get the numbers to conform to mainstream prediction. Just ignore them? Or assume error?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35I can assure you, LeCroy will never guarantee that the measurements you are taking with those passive probes to produce power and energy traces are accurate.
Then I must be imagining the correspondence that I have from them stipulating what's needed.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35Whom may that be? If you are referring to the LeCroy guys, that's pure bullshit.
It IS the LeCroy experts and it's academic experts and it's experts that I don't even know. It's been vetted by other parties overseas. Thus far NO-ONE has faulted the measurements - and NO-ONE has faulted the use of those 'passive probes'.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35Whom may that be? From what I could gather through your responses on this, your "protocols" are either non-existent, mis-applied, or haphazardly pulled from a hat.
That's the kind of comment that is designed to cast the 'odd aspersion' on my general competence. I assure YOU that from the time of our very first tests there were two acknowledged experts in power engineering who stipulated the required protocols to measure this circuit. We have NEVER deviated from their advices until now. And now the only difference is that we're using that intregrated number instead of the mean average. I think what's actually required here is that you point out where our methods are NOT in line with established protocols. That, after all, would be fair.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35Either your memory serves you extremely poorly, or you are attempting to stoke the fire. It has been explained to you several times, and you have in your possession a document which I produced that outlines the problems associated with measuring the voltage and current in these circuits using an oscilloscope, and it provides a graduated process for improving the accuracy of these said measurements.
Please resend that document. Better still, post it here on this thread. I have indeed lost the document and any reference to it. Shit happens.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35Finally, some sensible mentation! I've advised this several times. But "variations" are not advised. Get a real expert.
This is the kind of statement that carries with it actionable slurs on the characters involved in this technology of ours - and yet you are entirely unaccountable because your full name does not come with that comment. Nor do you even bother to suggest that 'in your opinion' we need to get hold of a real expert. You don't need to. No-one can take action. They can only take umbrage. Which means that you have the license and the right to slur those who are asociated - with impunity - any way you want and certainly by inferring that they are NOT real experts. Not sure that it's being that professional Poynty. You can indeed get away with it. But it's not professional. Not at all. What exactly do you consider a 'real expert'? Do academia not cut it? And if not - why not?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35Sounds hopelessly despondent. We're not here to satisfy the "controlling members". Part of what needs to be represented here is truth, integrity, and objectivity.
Truth? That the facts don't be put to the table because you require the use of differential probes? Without the use of such probes which are ONLY your requirement - then the public must, forever be separated from the facts of this carefully measured claim - this claim that is endorsed by 'experts' whom you deny are expert. With respect - is that not somewhat an arbitrary reach at exclusive rights to comment - lest the facts corrupt our poor unthinking public? Really bizarre and absurd claims are put forward everywhere on this forum. But mine may not be? Is that not somewhat questionable?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35A tiny dash of humility on your part wouldn't hurt.
What exactly must I be humble about? These results? The thesis that predicted these results? My appeals to this and all forum members has, heretofore - been exceptionally modest. I now withdraw that appeal - is the only difference. So? Must I be humble as I do so? May I impose a reminder here. The reason I'm withdrawing that appeal is precisely because there is no actual interest in establishing the facts of these claims. The interest is only in denying them - on any spurious pretext available. And that does not apply to your own requirement for differential probes. It applies to the whole gamut. And it is absolutely understandable. There's a lasting and frightening legacy resulting from sundry replicators who denied the evidence and then withdrew the data. Unfortunately no-one has realised the motive behind this. Except that is for a handful of us. This was the actual warning that assured me that Open Source is dangerous. It is not what you all seem to think it's cut out to be. There is the real menace of theft of concept. And that's not acceptable.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 04:21:35If you're dissatisfied with this forum to the degree which emanates from your posts, I would encourage you to find more suitable ground.
Poynty. There is nothing lonlier than the afflication of an idea without an audience. I have that idea. I lack the audience. But there is a systematic increase in the understandings that I've been promoting. That makes my life a little less lonely. I use the forum - or any that I can still access to avoid that isolation. There are 'gaps' in the general topics - where I can, at its least, share some burning questions. And they have everything to do with that rather lonely idea that I'm afflicted with. That's why I keep on keeping on - here. But it's not so much a pleasure as it's a compulsion. And in as much as it is tolerated - but barely - then it's appreciated. And where it isn't tolerated - then I also know that the calibre of that forum simply does not deserve those questions.
But when it comes to experimenal evidence. I'm on record. I'm bored with the whole thing. To tears. The evidence is overwhelming. The acknowledgement somewhat underwhelming. Therefore I now think that the evidence belongs to another type of forum. Hopefully it'll be an academic forum. But time will tell.
Rosemary
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.05, 05:25:59
Is it not possible to "publish" a "report" with "caveats?"
Is there some need to "endorse" a report before it
is "published" for general perusal and evaluation?
If any "report" should prove to be faulty who would
tend to suffer harm?
The "Originator?"
The "Forum?"
Is it feared that there may be some loss of "credibility?"
Hoops...
Other forums are replete with countless numbers of false, unsubstantiated, bogus, time and money-wasting claims of overunity. This will not be one of them. If and when a claim of overunity is posted at OUR, it will be because the claim has successfully passed the vetting process outlined here, which means the evidence put forward to substantiate the said claim has been deemed to be credible and accurately obtained.
Anyone coming to OUR expecting to peruse a whole slew of various 'empty' overunity claims will be sorely disappointed.
Rose, I will not again post that document for you. The fact that you have apparently "lost" it several times is inexcusable, especially since I have sent it to your personal email at least twice (once most recently), and the fact that it is posted in 2 or 3 places at OUR, including your very own thread.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.05, 12:25:57
Other forums are replete with countless numbers of false, unsubstantiated, bogus, time and money-wasting claims of overunity. This will not be one of them. If and when a claim of overunity is posted at OUR, it will be because the claim has successfully passed the vetting process outlined here, which means the evidence put forward to substantiate the said claim has been deemed to be credible and accurately obtained.
Anyone coming to OUR expecting to peruse a whole slew of various 'empty' overunity claims will be sorely disappointed.
Rose, I will not again post that document for you. The fact that you have apparently "lost" it several times is inexcusable, especially since I have sent it to your personal email at least twice (once most recently), and the fact that it is posted in 2 or 3 places at OUR, including your very own thread.
.99
I do understand your concerns and agree that there
is a great deal of disinformation circulating at various
other forums.
And a flock of unscrupulous "builders" who promote
certain "works of art" with a near fanatical fervor while
realizing monetary gain; clearly taking advantage of
those who are "beginners" yet lacking full understanding.
Perhaps you could direct any interested prospective
evaluators to the location of the prior postings of the
document/data in question?
One additional question: Is there something "personal" at
work in this dialog with Rosemary? Feelings?
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.05, 21:36:51
Perhaps you could direct any interested prospective
evaluators to the location of the prior postings of the
document/data in question?
If anyone is interested, try a Google search or search at OU and EF. Plus look at the paper submission, it includes some data. There are many many posts just in those two forums alone.
Quote
One additional question: Is there something "personal" at
work in this dialog with Rosemary? Feelings?
When it comes to technical matters, feelings are irrelevant. However, as a byproduct of most of our exchanges, quite often I am abundantly frustrated, and in particular, amazed at the overwhelming lack of honest effort and desire to heed the much needed, sensible advice I and a few others have unselfishly offered.
.99
Hmmm... I think I understand some of your frustration, Rosemary, but at the same time I believe it is possible to demonstrate/verify a new effect -- not just refute claims.
I listed several criterion that I would require as a scientist, including repeatability, scalability and a signal that is well out of the noise. Prizes are nice and indicative of progress. But I suggest that one knows when progress is scientifically solid when the results are published in an established, peer-reviewed journal. Then watch for follow-up papers (also peer-reviewed) which either support or refute the initial paper. [/color]
Unfortunately, this process can be very tedious and slow. I have published over fifty such peer-reviewed articles and have reviewed many as well. It is not a perfect process. Indeed, while I recommend this "standard procedure" for the scientific community, I welcome comments on whether peer-reviewed papers is the appropriate path for "free-for-mankind energy"... I have been having second thoughts about this lately. But would like to hear what others think.
Hello again Professor. I agree. Your parameters are sensible - reasonable and adequate. I've actually forwarded this to those in England who are looking into this. I actully wanted to forward Poynty's requirments for evaluation. But I can't find them. I have very bad eyesight and my searches have 'failed'. Nor is Poynty about to repeat them. More's the pity.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.06, 01:11:36
Hmmm... I think I understand some of your frustration, Rosemary, but at the same time I believe it is possible to demonstrate/verify a new effect -- not just refute claims.
I listed several criterion that I would require as a scientist, including repeatability, scalability and a signal that is well out of the noise. Prizes are nice and indicative of progress. But I suggest that one knows when progress is scientifically solid when the results are published in an established, peer-reviewed journal. Then watch for follow-up papers (also peer-reviewed) which either support or refute the initial paper. [/color]
Regarding publication. This is absolutely not as 'easy' as you
mentioned. I've personally tried submission to EIT - TIE and IEEE. First submission at EIT was rejected out of hand as the 'thesis' was deemed to be nonsense. I re-submitted the test as an anomaly and was advised that 'anomalies' are not considered. I then submitted to IEEE and first submission was encouraged - but then rejected after review - based on the assumption that the energy may have been the result of energy added to the system from the 555 switch - or the result of 'grounding' problems. The first problem would have been ironed out if they simply asked us to add the information related to the this analysis. And regarding their second rejection excuse - since we were using a portable battery operated Fluke oscilloscope then that was hardly fair comment. This was followed by our paper based on a replication of that test. Now we had enough data to 'drown out' protests - and the paper was then rejected on the basis of the thesis needing consideration. I saw history repeating itself. If we submitted as an anomaly - the rejection would be based on the fact that anomalies are not considered. And so it goes.
The actual point is this. My own little thesis - unbeknownst to me at the time of first writing it - actually has everything to do with dark energy. What will eventually be disclosed is precisely this fact. And the thesis locates that energy - is all. Not only that but discusses the material property of that field. This is the beauty of all concepts. They're either right or they're wrong. And if it takes a while for the concepts to be incorporated into mainstream - then that's fine. What I know is that the complexities of 'field theory' have not been fully explored. Ever. And I'm satisfied that - in due course - my work here will be duly appreciated - and, more the point, used. That's all that I care about. Because these 'resonating' conditions and these overunity results - albeit contended and argued to death - are simply a very small part of what
and where that thesis points. This electrical application of that dark energy component is clumsy - at best. It will be superceded by far more dramatic applications. It will get to the heart of the matter - far more elegantly than these rank and overt attempts at harnessing its electric potential.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.06, 01:11:36Unfortunately, this process can be very tedious and slow. I have published over fifty such peer-reviewed articles and have reviewed many as well. It is not a perfect process. Indeed, while I recommend this "standard procedure" for the scientific community, I welcome comments on whether peer-reviewed papers is the appropriate path for "free-for-mankind energy"... I have been having second thoughts about this lately. But would like to hear what others think.
What we're now considering is demonstrating this to the 'reviewers'. The hope is that if the 'evidence' conforms to the claim then there must be an early acknowledgement of proof of concept - that it can be advanced to review and publication - in the normal way. Unfortunately Poynty's comments will need to be incorporated and, right now, I can't find them. Poynty? If you feel they deserve consideration - please oblige. I am a clutz. I cannot find that work - inexcusable or otherwise.
Rosemary
EDITED
I'd would like to say that according to...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530
(Reply #1538, pg. 103)
The quoted/cited prototype is shown running and lighting one at least LED in the circuit. But, I've never seen a wiring diagram to go with the photographed circuit. The inventor of the circuit would be most familiar with it; if he would provide a schematic for other Members to attempt a replication?
--Lee
Poynty - I found those email references. Here's where we're missing each other. You're referencing Tektronix stipulation that the differential probe is required for accurate measurement. No question it's valid. But by the same token it does not discount the use of a standard probe. The thing is this. The differential probe will simply iron out further margins of error. But we all work within acceptable margins. In other words - discount results by a cool 5 or even 10% and the effect persists.
If only the differential probe had relevance - then all sale of any other kind of probe could be construed as 'misleading' or even 'fraudulent'. Of course they're subject to error. But it's an established margin of error. Never entirely erroneous.
Our own margins of error can be discounted by 10% and more and yet.... No losses. And that's by loading the POUT exclusively with a cool 10% extra voltage - and not PIN not at all.
I think what you and all may want to consider is 'reasonable margin for error'. That would be required for all results. Presumably this is what Professor means when he requires that the results be better than marginal.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.01.06, 03:40:53
I'd would like to say that according to...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530
(Reply #1538, pg. 103)
The quoted/cited prototype is shown running and lighting one at least LED in the circuit. But, I've never seen a wiring diagram to go with the photographed circuit. The inventor of the circuit would be most familiar with it; if he would provide a schematic for other Members to attempt a replication?
--Lee
There is a circuit diagram for the Joule Thief circuit here:
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/joulethief/printAdd a secondary winding on the toroid per the instructions of Lawrence Tseung -- see his reply #1540 in addition to #1538 you listed above, and his subsequent posts at OU.
The inventor does not provide a circuit diagram for the REST of the circuit, but his photograph is very clear IMO -- especially for Prototype A (labels, discussion etc).
Have fun with it!
PS -- I suggest printing out his photo for prototype A and labeling the components that he did not label. I found that very useful in our efforts to replicate, which we have done (see next post). The resistor between his c&d is 10 ohms, next is a 100 ohm resistor, then the 3-volt LED on the output circuit.
PS -- my colleague and I have built a complete replication from scratch, using all of our own components and instructions above, and found that the FINALLY-achieved parameters are much like Lawrence has advertised at OU for prototype A... That does not mean that I'm claiming overunity yet -- that will require many more tests as discussed above. But given some trial and error on the winding of the toroid (which Lawrence admits is more of an art at present than a science) -- given that, his design is first-order reproducible (based on RMS values). And not too difficult to build. Much easier than a Bedini motor, for example.
Professor,
With respect to your Reply #73: Very good, thank you.
I looked at the diagram you cited, and it looks like a straightforward Joule Thief to me. Adding another coil as a power-drawing take off point would seem to me to be just as straightforward.
Was the Joule Thief ever proven to exhibit OU in verifiable tests at all? If not, there may be contention as to precise test results. If not, I see no need for contention?
I may move from this address, so my electronics parts/supplies/wire/components/etc. are in storage until I have more time to unpack them and reorganize their contents. I'll have to revisit this thread later.
Thanks again for the info.
--Lee
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.06, 22:17:37
PS -- my colleague and I have built a complete replication from scratch, using all of our own components and instructions above, and found that the FINALLY-achieved parameters are much like Lawrence has advertised at OU for prototype A... That does not mean that I'm claiming overunity yet -- that will require many more tests as discussed above. But given some trial and error on the winding of the toroid (which Lawrence admits is more of an art at present than a science) -- given that, his design is first-order reproducible (based on RMS values). And not too difficult to build. Much easier than a Bedini motor, for example.
Thanks Prof for providing the LINK (http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/joulethief/print) to the article and
the circuit diagram.
By the way, the efficiency of the circuit can be
improved by placing a small capacitor across
the 1,000 Ohm (1.0 K) base resistor. I've used
various sizes from 0.001 uF to 0.1 uF. Experimenting
with various sizes will reveal which is best for
optimum performance. It doesn't seem to be hyper
critical.
It is also possible to "tune" the circuit by varying
the resistance in the base circuit for enhanced
efficiency. Each transistor used in the circuit will
have a different "sweet spot" in accordance with
its Beta (current gain.) Using a 10 Kohm (10,000
Ohm) variable resistance to be adjusted for maximum
performance will enable this "tuning." Once found,
the value can then be installed as a fixed resistance.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.06, 23:08:17
Thanks Prof for providing the LINK (http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/joulethief/print) to the article and
the circuit diagram.
By the way, the efficiency of the circuit can be
improved by placing a small capacitor across
the 1,000 Ohm (1.0 K) base resistor. I've used
various sizes from 0.001 uF to 0.1 uF. Experimenting
with various sizes will reveal which is best for
optimum performance. It doesn't seem to be hyper
critical.
It is also possible to "tune" the circuit by varying
the resistance in the base circuit for enhanced
efficiency. Each transistor used in the circuit will
have a different "sweet spot" in accordance with
its Beta (current gain.) Using a 10 Kohm (10,000
Ohm) variable resistance to be adjusted for maximum
performance will enable this "tuning." Once found,
the value can then be installed as a fixed resistance.
Dumped -- thank you for your insights.
Evidently you understand this Joule Thief circuit better than I do. Can you explain how you determine when the circuit has the optimum (or at least better) efficiency? what measurement do you use?
Also I would like to know whether this circuit has a "natural" frequency (some sort of resonance)?
Anyone?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.09, 18:20:48
Also I would like to know whether this circuit has a "natural" frequency (some sort of resonance)?
Anyone?
Hi PhysicsProf,
Years ago I also "played" with Joulethief circuits to drive white LEDs. I found the most sensitive part for detuning the frequency was the base electrode of the transistor, even a finger approach or light touching to it changed frequencyso I believe the base-emitter transistor capacitance influences frequency maybe the most. This circuit seems to be an RLC oscillator, R is mainly the 1kOhm plus the dynamic base resistance, L is the feedback coil in series with the 1kOhm, I mentioned C already. If you place say a 10pF ceramic capacitor in parallel with base-emitter you can change (lower in this case) the frequency.
To increase efficiency, I agree with Dumped and other possibility is using very low saturation switching transistor like the ones used in photo flash circuits. These have well under 0.1V collector-emitter saturation voltage when conduct so that dissipation in the transistor is at a minimum possible. These transistors have also have high current gain (over several hundred) so that the base drive current can be low. These are my two cents...
Gyula
Thank you, Gyula. Your comments are very helpful.
I will try some of these ideas out this week... hopefully tomorrow.
I am reproducing the Workshop information on how to produce a FLEET prototype from overunity.com here:
For those who want to see the slides without the distractions, click on the following:
Slide 1(1812) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269811#msg269811
Slide 2(1821) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269875#msg269875
Slide 3(1824) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269969#msg269969
Slide 4(1844) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270094#msg270094
Slide 5(1845) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270101#msg270101
Slide 6(1847) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270144#msg270144
Slide 7(1856) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270249#msg270249
Slide 8(1857) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270250#msg270250
Slide 9(1861) http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg270285#msg270285
The above slides should give the serious experimenter enough hints to build a FLEET prototype. He can do some tuning if he has two good oscilloscopes.
Other helpful informations include:
1. How to make a Joule Thief: http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/joulethief
2. The correct way to measure Input and Output Energy via the 2 oscilloscopes: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269733#msg269733
3. Brief History of FLEET testing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269186#msg269186
4. Our FLEET and tuning experiments: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269529#msg269529
5. The Planned six conclusive experiments to be done in USA: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg268593#msg268593
6. The best prototype in USA: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg268058#msg268058
7. Prototype A to be shipped: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg267627#msg267627
8. Prototype B getting ready: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg268125#msg268125
9. Prototype C to Bob Boyce: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg268136#msg268136
10. Prototype D ready to ship: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg269490#msg269490
11. Description of Experiment 6 – Fleet testing: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg267614#msg267614
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
Lawrence,
I guess I'm the first to welcome you to posting here. Welcome.
Thank you for providing details of your experimental device here, in your first post -- a very useful summary with photographs to help the willing.
I have built, based on your instructions, two of the toroidal devices and testing is proceeding. I find them very interesting, as posted previously, with more results to follow.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.10, 18:40:35
I am reproducing the Workshop information on how to produce a high COP FLEET prototype from overunity.com here:
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
Hi Lawrence.
Are you aware of the OUR posting guidelines regarding claims of OU and COP>1 ?
Please see this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32
If you are not able to provide credible proof as per the guidelines at the link provided, I will ask you to please edit your post regarding the "high COP" statement. Such statements should not be taken nor posted without due diligence. Thus far I have not seen credible proof from you or the Professor to support any claim of OU or COP>1 with your circuit.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 00:28:12
Hi Lawrence.
Are you aware of the OUR posting guidelines regarding claims of OU and COP>1 ?
Please see this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32
If you are not able to provide credible proof as per the guidelines at the link provided, I will ask you to posted without due diligence. Thus far I have not seen credible proof from you or the Professor to support any claim of OU or COP>1 with your circuit.
.99
Dear poynt99,
Thank you for your information. The PhysicsProfessor will have some of the best oscilloscopes in USA to do the full verification now. It may take him sometime to properly master the various features.
I am claiming now and you can all wait for the authoritative reports later:
1. The PhysicsProfessor has received Prototype A.
I understand that the peak-to-peak measurements do not represent the correct COP value. The correct COP value can be obtained by the integration of the Instantaneous Power waveform over a given time. The Output Energy can then be accurately compared with the Input Energy over the same interval.
The good oscilloscopes to be used for the verification will have such functionality. That is why the PhysicsProfessor is involved in the verification. He is also looking at other ways of confirming the COP > 1 claim.
My understanding is that he and his colleagues have already produced a FLEET prototype with COP peak-to-peak much higher than Prototype A. They also did not have the good oscilloscopes in their preliminary tests.
Please give him and his colleague time to do the proper experiments.
Lawrence
Lawrence,
Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?
I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.
Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.
Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.
If I must edit another post to make it compliant with the guidelines I have directed you to read, I may be forced to place you on "read-only" status.
.99
Or add the word "potential" before the "COP".
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 01:54:28
Lawrence,
Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?
I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.
Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.
Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.
If I must edit another post to make it compliant with the guidelines I have directed you to read, I may be forced to place you on "read-only" status.
.99
In the interests of "instructive" guidance and to provide
a good example of proper presentation by the experimenter,
would it not be better to AMEND the "offensive" postings
rather than DELETING those portions?
It may be possible that numerous members are wondering
what would be the preferred and acceptable terminology
to get past any possible censorship.
I for one would be very pleased to see an example of how
you would prefer to see the "offenses" corrected.
If you please...
Strong Arm Tactics seem a bit out of place.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 01:54:28
Lawrence,
Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?
I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.
Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.
Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.
Hi Poynty Point.
I have a few questions.
- Where is your requirement for a differential probe? If it is not required in this test then can you explain why?
- Are questions of scalability not relevant? In other words - is the effect only available at 'small' values?
- You deleted a link to Lawrence's own 'list of criteria' for measurement. Can't we see that link to evaluate it?
Meanwhile Lawrence - may I congratulate you on taking the bull
by the horns as you have done in sending a prototype to Professor. And I see some real justice in the Jule Thief circuit variant becoming a 'first contender' for that OUR prize
as it is such an elegant solution. I shall add my own prayers to yours. Not sure that mine are that effective.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
editedSORRY - Yet another question. Is this a contender for OUR prize? If not how does one post a 'contender'. Presumably what's meant is that the claim first has to pass your own scrutiny Poynty? In which case? Would you really be inclined to question Professor's own evaluations here? I think he's openly requested your comments for evaluation - presumably to incorporate them. Perhaps you could oblige us by listing them. That would be pro-active and would generally assist in this drive to OU. Personally I find nothing offensive in Lawrence's post. His criteria for measurement seems reasonable. Please let us have your comments Poynty. If there are other criteria then it would be as well to advise us all.
Hi again Poynty.
I think that what's at issue here is that Professor opened this link to evaluate Lawrence's prototype. That's surely acceptable - the more as as your permission was solicited?
Then Lawrence joined the forum and effectively disclosed his own criteria for evaluation. Still acceptable as there is no official requirement to be considered for that OU-R prize. You see - there are many tests done by replicators on this forum. The most of them relate to some kind of OU claim. The replications often include variations to the original prototypes. Some of them require reverse engineering. But that principle holds. All are looking to prove or disprove OU claims.
Now. If Professor is able to conclusively prove that claim - then? He's not a prize contender. He, himself is therefore allowed to confirm that measurement - presumably? But as and when he does so - are you, Poynty, even obliged to comment? Surely not until Lawrence himself requires that it be acknowledged by more than Professor. Not until he puts his prototype up for consideration for that prize. And that's not happened. That not his demand. Then surely? Technically, nor is he barred from posting his claim or his own preferred method of analysing that claim.
I would have thought than an appropriate means of 'checking' any wild allegations, which is presumably your object here, would only 'kick in' if Lawrence needs full on confirmation by a wider audience than Professor. And I'm not sure that this has been stipulated anywhere by Lawrence. As I see it he's making a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and method of measurements that others can replicate. And that's surely a good thing?
Kindest again
Rosie
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.11, 02:17:48
In the interests of "instructive" guidance and to provide
a good example of proper presentation by the experimenter,
would it not be better to AMEND the "offensive" postings
rather than DELETING those portions?
It may be possible that numerous members are wondering
what would be the preferred and acceptable terminology
to get past any possible censorship.
I for one would be very pleased to see an example of how
you would prefer to see the "offenses" corrected.
If you please...
Strong Arm Tactics seem a bit out of place.
You seem to be asking for some form of hand-holding here and I disagree that there should be any form of hand-holding done with respect to the actual presentation of the claim by the claimant.
In my opinion the burden of making a proper presentation about any potential over unity claim should rest firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. There is no "censorship" going on here, just a reasonable demand that the data be presented properly and unambiguously.
For example, in the case of this particular project the terms "peak-to-peak COP" and "RMS COP" have been mentioned multiple times. These are false and erroneous concepts, there is no such thing as "peak-to-peak COP" or "RMS COP."
If you are going to talk the talk then it's incumbent upon you to be able to walk the walk. This is a reasonable expectation for anyone that wants to make an over unity claim. They have to be able to clearly articulate their proposition and present their data in a clear and unambiguous fashion and demonstrate competency with respect to the overall concepts.
MileHigh
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.11, 03:04:28
Hi again Poynty.
I think that what's at issue here is that Professor opened this link to evaluate Lawrence's prototype. That's surely acceptable - the more as as your permission was solicited?
Then Lawrence joined the forum and effectively disclosed his own criteria for evaluation. Still acceptable as there is no official requirement to be considered for that OU-R prize. You see - there are many tests done by replicators on this forum. The most of them relate to some kind of OU claim. The replications often include variations to the original prototypes. Some of them require reverse engineering. But that principle holds. All are looking to prove or disprove OU claims.
Now. If Professor is able to conclusively prove that claim - then? He's not a prize contender. He, himself is therefore allowed to confirm that measurement - presumably? But as and when he does so - are you, Poynty, even obliged to comment? Surely not until Lawrence himself requires that it be acknowledged by more than Professor. Not until he puts his prototype up for consideration for that prize. And that's not happened. That not his demand. Then surely? Technically, nor is he barred from posting his claim or his own preferred method of analysing that claim.
I would have thought than an appropriate means of 'checking' any wild allegations, which is presumably your object here, would only 'kick in' if Lawrence needs full on confirmation by a wider audience than Professor. And I'm not sure that this has been stipulated anywhere by Lawrence. As I see it he's making a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and method of measurements that others can replicate. And that's surely a good thing?
Kindest again
Rosie
If Lawrence was advancing any demands to recognise his own claims of OU - then these 'criteria of competence' as you list them - may possibly be considered valid. As it is he is recommending replications - even to the extent of posting any interested party his own experimental apparatus. The only person who is doing this replication is Professor - and I'm not sure that you or anyone here can quesion his level of competence.
Also. I do not see that the Lawrence's own competence level is at issue. The only thing at issue is the test apparatus and some listed criteria of measurement that he has applied himself - and this done publicly - very publicly - and all in accord with the criteria that Professor himself has already suggested. He, Lawrence, has already conceded the preferred requirement of integrated analysis.
And with respect - since when has competence in any field limited your own right to comment? I know of some glaring presumptions related to physics concepts that rather disqualify you. Yet you have never refrained from commenting on physics principles.
Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:
No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.
I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this. :)
Cheers,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 04:26:31
Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:
No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.
I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this. :)
Cheers,
.99
Poynty - thanks for the clarification. But I've still got a question. You require differential probes to be applied to our own test experiment. Why is this required when its use is anyway only required to measure the wattage dissipated at a load? We quantify that wattage in terms of the heat dissipated so technically no further qualification is required. In fact, on our latest tests we don't even bother to do a voltage measurement across the load resistor which entirely obviates the need for that differential number.
With respect, this needs clarification. Reference to blurb by a differential probe manufacturer will never constitute justifying it's use. Then. Those other questions related to 'scalability'? Is this required?
I think what we're actually asking is that you define the test parameters required for acceptance. Failing which we may all go to an awful lot of trouble to comply to what we 'imagine' is sufficient - only to find that you, personally consider it insufficient. And that would be enough for you to DEMAND that we retract that claim. I think we'd all like to see some 'open cards' here before we risk evaluation of work that's taken, in my case, over 10 years to bring to full fruition.
Kindest again
Rose :)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.11, 03:07:06
For example, in the case of this particular project the terms "peak-to-peak COP" and "RMS COP" have been mentioned multiple times. These are false and erroneous concepts, there is no such thing as "peak-to-peak COP" or "RMS COP."
MileHigh
I have mentioned many times that the peak-to-peak values are NOT the true scientific measurements. However, I use them to rate my many prototypes (over 50 so far). The ones having low COP peak-to-peak or COP rms are automatically disqualified. With the Instantaneous Power Waveforms captured on my China-made oscilloscopes, I could import the screen shots into my computer. Then it was a labor intensive task of reproducing the graph into excel format or do an area comparison with the Output and Input waveform screen shots.
We did two labor intensive area comparisons. Those FLEET prototypes with "meaningless high COP peak-to-peak values" did show COP values greater than one. I can provide the screen shots again for those interested to repeat that exercise.
However, as good scientists, we know that the good oscilloscopes already have such functionality. The price however is US$12,500 verse US$350. That is why I requested that the PhysicsProfessor should use the best oscilloscopes with the required functionality to do the verification.
So, please treat the "meaningless peak-to-peak" values as Lawrence Tseung's way of classifying his many prototypes. The ones with low peak-to-peak values are discarded or modified. (By the way, the really cheap scope that can display voltage waveform and thus peak-to-peak voltage values from China is less than US$80.)
Please give PhysicsProfessor the needed time to do a good job with the high functionality oscilloscopes which he does not use on a day-to-day basis.
In the hopes that the question does not get removed from the table here it is again.
Please Poynty - give us a list of required parameters that will be applied to authenticate an OU claim.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 04:26:31
Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:
No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.
I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this. :)
Cheers,
.99
May I quote, with EMPHASIS added, the above stipulation
for potential clarity for all who may be non-native English
language proficient (ESL) or others who may have missed
the salient point?
Quote"No one shall be permitted to make CLAIMS of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that CLAIM is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said CLAIM.."
What you seem to be saying is that constructive discussion
of any potential energetic anomaly would not be offensive
providing no
CLAIM is advanced which would suggest
OverUnity has actually been attained.
Your real objection is to the making of
CLAIMS which
are not adequately supported by the conditions/procedures/
criteria/data deemed necessary and substantial?
If so, then it is a simple concept indeed.
Make no
CLAIMS! You're welcome...
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.11, 05:14:08
May I quote, with EMPHASIS added, the above stipulation
for potential clarity for all who may be non-native English
language proficient (ESL) or others who may have missed
the salient point?
What you seem to be saying is that constructive discussion
of any potential energetic anomaly would not be offensive
providing no CLAIM is advanced which would suggest
OverUnity has actually been attained.
Your real objection is to the making of CLAIMS which
are not adequately supported by the conditions/procedures/
criteria/data deemed necessary and substantial?
If so, then it is a simple concept indeed.
Make no CLAIMS!
Nice point Dumped. But what does one do with all those references to tests that are made all over this and all OU forums where the members reference OU claims? And not only that but then proceed to replicate or attempt replication. Is that allowed? Is the actual criteria here that no individual can try and make his/her OWN claim. But your point is good. If one can simply reference the result without an actual claim to OU - then presumably that's admissable. That gives me hope.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.11, 05:22:17
Nice point Dumped. But what does one do with all those references to tests that are made all over this and all OU forums where the members reference OU claims? And not only that but then proceed to replicate or attempt replication. Is that allowed? Is the actual criteria here that no individual can try and make his/her OWN claim. But your point is good. If one can simply reference the result without an actual claim to OU - then presumably that's admissable. That gives me hope.
Rosemary
Then we must determine what constitutes a
CLAIM.
Is any conversational "claim" which is put forth within a
technical discussion expected to meet those rigorous
standards?
Or, is it a
CLAIM such as is made formally in order
to receive compensation? As for the prize?
What is the reasonable and sane interpretation?
@aetherevarising
QuoteI think what we're actually asking is that you define the test parameters required for acceptance. Failing which we may all go to an awful lot of trouble to comply to what we 'imagine' is sufficient - only to find that you, personally consider it insufficient. And that would be enough for you to DEMAND that we retract that claim. I think we'd all like to see some 'open cards' here before we risk evaluation of work that's taken, in my case, over 10 years to bring to full fruition.
I think it's important to consider the context here, who in their right mind would bother to post or claim anything in the first place knowing that it may be censored and their posting privileges revoked?. From what I have seen on other forums this is usually the beginning of the end and people simply make the choice to leave. I think the key word here is "moderation" and if persons are going to make outright claims of free energy then they should give justification as to why they believe this but censorship is and always has been a losing proposition for everyone involved.
@Poynt99
If I remember correctly this "OUR" forum was started because of censorship and the revoking of privileges or outright banning in the other forums and now it would seem you are doing the very thing you criticized the others for. I was wondering why the change of heart on this issue of censorship?
Regards
AC
I think I understand what Lawrence is saying... a preliminary-COP-ratio in an attempt to determine which toroid-systems are the better ones.
Lawrence, you may wish to say something like "preliminary-COP-ratio" or "evaluative output/input ratio" (which you may define as
(Vout,rms*Iout,rms/Vin,rms*Iin,rms),
for example) rather than using the term "COP" which has a defined meaning really. I agree one must be careful when claiming COP > 1 publicly.
As I await the better oscilloscopes (and tests may take a while), I have a question for all:
Consider a long solenoid with tight winding such that there is no detectable B [magnetic] field outside of the solenoid near the middle (spot "A" call it), when a steady current is flowing in the wire. Please-- correct me if this cannot be done.
There will be an axial B-field, a B-field inside the solenoid itself.
Some seem to not like the term, "field" -- but I refer to that which is measurable using a Hall probe. What else would you like to call it, if not "magnetic field B"?
Now place a test charge, an electron will do, at spot A -- and steadily increase the current in the winding. This will generate a changing axial-B-field which will in turn generate an electric field.
Will B remain essentially zero at spot A?
Will said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?
PhysicsProf,
Observer brought my attention to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiaxDJuw4-Q
Lasersaber has done much better than my 30 second lighting of 1 LED after removing the battery. This answers the question you raised in our private email - is it possible to continuously light the LEDs after removing the battery. He even lighted CFLs.
I shall now give the peak-to-peak COP phrase a new term - Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. This will be absolutely clear that it is created and used by me to compare my many FLEET prototypes.
Hope the wait for the better oscilloscopes would not take too long. Have you got Prototype D and the components package yet? If possible, can you state the make and model of the better oscilloscopes. We should be able to check the manuals on-line and see if they have the required functionality. Thank you in advance.
@poynt99
Actually, the guy made some units and sent them to others to test, but in his neck of the woods, they are already convinced of the results otherwise why the hell would be make these devices and send them to all these guys.
So as an introduction, I think he should be allowed to "state his case" that he is convinced according to his best testing methods that these devices are OU or whatever.
I think people know the difference between someone coming on the forum to make outright and empty claims versus someone who has gone the preliminary distance and is now outsourcing to others to corroborate those claims.
I think guys get to know their equipment results after being able to compare so many build results and effects that when they see something that is so far out of the ordinary it will jump out at them and cry out COP > 1. We are all smart enough to know this is not a proven cry, but it is this one persons conviction of the fact.
But from that to going and modifying his post is not cool at all. You can go into that post and just add a standard disclaimer at the beginning of his post while leaving his post intact. But not one word should be changed in his actual post. The disclaimer is enough to warn readers while still leaving the persons post for all to read.
The other point of making threats to put him on read-only mode is again, not cool at all. Especially when the guy only has his second post on the forum and especially when we are already in the know of his intentions as being more then genuine.
wattsup
It seems that the Professor is the only individual thus far that understands the meaning of the following:
No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.
Folks, it means precisely what is stated. It is simple and clear, and requires no "interpretation".
Lawrence, you have chosen to use the buzzterm "COP", and I agree with you and the Professor that you should choose another more suitable term for comparing your builds and their performance. I suggest you leave "OU" and "COP>1" out of your statements until and if you are ready to officially make a claim.
Folks are only going to become frustrated and leave (or be set to "read only) if they can not grasp and accept the very simple objective concept above. It is not meant as an excuse to censor anyone. It is meant as a means to retain a certain level of integrity and objectivity at OUR, of which other forums are sorely lacking. If anyone finds this unsuitable, they are free to leave and go elsewhere.
.99
For those who may have forgotten, EMDevices posted a rather interesting blocking oscillator with a tuned secondary on OU back in July 2008 "Mysterious Resonant Circuit"
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5228.0
I post as Vortex1 on that website. You can see the simulations by POYNT and the thermal testing provided by myself.
EM is with us and perhaps he would like to start a continuation of the topic on his bench, as that one died after 15 pages.
I suggest EM's is a variation of the common blocking oscillator which having been invented by many in the last 70 years is now re-invented by Mr. Tseung in it's most crude form.
Strange that all the worlds switchmode designers that strive for efficiency have missed this crude and inefficient implementation by Tseung that could have pushed their companies ahead of the competition??? 8)
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.11, 11:40:50
Hope the wait for the better oscilloscopes would not take too long.
Have you tried the usb oscilloscope offerings of Hantek *(et alia, probably).
It is good to see yoou here, Lawrence, in an intelligent yob-free environment.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.11, 11:40:50
PhysicsProf,
Observer brought my attention to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiaxDJuw4-Q
Lasersaber has done much better than my 30 second lighting of 1 LED after removing the battery. This answers the question you raised in our private email - is it possible to continuously light the LEDs after removing the battery. He even lighted CFLs.
I shall now give the peak-to-peak COP phrase a new term - Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. This will be absolutely clear that it is created and used by me to compare my many FLEET prototypes.
Hope the wait for the better oscilloscopes would not take too long. Have you got Prototype D and the components package yet? If possible, can you state the make and model of the better oscilloscopes. We should be able to check the manuals on-line and see if they have the required functionality. Thank you in advance.
1. Yes, I also was intrigued by Lasersaber's demonstration and video of the Joule Ringer -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbLQATOjZhE
2. A wise approach, Lawrence: " a new term -
Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. This will be absolutely clear that it is created and used by me to compare my many FLEET prototypes.' " Any objection, anyone?
3. Your Prototype D arrived yesterday -- thank you. I will let you know this evening or tomorrow am the types of oscilloscopes available... Wife and I will be traveling today.
(Still no takers on my question regarding the long solenoid.)
An example of Tseung FLEET Comparison Index
Since PhysicsProf will take sometime to produce his results with the good oscilloscopes at the University, I am reproducing some early photos from the prototypes produced in Hong Kong in July 2010.
The top LHS picture is the Input Voltage screen capture. The top curve showed the voltage across the battery. Thus the waveform represented the actual Input Voltage. Note that the waveform was NOT a flat DC. The Joule Thief caused the pulsing shape.
The bottom curve showed the voltage across a 1 ohm resistor in the primary circuit. Thus the waveform represented the Input Current (as V = I * R). The Channel 1 and Channel 2 of this oscilloscope have common ground. Thus there is no need to worry about the phase factor.
The middle curve showed the product of Channel 1 and Channel 2. This represented the Instantaneous Power. The Integration of this curve over a given time would give the Energy over that period. (A good oscilloscope will provide that value without manual labor.)
The top RHS picture displayed only the Input Instantaneous Power Curve. This is the curve we use to compare the Input and the Output Power.
Similarly, the bottom two pictures represent the Output. It was obvious to us that the Output Energy derivable from the lower RHS curve was much higher than the Input Energy derivable from the upper RHS curve.
Those interested in the exercise can do an "area comparison" and get a ratio of Output Energy over Input Energy for the same period. That is the correct COP. We know that the good oscilloscopes can provide that answer directly without the possibility of human error in the area comparison.
For a rough estimate, I used the Tseung FLEET Comparison Index (formally called COP peak-to-peak) to rate the capability of the prototype. This particular one has a value of 13.25.
Please give the PhysicsProf time to get and use the good oscilloscopes to provide the conclusive results. I hope that he will provide the results from the oscilloscopes before doing many other COP > 1 experiments such as thermal etc. Pictures, videos, screen shots and computer analysis results will be greatly appreciated.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.11, 15:08:06
For those who may have forgotten, EMDevices posted a rather interesting blocking oscillator with a tuned secondary on OU back in July 2008 "Mysterious Resonant Circuit"
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5228.0
I post as Vortex1 on that website. You can see the simulations by POYNT and the thermal testing provided by myself.
EM is with us and perhaps he would like to start a continuation of the topic on his bench, as that one died after 15 pages.
I suggest EM's is a variation of the common blocking oscillator which having been invented by many in the last 70 years is now re-invented by Mr. Tseung in it's most crude form.
Strange that all the worlds switchmode designers that strive for efficiency have missed this crude and inefficient implementation by Tseung that could have pushed their companies ahead of the competition??? 8)
ION,
Yes, it's strange how these practical thoughts seem to cross so few minds. ???
.99
Primitive Area Comparison.
The attached figure is a simple extraction of the Output and Input Instantaneous Power Curves and imported to paint. The paint program was used in conjuction with Powerpoint to stretch and compare. Note that the scales and center lines are matched.
Is the Output Power Waveform much larger than the Input Power Waveform? Is so, does that imply COP > 1???
We can obviously wait for the accurate results calculated automatically by the good oscilloscopes from PhysicsProf.
I believe that we are playing with resonance circuits here. As many have commented, the frequency and waveforms from such circuit could vary just by moving the hand close to it. More scientific methods include: changing the holes on the breadboard, changing length of the wires, changing electronic components etc.
Many competing devices will rise from the dead. This is good for the many poor inventors who cannot afford good oscilloscopes. Confirmation by PhysicsProf and other top research institutions will excite potential investors. Post your devices now!
God helps those who help themselves. Amen.
Lawrence,
One can not with confidence draw any sort of conclusion from the very low resolution time-compressed scope pictures you posted. It is primitive indeed, and unfortunately, does not tell us very much about the real input and output power levels.
Can you please draw a diagram of the test setup (including the current sense resistor), and where the oscilloscope probes are placed?
What is the make and model of the scope(s) you are using? Do they not have the capability to perform integration on the power traces?
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.11, 11:40:50
PhysicsProf,
Observer brought my attention to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiaxDJuw4-Q
Lasersaber has done much better than my 30 second lighting of 1 LED after removing the battery. This answers the question you raised in our private email - is it possible to continuously light the LEDs after removing the battery. He even lighted CFLs.
I shall now give the peak-to-peak COP phrase a new term - Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. This will be absolutely clear that it is created and used by me to compare my many FLEET prototypes.
You really have me confused with this one, Lasersaber's Joule Ringer is powered by a fully charged Cap I can't see how that compares to a 30 sec. rundown of 1 LED on your rigg
AS for trying to change peak-to-peak COP to "Tseung FLEET Comparison Index" is just a way to get around Poynt99's rules and I think he'll see through that quickly but good luck anyway
Pete
@Ion
QuoteStrange that all the worlds switchmode designers that strive for efficiency have missed this crude and inefficient implementation by Tseung that could have pushed their companies ahead of the competition?
I do not think it is so strange unless you believe these designers know everything, that is not only strange but crazy as well. Consider that in the last 50 years none of the best and brightest electrical engineers on this planet could figure out how to make a boost converter operate on an input voltage lower than the 0.7 threshhold voltage for transistors or as low as 0.3V for mosfet technology. Then one university student made all of the EE's look silly by inventing a simple boost converter that could operate down to 70mV input. Is that strange or what? how can a lone university student be more intelligent that every EE on the planet? Well, nobody told this person it was impossible so he just went ahead and did it, he approached the problem in a different way from his own perspective and he succeeded. Should we now say all the EE's are stupid? Certainly not but what we can say is that they did not address the fundamental problem from the right perspective---- a new perspective. This is called "invention" and ANYONE can do it no matter who they are, what they look like or how much education they have, everyone has the capacity to dream and to succeed.
You sound like a smart guy, maybe you can explain to me how I further reduced the boost converter input threshhold voltage into the 10-20mV range. Here is a hint -- you will not find it in any textbook.
Regards
AC
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.11, 06:17:38
As I await the better oscilloscopes (and tests may take a while), I have a question for all:
Consider a long solenoid with tight winding such that there is no detectable B [magnetic] field outside of the solenoid near the middle (spot "A" call it), when a steady current is flowing in the wire. Please-- correct me if this cannot be done.
There will be an axial B-field, a B-field inside the solenoid itself.
Some seem to not like the term, "field" -- but I refer to that which is measurable using a Hall probe. What else would you like to call it, if not "magnetic field B"?
Now place a test charge, an electron will do, at spot A -- and steadily increase the current in the winding. This will generate a changing axial-B-field which will in turn generate an electric field.
Will B remain essentially zero at spot A?
Will said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?
I think I know the problem with ltseung circuit data, calculations, assumptions.
However, I won't speak until the professor verify it with his scope. One more thing I'd like to ask is that the main players of this forum to try your best to answer the Professor's question. Consider this an exchange?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.11, 06:17:38
As I await the better oscilloscopes (and tests may take a while), I have a question for all:
Consider a long solenoid with tight winding such that there is no detectable B [magnetic] field outside of the solenoid near the middle (spot "A" call it), when a steady current is flowing in the wire. Please-- correct me if this cannot be done.
There will be an axial B-field, a B-field inside the solenoid itself.
Some seem to not like the term, "field" -- but I refer to that which is measurable using a Hall probe. What else would you like to call it, if not "magnetic field B"?
Now place a test charge, an electron will do, at spot A -- and steadily increase the current in the winding. This will generate a changing axial-B-field which will in turn generate an electric field.
Will B remain essentially zero at spot A?
Will said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?
Will B remain essentially zero at spot A? yes
Will said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?yes
There is an electric field between the opposite ends of the solenoid. Your changing magnetic field adds an additional electric field, but the change is so slow that this is probably negligible. You are probably referring to the A-Field rather than this electric field.
Thanks for taking time on this grumpy.
QuoteWill B remain essentially zero at spot A?
yes
We are in agreement. The geometry of the long coil results in essentially zero magnetic field B outside the coil.
QuoteWill said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?
yes
There is an electric field between the opposite ends of the solenoid. Your changing magnetic field adds an additional electric field, but the change is so slow that this is probably negligible. You are probably referring to the A-Field rather than this electric field.
AGreed, yes -- but not agreeing with your rationale. The voltage which causes the current represents and electric field -- which is confined to the wire (inside), and will not affect an electron outside the coil. Also, I did not say the change in the current had to be "slow", just that the current is increasing steadily in this thought experiment -- which could be done in real life. A rapid increase in the current will result in a rapidly increasing B field, and a large E field outside the coil.
There will be a real electric field outside the coil, due to the changing magnetic field which however is confined effectively INSIDE the coil (that is, at point A just outside the coil, there is no measurable B field for a sufficiently long coil).
That is, a changing magnetic field is generating an electric field (around the coil is the direction of E in this case) -- even though at point A there is NO magnetic field detected!
What I am trying to emphasize is that a changing magnetic field will generate an electric field even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO. The physics texts that I've seen emphasize that a changing B field produces an electric field... but I would like to see the text that admits that his can happen even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO.
Lawrence (and all) -- Today I borrowed from my physics department a Tektronix 2230 Digital Storage Oscilloscope for a long-term. There are better oscilloscopes, but this one was readily available and I want to see what I can do with it. I am not as familiar with this as with some others -- if anyone can explain how to do trace multiplication, that would be very helpful.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 06:07:17
The physics texts that I've seen emphasize that a changing B field produces an electric field... but I would like to see the text that admits that his can happen even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO.
I don't think it is happening outside the B field. The E field is created within area of the changing B field and radiates outward. Once radiating it doesn't need the B field to continue the created velocity. Of course, the radiating E field then creates a radial magnetic field (OOPS, that will start an argument. This is why I shy away from answering such questions :D)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 07:00:03
Lawrence (and all) -- Today I borrowed from my physics department a Tektronix 2230 Digital Storage Oscilloscope for a long-term. There are better oscilloscopes, but this one was readily available and I want to see what I can do with it. I am not as familiar with this as with some others -- if anyone can explain how to do trace multiplication, that would be very helpful.
Prof,
That's a good but ancient scope. Unfortunately, it does not have any real math functions such as multiplication nor integration. It has a relatively low record length (4k), so it's useful "bandwidth" for storage is quite limited.
This scope won't be very useful for determining COP I'm afraid.
.99
I think some here are making this too complex. A scope is nice to view Frequency, Pulse Width & Waveshape, BUT it isn't needed to determine O/U.
Since passive carbon resitors don't lie, why not ask the nice Prof to:
1. Use a carbon resistor in series with the battery to determine input power.
2. Use a carbon resistor for a load to determine output power.
3. Calculate the amount of O/U. Simple & not much to it.
.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.12, 07:21:36
Prof,
That's a good but ancient scope. Unfortunately, it does not have any real math functions such as multiplication nor integration. It has a relatively low record length (4k), so it's useful "bandwidth" for storage is quite limited.
This scope won't be very useful for determining COP I'm afraid.
.99
Dear PhysicsProf,
I have to agree with poynt99 that the Tektronix 2230 DSO does not have the functionality needed to do a Conclusive Verification or confirmation.
If you look at:
http://shoppingmadeizzy.co.cc/E_Tektronix%202230%20Digital%20Storage%20Oscilloscope%20manual.html
A used one was bidding at US$17.33. The manual was at US$24.99.
The functionality of multiplication and integration are not there. Without such functionality, the determination of " Energy = Integration of the Instantaneous Power over a given time period" is not possible. You can use it to view the waveform but it will not give you much more information.
Please try to borrow a good one even for a short period of a few days. If you can get someone already familiar with the particular scope to help, it will greatly facilitate the Conclusive Verification. Thank you in advance.
Lawrence
Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.01.12, 12:41:56
I think some here are making this too complex. A scope is nice to view Frequency, Pulse Width & Waveshape, BUT it isn't needed to determine O/U.
Since passive carbon resitors don't lie, why not ask the nice Prof to:
1. Use a carbon resistor in series with the battery to determine input power.
2. Use a carbon resistor for a load to determine output power.
3. Calculate the amount of O/U. Simple & not much to it.
.
The Input and Output Voltages are not simple DC or AC. Please see my earlier post for example of the waveform.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.12, 13:12:35
The Input and Output Voltages are not simple DC or AC. Please see my earlier post for example of the waveform.
As you say, determining power oot when the waveform is complex is difficult.
I remain convinced that the only way to convince others is to start with batteries at a known charge
level and end with the same at different charge levels. Then determine the charge (or discharge)
needed to get the batteries to the "before" state.
Grumpy O0
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 06:07:17
Thanks for taking time on this grumpy.
We are in agreement. The geometry of the long coil results in essentially zero magnetic field B outside the coil.
AGreed, yes -- but not agreeing with your rationale. The voltage which causes the current represents and electric field -- which is confined to the wire (inside), and will not affect an electron outside the coil. Also, I did not say the change in the current had to be "slow", just that the current is increasing steadily in this thought experiment -- which could be done in real life. A rapid increase in the current will result in a rapidly increasing B field, and a large E field outside the coil.
There will be a real electric field outside the coil, due to the changing magnetic field which however is confined effectively INSIDE the coil (that is, at point A just outside the coil, there is no measurable B field for a sufficiently long coil). That is, a changing magnetic field is generating an electric field (around the coil is the direction of E in this case) -- even though at point A there is NO magnetic field detected!
What I am trying to emphasize is that a changing magnetic field will generate an electric field even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO.
The physics texts that I've seen emphasize that a changing B field produces an electric field... but I would like to see the text that admits that his can happen even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO.
The electric field is probably "not" only inside the coil, but also outside it. This was shown by Francis Nipher, Oleg Jefimenko, and Jacobs et al:
Jacobs:
http://www.physicsland.com/physicsland/Jacobs-Salazar-Nassar-AJP78,1432,December2010.pdf
Jefimenko's paper is attached.
(Nipher's work is on Google Books.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_oLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA32&dq=francis+nipher+inflow&hl=en&ei=_sItTY3CF4SdlgfJ9Yi9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
You thought experiment reminds me of the experiments that (AB Effect) showed the magnetic and electric vector potentials are "real", where toroidal coils were used to contain the magnetic field.
EDIT:
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 06:07:17
What I am trying to emphasize is that a changing magnetic field will generate an electric field even in a region of space in which the magnetic field is itself ZERO.[/b]
If the magnetic field is ZERO in this region, then perhaps something else is generating the electric field, and this something occurs when a magnetic field changes. What could that be?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.12, 15:14:13
The electric field is probably "not" only inside the coil, but also outside it.
You thought experiments reminds me of the experiments that (AB Effect) showed the magnetic and electric vector potentials are "real", where toroidal coils were used to contain the magnetic field.
Right. And WW, I said a "Steadily" increasing current, which results in a constant E field.
QuoteI would like to mention that moving electrons having mass have a de Broglie force. Woudln't this also affect this electron?
Do you mean the deBroglie wave-length? Or perhaps you mean the
Zitterbewegung effect? also very interesting.
What I wish to emphasize/speculate on -- is that there are certainly large, changing magnetic fields in local galactic space that will generate electric fields that we might tap into, extracting power.Now about the oscilloscope -- looks like the Tek 2230 will not do the job. It is what we came up with in the physics department, and it looks like I will have to go to the EE department at the university to get a better one.
It would help a lot if you guys would give particular model numbers that I should look for -- a DSO that will do trace multiplication and integration would be nice! Also, is there some kind of bitscope that hooks to a lap-top that will do these functions?
PS -- I should also reiterate that the DSO is a way to characterize the "better" devices, to compare them. For a demonstration of OU, if indeed it occurs, there are other tests that I would insist on doing, as previously discussed in this thread.
Sorry Lawrence, but regardless of the waveshape, the V & Current are IN PHASE going through a pure carbon resistor. Please check these web links to verify that.
http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/electricCircuits/AC/AC_3.html
Here is a sample from that site:
Because the resistor simply and directly resists the flow of electrons at all periods of time, the waveform for the voltage drop across the resistor is EXACTLY IN PHASE with the waveform for the current through it. We can look at any point in time along the horizontal axis of the plot and compare those values of current and voltage with each other (any "snapshot" look at the values of a wave are referred to as instantaneous values, meaning the values at that instant in time). When the instantaneous value for current is zero, the instantaneous voltage across the resistor is also zero. Likewise, at the moment in time where the current through the resistor is at its positive peak, the voltage across the resistor is also at its positive peak, and so on. At any given point in time along the waves, Ohm's Law holds true for the instantaneous values of voltage and current.
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/ACcircuits.html
The Cheap China-made oscilloscope used in Hong Kong
The maker is ATTEN model number is ADS1062CA 60MHz. The price is less than US$350.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyGcJxdxGw8
It has two channels and have the multiply function. The two channels have a common ground. It has a USB connection. That connection can be used to capture individual screen shots to a USB disk. With the right software, that connection can also be used to continuously send screen information to a computer. We had no difficulty in capturing individual screen shots. However, we had difficulty with the right software and we did not manage to use the integration function at that time.
The attached picture showed the two DSO that was in my bedroom for many weeks. It also showed the result of a successful experiment. A Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of 7 was achieved. Both Input and Output used a 1 ohm resistor.
I am now in USA visiting my daughter and have no access to good DSOs. I am looking for potential verifiers with the proper equipment and they can receive a free FLEET prototype plus components to build another two themselves. The only condition is that they are willing to disclose the test results in public – with pictures, video and computer printouts etc.
Major Todd Hathaway sent me a check of US$600 to start the ball rolling. We hope to turn this into a US-China cooperation event. I should be able to produce many hand-built FLEET prototypes with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index that are likely to prove COP > 1. You are welcome to state your intention to verify directly on this forum or email ltseung@hotmail.com.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 16:10:47
Do you mean the deBroglie wave-length? Or perhaps you mean the Zitterbewegung effect? also very interesting.
What I wish to emphasize/speculate on -- is that there are certainly large, changing magnetic fields in local galactic space that will generate electric fields that we might tap into, extracting power.
I was referring to the De Broglie Matter Wave (non-EM), but deleted that since the electrons move so slow in the wire.
How do you propose to induce current from these large magnetic fields in space?
As an alternative to finding a source of "power" to be extracted, why not look at what makes electrons move in a conductor and see if you can find another way that requires less work?
Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.01.12, 16:34:01
Sorry Lawrence, but regardless of the waveshape, the V & Current are IN PHASE going through a pure carbon resistor. Please check these web links to verify that.
[/size]
Dear AllPhase,
Your assumption is correct if the circuit is purely resistive. The FLEET circuits, however, definitely have Inductance L (the toroid) and Capacitance C (Wires, breadboard etc.) In particular, it is a pseudo resonance circuit. By that, I mean that it has resonance system characteristics. Even if you place your hand near it, the frequency and waveform displayed on the oscilloscopes will change significantly.
Most former researchers failed to notice that the Joule Thief and its variations could be pseudo resonance circuits. Their circuits sometimes showed high power gains or even burnt out. When they modified or rebuild the circuit, they might have moved further from the resonance position. Thus their results were not reproducible. They just ignored the happenings.
When I play with the FLEET prototypes, I deliberately look for the pseudo resonance condition. In Hong Kong, when I had the two China-made oscilloscopes in my bedroom, I sometimes took hours or days to get a prototype to exhibit high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. Most researchers did not do that. They rely on luck to hit on a pseudo resonance condition.
I am sure that if they realize their mistake, they will now spend time to get to the pseudo resonance condition. More high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index devices will come out in the very near future.
Try it yourself. You will experience the inventor's joy in exploring the unknown.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 21:47:00
Lawrence,
One can not with confidence draw any sort of conclusion from the very low resolution time-compressed scope pictures you posted. It is primitive indeed, and unfortunately, does not tell us very much about the real input and output power levels.
Can you please draw a diagram of the test setup (including the current sense resistor), and where the oscilloscope probes are placed?
What is the make and model of the scope(s) you are using? Do they not have the capability to perform integration on the power traces?
.99
The oscilloscopes used in Hong Kong were shown on reply 127.
The exact positions of the probes were shown in reply 467 in the overunity.com forum:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg248891#msg248891
The picture is reproduced here. In the 1-inch toroid prototypes, we were lucky to find that we could take away the variable capacitor and still get high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index values. We just changed the holes in the breadboard or change length of wires after we built the basic prototype. Tuning is still an art – not a science yet.
Thanks for comments.
I now also have available a Tektronix 3032 (DPO) with 300 MHz bandwidth. We can do the digitized trace multiplication and integration as needed with Matlab.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.12, 23:48:01
Thanks for comments.
I now also have available a Tektronix 3032 (DPO) with 300 MHz bandwidth. We can do the digitized trace multiplication and integration as needed with Matlab.
Dear PhysicsProf,
This is great news. Call me at home or my mobile if needed. Try all prototypes including the ones you built. We can do this first and do other tests later.
May God bless you. Amen.
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:
Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.
The fact that you have two scopes at your disposal makes the COP calculation a little easier.
While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.
The first objective then when using the oscilloscope method is to ensure that your scope and passive probe combination can obtain an accurate measurement at the frequencies and rise/fall times present with your device. The following is a step-by-step process which should determine if your scope and passive probes are up to the task.
In essence, the process involves testing with a square generator and resistive load. Current and voltage is measured, multiplied together, then a "mean average" applied to the wave form in the scope. This will allow you to read off directly the real power into the load resistor. Then you compare this with the theoretical computation (very easy to perform) of the real power. If they match well, it may be possible to apply a similar technique (which I will outline in the document) to measure both the input and output powers in question, and a simple division of the two produces the COP value for the circuit.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.13, 01:57:12
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:
Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.
The fact that you have two scopes at your disposal makes the COP calculation a little easier.
While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.
The first objective then when using the oscilloscope method is to ensure that your scope and passive probe combination can obtain an accurate measurement at the frequencies and rise/fall times present with your device. The following is a step-by-step process which should determine if your scope and passive probes are up to the task.
In essence, the process involves testing with a square generator and resistive load. Current and voltage is measured, multiplied together, then a "mean average" applied to the wave form in the scope. This will allow you to read off directly the real power into the load resistor. Then you compare this with the theoretical computation (very easy to perform) of the real power. If they match well, it may be possible to apply a similar technique (which I will outline in the document) to measure both the input and output powers in question, and a simple division of the two produces the COP value for the circuit.
.99
I would recommend two further criteria. The power dissipated at the load be related to its heat or work output as the measured output wattage will exceed this and that work done may not then show a greater co-efficient.
Also. The analysis of the data dumps to evaluate instantaneous current flow and applied voltage from the battery should NOT be established as a mean average. The mean average does not fully integrate that value. You pointed this out Poynty. And you're right. What's needed is to relate the voltage across the shunt and the battery to a fully time integrated value. It's an easy exercise. You simply establish the above zero voltages across the shunt divided by the Ohms value and multiplied by the instantaneous battery voltage. Then divide it by the number of above zero samples. Then you apply the same protocol to the below zero voltages. You will then have a fully integrated value of the wattage output/input by the system.
it's relatively easy to do this on exel even with sample ranges of up to a million samples. But you may need an upgrade on your exel software.
Rosemary
added
It's my experience that the integrated value is more modest than the 'cycle mean average' and I suspect it's more reliable. Also. You effectively need to position your probes that you read both the battery voltage and the shunt voltage simultaneously. Any measure of the voltage across the load resistor is immaterial unless it can be shown to relate to the work done. And it never does. There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat.
Rosemary adds:
QuoteAny measure of the voltage across the load resistor is immaterial unless it can be shown to relate to the work done. And it never does. There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat.
This is interesting, and I would like to understand it. Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat?
It seems to me that the thermal method is a very important check on the integrated-electrical-power method, but that these should agree within experimental error bars -- as long as both are measured properly.
Am I missing something?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.13, 06:42:42
Rosemary adds:
This is interesting, and I would like to understand it. Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat?
It seems to me that the thermal method is a very important check on the integrated-electrical-power method, but that these should agree within experimental error bars -- as long as both are measured properly.
Am I missing something?
Yes - is the short answer. All measure of energy returned by the resistor is still confused with 'stored energy'. And with the utmost respect, Professor, you are all still somehow trying to relate and reconcile the observed measured phenomena to the standard model - when there is no foundational basis for that reconciliation. The standard model does not allow for this result. Therefore you need to eschew standard model explanations. But there is nothing wrong with the measurements. They can be fully accounted for even when the value of energy dissipated exceeds what is evident as heat. It is just not directly usable energy and I think that is what's required. Frankly - we don't even bother to measure the voltage across the resistor - except in as much as it's of interest. It certainly is not relevant to the heat that we're extrapolating from that resistor.
You have indeed got close to the answer in proposing that we're using inductive laws to generate that second cycle. It is, in truth, regenerated energy. That should point you to the extent of this 'non standard' event. The question is how a passive element can itself become an energy supply source. The answer is in that the fields are first imbalanced. That interrupts the binding condition of those fields. And it's those binding fields that produce our required energy output - and then, only when their orbital condition is interrupted. Why is this point so elusive? It seems clear - and yet it is never understood. I clearly am not being clear. LOL.
Kindest regards, and delighted to see the work that your doing here Professor. And more to the point - really delighted to see that someone's actually asking the right questions.
Rosemary
I am trying to stay out of this thread but sometimes I get tempted to jump in.
PhysicsProf: You are going to fall victim to the "too many cooks" syndrome if this continues. My advice to you is to keep it simple. There are reliable and accepted means of verifying your power measurements, whether that be done with a digitizing oscilloscope or with some sort of thermal method.
Rosemary: You are clouding up and confusing this discussion with your theories. You should not be unloading your unsubstantiated theories that come from your project on PhysicsProf and relating them to his measurement technique on his project. I read your last two postings and I want to curl up into a ball because it's all so vague and confusing. You are throwing a monkey wrench into a running car engine.
Here is what's happening right now: There is an opportunity for PhysicsProf to evaluate and do measurements on the devices provided by Lawrence. There has been a big debate about the meaning of what COP is, then there has been all of this soul searching about defining the test parameters and criteria, and now we are into bizarre and esoteric and unsubstantiated interpretations of what power measurement is. If this continues on this will kill this thread and the job will never get done, it will just fizzle out.
I am hoping and praying that the proper measurements can be made on the samples provided by Lawrence. The whole process is at risk of being derailed if it continues on like this.
I apologize for the tough sounding talk, but that's how I feel. There is no reason that this investigation can't be performed successfully but that goal will be prevented from happening if things continue on this way. I have seen so many threads like this sputter out and fail and I am hoping so much to see a successful outcome in this thread.
MileHigh
MileHigh - there is no way that this test or any similar can exclude the integrated analysis requirement. And results certainly cannot depend on the measure of wattage output at the load if this is not related to work - is the first point.
The second point is this. If one entirely assumes that because the amount of wattage measured from the laod does NOT relate to it's heat output - then should one simply assume a measurements' error? I would hope not. All I am doing here is pointing out that the measurements will not conform to a standard model prediction. I am actually working to salvage what I suspect will be or has already been noticed by Professor. I am NOT punting my thesis. I am simply pointing out that there is NO EXTANT THESIS that can account for this result.
And until I am advised by the members generally that they'd prefer me not to post here I will continue to do so. I am probably more anxious than you are that Professor accredit these results. I then intend to point to the validity of our own results. It all serves the technology. Also. We are dissipating considerably more heat. Therefore our own technology is somewhat more significant than small wattages. But that will never diminish the importance of what is being explored here. Frankly I'm delighted to see that Poynty's preparing that schedule of criteria required for proof.
And MileHigh - get off my back. I'm proactively concerned with the advancement of clean green. I'm just doing my bit. And my contributions are as warranted as anyone's while this is my sole object.
Rosemary:
This sentence, for example, is incomprehensible:
QuoteThe power dissipated at the load be related to its heat or work output as the measured output wattage will exceed this and that work done may not then show a greater co-efficient.
This sentence is incomprehensible:
QuoteWhat's needed is to relate the voltage across the shunt and the battery to a fully time integrated value.
This is nonsense:
QuoteThe standard model does not allow for this result. Therefore you need to eschew standard model explanations.
This is nonsense that comes directly from your unsubstantiated theories:
QuoteIt is, in truth, regenerated energy.
Keep this up and you will totally ruin this thread. I suggest that you keep your hands in your pockets and watch the blinking lights.
This comment about your own project is premature and should be ignored. We are still waiting for your new data from the South African university. Your last attempt at publishing a paper based on Glen's DSO waveforms showed no evidence of over unity at all, there was no data in the paper indicating this. Good luck on the next document and I hope to see real data demonstrating over unity.
QuoteWe are dissipating considerably more heat.
MileHigh
Whatever "Integrity" the Forum may have enjoyed is
rapidly being dissipated.
One would hope that the Premier Forum for the
discussion of potential OverUnity Research would
somehow be able to rise to a higher, more mature
ground.
Are certain members fearful of loss of "status"
within the Intellectual Hierarchy and therefore
find cause to resort to unpleasantries?
While the tenor of the discussion may stir some
to an "adrenaline rush" it seems that certain esteemed
members are deriving too much pleasure from their
verbal fisticuffs.
Way too much Drama...
Are Men becoming Boys before our very eyes?
Dumped:
It's all about preventing this thread from being hijacked. Sometimes I just tell it like it is. Before too long it will evolve into another unsubstantiated aether theory applied to Lawrence's device. Sometimes you just have to speak up and try to cut the crap.
PhysicsProf is here to test the device, why don't we let him do that instead of wandering off on all sorts of tangents?
MileHigh
I would propose that it would be more to the point that MileHigh clarify exactly what is incomprehensible in my response and then I could perhaps address it. Meanwhile I'm satisfied that Professor understood my point. And since Professor and Grumpy and all others are entitled to consider concepts that are not within mainstream thinking then I may be entitled to the same license.
To get back on topic. I would strongly recommend that Poynty draft that required schedule. It's an excellent solution. And this is, after all, his particular skill. And I would only ask that he take note of my comments regarding integrated values that include time. They were, in any event, always his own requirements here. The cycle mean average absolutely does not give an accurate reflection of power in and power out. What it does do is give a fair 'average' that is 'close but no cigar'. And those experts in measurement require it. Across the board. And that integrated analysis - however anyone sees it - is simpy based on the inclusion of 'time' which is factored out in an averaging of all samples in a sample dump. Frankly I think our own results on all previous experiments that were based on that average, are acceptable but only within certain margins of error. One needs to compare the time or duration of input current to output current, the current coming from the battery and the current then returning to the battery. Both. In real time.
Also and again. There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat - or as it relates to its evident rate of temperature rise. But since an analysis of wattage over a resistor with high inductance and fast frequencies is fraught - at the best of times - then calorimetric values will always or may always be preferred. That, after all, is the 'gold standard' to the wattage output.
MileHigh if there is still something that I have written that you do not understand then PM me. I'll explain it more fully - as required. The last thing I want to see happen here is that you hijack this thread by an undeserved running commentary on my lack of abilities. We all know what you think of them. Fortunately they are not shared by experts. And when I detour the objects of this thread to an entire focus on my thesis then indeed - you can accuse me of dominating the intentions of this very excellent thread.
Rosemary
I agree that Poynt99's information will be extremely helpful.
Rosemary I don't mean to pick on you but I have seen so many threads fail to reach a conclusion and I have noticed you derailing threads in the past. The best thing for this thread would be to keep it lean and mean.
QuoteThe cycle mean average absolutely does not give an accurate reflection of power in and power out. What it does do is give a fair 'average' that is 'close but no cigar'. And those experts in measurement require it. Across the board. And that integrated analysis - however anyone sees it - is simpy based on the inclusion of 'time' which is factored out in an averaging of all samples in a sample dump. Frankly I think our own results on all previous experiments that were based on that average, are acceptable but only within certain margins of error.
Averaging and integration are essentially the same thing. [averaging] = [integration]/[time period]. Time is not factored out in the averaging of all samples in a sample dump. By definition you are averaging your data over a certain span of time. You are filling up the thread with gobbledygook.
QuoteOne needs to compare the time or duration of input current to output current, the current coming from the battery and the current then returning to the battery. Both. In real time.
You don't need to look at both the current coming from the battery and the current returning from the battery, one measurement is sufficient. More gobbledygook.
Okay I am done. I apologize for this "diversion of a diversion." I just want to see this thread succeed and I have made my point and I will not say any more. I am simply suffering from thread-going-nowhere syndrome.
MileHigh
You guys are having a great discussion on measuring methods, digital sampletimes and power that is only calculated.
All very interesting and a great , challenging puzzle.
Surely the real test is simple .
The circuit only needs to run itself (caged)without any battery and produce more energy than any caps used in the circuit can possibly hold.
Time is your friend
Smaller caps rather than big ones would be all that would be required to make the sums easy so that a simple 30 buck analouge meter would be all you would need.
Other wise you will find youself with digital measurement errors
Whats the difference between 1 and zero? Answer ..1 or zero depending on the time .
Rosemary: "There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat. "
Professor: "Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat? "
Rosemary: "There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat"
I think the professor understands it the other way around.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.13, 10:41:24
Dumped:
It's all about preventing this thread from being hijacked. Sometimes I just tell it like it is. Before too long it will evolve into another unsubstantiated aether theory applied to Lawrence's device. Sometimes you just have to speak up and try to cut the crap.
PhysicsProf is here to test the device, why don't we let him do that instead of wandering off on all sorts of tangents?
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
Thank you for your trying to keep this thread on track. PhysicsProf now has at least four FLEET prototypes with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of various values. He also has two 1 inch toroid cores to do more prototypes.
He now has an oscilloscope that can do the multiply function directly. He also has the software to do the integration. Thus he is fully equipped to do the "energy = integration of the Instantaneous Power Curve over time". The Instantaneous Power is given by the product of the Instantaneous Voltage across the source and the Instantaneous Voltage across a 1 ohm resistor.
Please let him do this test first. He will be able to provide the screen shots, displayed and calculated values. His COP values will be the ratio of Output Energy over Input Energy over the same period to the best ability of his equipment.
Other cooks, please wait until the meal is cooked. If you want, I can provide you with the raw meat (FLEET prototypes). Thank you.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.01.13, 14:18:07
Rosemary: "There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat. "
Professor: "Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat? "
Rosemary: "There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat"
I think the professor understands it the other way around.
Not sure of your point here. You've put some quotes together out of context and are saying what? Sorry GibbsHelmholtz. I'd need you to clarify this. We're talking about two separate measurements. The one relates to the power in/out analysis that invariably - in our experience is less than the energy dissipated at the load and is measured as heat. And the other relates to the analysis of power dissipated by the resistor which is fraught. One cannot apply a standardised Ohm's value as this varies with the high frequencies that we switch at. Quite apart from which there is evidence of ringing and RF that I have no idea how to quantify. Where - on the face of it there is way more power than measured - this number is fraught with potential error. I know of no expert who will hang his hat on this number. But it's not required. One can use calorimetric values that are entirely dependable.
Rosemary
And MileHigh. Please do not tell me that a cycle mean average is the same as an integrated power value. it is not. String an arbitrary list of plus minus numbers together and sum that total and then divide it by that sample number and you'll get a mean average value. Then separate those numbers plus to plus/ minus to minus. Then do a count. If there are more incidents of plus to minus - or vice versa - then over a given time period that frequency will need to be factored in. Say the minus represents 45% of the time and the plus represents 55% of that same time period - then that difference needs to be factored in. It is lost in a straight forward mean averaging. That's its integrated value. This was pointed out to me by Le Croy experts. And it was endorsed by Poynty in discussion. The difference is this. The integrated value which is used in the Le Croy is displayed as a voltage. In other words the Le Croy software does that voltage sum for us across a given sample range. This value is invariably different to the cycle mean average. I can display both values. These values are never the same. Nor are they the same when you transpose that analysis directly onto the data dumps.
It is one thing to be accused of being wrong. But it gets me down when I have to justify myself knowing full well that it actually is not ME who is wrong. When do you actually stop pointing out my stupidity MileHigh and when will you at least do so against appropriate criticisms. This is really getting me down.
I am just talking about the output part. The output scope reading will not show correct power. The heat will be less than what is read on the output scope.
Proper voltage and current measurement at the resistor will adequately indicate the power and energy going into it. When measuring input and output powers using the oscilloscope method, the power dissipated in the switch should also be accounted for, especially if it appears the output to input ratio is close to a value of 1.
As I pointed out in my previous post, integration, i.e. "taking the integral" of a properly-obtained instantaneous power trace is absolutely not required in order to obtain a COP measurement. This is going on the solid assumption that the average input and output values of power in the circuit do not vary over time. Applying a mean average algorithm to P(instantaneous) will provide a "real-time" direct readout of the power being measured.
.99
I shouldn't worry too much, MH... or Rose... I'll do the measurements, it may take a little time as I have numerous duties at this time, but we're making progress and learning about these interesting Joule Thief circuits and variants.
Lawrence said it well:
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.13, 14:33:40
PhysicsProf now has at least four FLEET prototypes with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of various values. He also has two 1 inch toroid cores to do more prototypes.
He now has an oscilloscope that can do the multiply function directly. He also has the software to do the integration. Thus he is fully equipped to do the "energy = integration of the Instantaneous Power Curve over time". The Instantaneous Power is given by the product of the Instantaneous Voltage across the source and the Instantaneous Voltage across a 1 ohm resistor.
Please let him do this test first. He will be able to provide the screen shots, displayed and calculated values. His COP values will be the ratio of Output Energy over Input Energy over the same period to the best ability of his equipment.
Other cooks, please wait until the meal is cooked. If you want, I can provide you with the raw meat (FLEET prototypes). Thank you.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
@All
Maybe it is about time someone throw a curve ball into the mix and to start I will take a chapter from A.D Moore's book "Electrostatics". Moore makes a exceptional point when he refers to the fact that even a simple cave man must have been aware of the fact that static electricity exists - how could they not as it is a natural and abundant phenomena, next around 600 B.C. there is documentation that in fact the Greeks knew of this form of electricity when amber was rubbed. However it took about 2200 years after the Greeks discovery before a man named William Gilbert actually built the first influence machine and a new area of science was born. You see it was not that people did not know of electrostatics it was the fact that everone found it easier to theorize about these strange effects rather than put their theories to the test. Even today we see this "caveman" mentality when people tell us our laws of science cannot be broken which seems absurd considering the laws are continually being rewritten as new discoveries are made, if a law of science is the undeniable truth then how can it change-- the truth cannot change. Now do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing science, I am criticizing people who do not understand science and believe our theories can never change.
So rather than suffer the fate of the caveman or the armchair critic as they are interchangable to some extent I intend to take a more active role in this new year and take on some outside projects above and beyond the many things I have on the go. As such if Lawrence (ltseung888) would like to send me a few of his latest prototypes I would be happy to do a full energy accounting of his creations well beyond what many experts here might consider acceptable. This will not be something as crude as attaching an oscilloscope to the output conductors and must include a black box test procedure. That is the device in it's entirety is placed in a closed vessel and all forms of energy including heat, pressure, light, conduction, electrostatic, electric and magnetic field energies are fully accounted for to determine the total change in energy state between two regions. If Lawrence would like me to get involved he can PM me for details.
Regards
AC
Sounds like there are a number of folks here that have their own ideas as to the best way to test Lawrence's circuit, so rather than spend precious hours putting together a document that will most likely be ignored, I'm going to apply that time towards other tasks I need to do.
Anxiously awaiting data to review ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.13, 01:57:12
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:
Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.
Poynty I do not understand why you need the integral function of a scope meter to establish the integrated value. You only need a reasonable number of samples and an exel or somesuch spreadsheet.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.13, 01:57:12While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.
To the best of my knowledge there is not a current probe extant that can deal with the frequencies applied by Lawrence or Professor. Not that I've heard of. If you know of a make that can manage this - then please advise. We're all looking for this. I've been advised that not even a Tektronix current probe is up to the job. While the differential probe is preferred for measuring the voltage across the load resistor the actual analysis of its waveforms depends on variables related to the frequency. If the Ohms value varies with frequency then there is no standardised Ohms value you can apply to determine the rate of current flow through that resistor. You can, however, use a small shunt resistor in series with that load resistor to determine the rate of current flow. But as the voltages across the load resistor may be the result of a variable Ohm's value - then how do you determine that voltage? But why bother? Just check the rate of temperature rise. That will tell the whole story.
Poynty - with respect. This is exactly why I asked you to design a document. The measurement protocol has to be determined in advance of submitting anything at all. What if I were to forward you my device for measurement and evaluation - and then I'm left at the mercy of your decision as to its validity when you are intending to apply current probes - or worse still - when you stick to the cycle mean average to determine the actual wattage. In our case it wouldn't matter that much because our numbers are extreme. But what if Lawrence, for example, submitted his apparatus to you for evaluation. And then the actual measure of current flow - or vi power analysis was based on your use of a current probe? Or what if you ignored the integral value - and insisted on the mean average.? In both cases those results would be ignored by mainstream and endorsed only by you. And then Lawrence would be required to withdraw his claim because you determined that it was baseless? And yet your protocols are flawed and his claim may yet be valid?
This is precisely why I'm not prepared to submit anything for endorsement on any forum ever again. Certainly not until that protocol has been established. And then Poynty - you'll find that our own protocols as detailed in that IEEE and TIE papers are actually fully compliant. Except that our numbers were never properly integrated. But as the spreadsheets were submitted with that data then the reviewers would have been able to apply their own analysis and that would most certainly have included that integral evaluation.
Rosemary
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.01.13, 15:02:10
I am just talking about the output part. The output scope reading will not show correct power. The heat will be less than what is read on the output scope.
I missed this. Output? Output from the battery or output from the load resistor? the output on the scope across the load resistor is related to voltage measurements. Those voltage measurements need to be related to the Ohms value of the resistor to establish volts times amps (vi) to establish its wattage. The Ohms value is impossible to determine. Or nearly impossible. So it's a meaningless exercise. I am still not sure of your point. But there is absolutely no way that the voltage measurements are wrong. They are usually correct within certain very small error margin parameters. It would be entirely feasible to determine the energy dissipated at the resistor - which is what I think you mean - provided only that it's determined calorimetrically. It's heat will be a precise measure of the energy it is dissipating. Are we even on the same page here Gibbs? I seem to be missing your point here.
Rosemary
And while I'm on the subject - there is another groundless concern about 'groundloop'. That's Stefan's preferrred excuse. It's easy to addess in that 'protocol' list. Just take out the 'earth pin' on the plugs of your functions generators - and your DSO's. They work fine. And the numbers do not vary. It's just a bit risky. In our case we had to apply for permission in case it put our instruments at risk.
Rosemary
My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week. It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).
For reference, here is a photo of Prototype A, which we patterned our replica after, including same size 1" ferrite toroid.
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8825.0;attach=49625;image)
We measured the "FLEET index" (basically as defined by Lawrence above) by comparing RMS values for input and output, with the device operating -- as follows, with values in parentheses taken last Saturday:
INPUT voltage, measured across the older battery (1.0 V). Input current is determined by the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor shown in the photo. (0.076 V)
OUTPUT voltage measured across the added winding on the toroid, wires labeled 5 and 6. (1.14 V) (The LED lit up, and the P-P voltage is higher than 3 V.)
We replaced the 10 ohm and 100 ohm resistors on the output circuit with a single 1 ohm resistor, for our replication (0.823 V). We have tried 110 ohm versus 1 ohm resistors in the output (in series with the LED shown) and have found that the FLEET index is higher (each time) for the 1 ohm resistor on the output. This also facilitates measure of the output circuit current...
Note that this change can easily be restored back to the original at any time.
We remeasured the values and confirmed them, with small deviations, on Tuesday morning and captured the oscilloscope traces. We are using a BitScope BS326UO for these rather straightforward measurements, planning to take the device to the Tektronix 3032 for more precise measurements...
Then, as a means of preliminary evaluation of the device as described before (NOT the final evaluation), we calculate the FLEET Index as
FI = Vout * I out / Vin * I in -- using all RMS values
= 1.14 * 0.823 / 1.0 * 0.076 = 0.94 / 0.076 = 12.3 (preliminary)
So far so good. Lawrence should be pleased that we have a high Index value and have replicated his device.
The problem -- we moved parts of the device to the breadboard where some parts were already located, and the Index dropped dramatically, to less than one.
Something clearly changed... Basically all the values cited above stayed the same (within reasonable error bars), except for the voltage drop across the output resistor, which decreased from 823 mV to 50 mV ( the value this evening, Thursday 13 Jan 2011). That's enormous! This drops the FLEET Index from 12 to 0.75 ! Hmmm... I thought it was a bad connection, somehow the resistance on the output circuit went up. No, everything seemed to check out. We even replaced the output LED -- no increase in the current (stuck at the new value of about 50 mA).
Again, we captured the oscilloscope trace for the output resistor (now 1 ohm) last Tuesday, when the Index was still high, so it is not that we misread it.
We don't understand it... Tomorrow we plan to re-check resistances and connections, probably will solder the connections, eliminating the breadboard, to see if we can restore the values of last Saturday and Tuesday morning.
Any other suggestions for things to check would be most appreciated.
I have decided to let you know the "dirty laundry" aspects of our efforts at testing as we go along... Quite a bit more difficult than I expected, I must say.
Great news Professor. Perhaps the wiring on the breadboard added extra resistance in that second config? And at these voltages that may make a big difference. My guess is that you'll restore the result with direct connections.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PhysicsProf,
I don't recall the wavelength or the rise/fall times but as those become shorter the added capacitance of the breadboard has more effect.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.14, 06:15:10
My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week. It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).
......
Then, as a means of preliminary evaluation of the device as described before (NOT the final evaluation), we calculate the FLEET Index as
FI = Vout * I out / Vin * I in -- using all RMS values
= 1.14 * 0.823 / 1.0 * 0.076 = 0.94 / 0.076 = 12.3 (preliminary)
So far so good. Lawrence should be pleased that we have a high Index value and have replicated his device.
The problem -- we moved parts of the device to the breadboard where some parts were already located, and the Index dropped dramatically, to less than one.
Something clearly changed... Basically all the values cited above stayed the same (within reasonable error bars), except for the voltage drop across the output resistor, which decreased from 823 mV to 50 mV ( the value this evening, Thursday 13 Jan 2011). That's enormous! This drops the FLEET Index from 12 to 0.75 ! Hmmm... I thought it was a bad connection, somehow the resistance on the output circuit went up. No, everything seemed to check out. We even replaced the output LED -- no increase in the current (stuck at the new value of about 50 mA).
Again, we captured the oscilloscope trace for the output resistor (now 1 ohm) last Tuesday, when the Index was still high, so it is not that we misread it.
We don't understand it... Tomorrow we plan to re-check resistances and connections, probably will solder the connections, eliminating the breadboard, to see if we can restore the values of last Saturday and Tuesday morning.
Any other suggestions for things to check would be most appreciated.
I have decided to let you know the "dirty laundry" aspects of our efforts at testing as we go along... Quite a bit more difficult than I expected, I must say.
Dear PhysicsProf,
Thank you for bringing the 'strange phenomenon' up. We experienced and knew about it early on in our tests. If you check my previous post (reply 129) here, you will find that I used the term pseudo resonance.
The FLEET prototypes exhibit resonance characteristics in that a small change – including placing a hand closely can affect the frequency and waveform significantly as seen on the oscilloscopes. That is why I strongly advise the use of two oscilloscopes simultaneously. (I have not used a 4 channel scope yet.)
The trick is to keep modifying the holes used on the breadboard, the length of the connecting wires, the position of the various electronic components or the value of the actual components until a high Tseung FLEET comparison Index is again found.
Most previous researchers did not realize this important 'tuning' step. When I shipped out Prototype A, I soldered the components together as the connections on a breadboard are easily disconnected. I was hoping that your good oscilloscope could indicate at least a small COP > 1 value with the integration function. We can then do more tuning afterwards.
Do not try to understand by staring at the circuit diagram. The circuit diagram does not tell you anything about this pseudo resonance effect. Play around more until you hit on a configuration that can demonstrate COP > 1. Some configurations will yield very high COP values.
Your experience and detailed descriptions will help the many verifiers and replicators in the very near future. Thank you in advance.
Lawrence
Just to add:
One of the Professors in Hong Kong believed that the breadboard had significant capacitance that was NOT shown in any circuit diagram. The FLEET is essentially a LCR circuit with pulsing. The physical aspects such as dimension, position of components, length of wires and obviously the toroid characteristics are factors that can affect the frequency.
The primitive circuit has its subtlies.
Lawrence
May I suggest that breadboarding is not the way to go with these circuits. They do exhibit high stray capacitance, and so can throw off your design. Of course resonant circuits will be the worst victims in this case.
I also advocate very short wiring; as short as possible. Excessively long wires introduce stray inductance, which may not be accounted for in the circuit. Pictures of test setups are important to show for this reason. Prof, I would encourage you to post those pictures of not only your scope shots, but the test setup as well. On a related issue, if the option is there, use the shortest probe ground lead you have available.
Regarding your results so far, I am weary of those numbers. Keep in mind that these scopes are only 8-bit machines, and taking measurements of signals that are down in the noise won't be accurate. Could you also explain exactly how you are acquiring the rms voltage and current? Keep in mind that once you convert a measurement to RMS, all the phase information is gone, and therefore multiplying an RMS-converted voltage by a RMS-converted current will produce a result that has no meaning whatsoever in terms of the REAL power being used or dissipated. This is why when using the oscilloscope method, the currents and voltages must remain in their raw state before being multiplied together. After that, you may apply any processing you wish, such as averaging and integration.
Never disable the ground prong on any of your test equipment! Isolate properly by using an isolation transformer.
.99
Dear PhysicsProf,
Please take photos as you go along. With pseudo resonance circuits, you may not be able to reproduce the same results later. This caused us much confusion at the early stages. There were even accusation of "producing false results on purpose". Now you have experienced the phenomenon yourself, you can be much more objective.
Share the process as well as the results. Thank you.
Why bother with worrying about power factor and phase when the input is a DC voltage from a battery (in regard to Pin measurement)? Especially when the claimed COP is an order of magnitude higher than 1? Is not a simple shunt with an appropriate low-pass RC filter at the meter and a decent DMM or a Simpson 260 sufficient to measure true total average actually hardware-integrated current into/out of the battery?
The battery voltage, unless the battery is far undersized capacity-wise or ruined (high impedance), will remain constant within a few percent under pulsed loading, will it not? If not, get a lower impedance battery or stick a big fat low Z cap across it! If battery voltage drops significantly over the few moments it takes to do a test, your battery is too small!
When people are claiming efficiencies of 1000% or more, what's a 5 or even 10% error in measurement? Just measure the battery DC voltage under load, even if it jumps around under pulsing and or modest noise...take the low number to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, and multiply by the integrated (low-pass RC filtered with time constant 10x or more lower than lowest pulsing frequency) current and there you go...input power.
Output power may be more complex, I agree, if the output has a predominantly AC component (this of course includes so-called pulsed DC which I prefer to consider as pure AC with a DC offset) and the "load" is other than an essentially (say 99%)pure resistance at the fundamental frequency involved. But it ain't ever as persnickity and elaborate as most here seem to make it out to be. Remember: We're looking at claims of COP10 and more. That makes it much easier to rule out absolutely and usually with very simple tests and equipment.
It's when claims involve COPs of 1.001 that testing requires the ultimate in accuracy and forethought to stay above the noise. Let's get real here! Again, I state that the only reason I can think of that these outrageous COP claims are not always very quickly disproven with simple tests is that the forums are actually social chat rooms and there wouldn't be much left to chat about if all these wild claims were quickly and efficiently scrutinized and batted down! But I love it just as much as you do!
You can start a new topic here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=13.0) if you like, or I can create a bench of your own, which you can moderate and post as you wish.
Which would you like to do...or both?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.14, 19:38:41
You can start a new topic here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=13.0) if you like, or I can create a bench of your own, which you can moderate and post as you wish.
Which would you like to do...or both?
.99
To whom is this directed, please? If it's me, you must be speaking in regard to my question to you about Ms. Ainslee's project over on the Magnacoaster thread?
Please delete if you edit your previous post to clarify who you are addressing...thanks.
My I extend compliments to all who are participating in the
present discussion?
This process is developing nicely. The various obstacles
which arise are being clearly presented. The potential
solutions to unexpected variations in measurement are
very instructional.
Many will benefit from all that transpires as the process
continues to a conclusion.
A most fascinating work in progress!
For what it's worth, here's how I measure blocking oscillator efficiency. I use this standardized test setup when tweaking the many parameters of a blocking oscillator aka Joule Thief.
TV guys will recognize the output as a boosted B+, but measurement is made inside the current loop.
All flyback energy (minus losses in the diode and copper) is captured by the output capacitor and fed to the load as DC, therefore easily measured against input.
Input energy is also easily measured as DC
The circuit shown has a 50 to 1 turns ratio so that base drive current is optimized and charge carriers are efficiently pumped. There are other improvements I could add to the circuit but for simplicity, these were not included in this rudimentary schematic.
The standard blocking oscillator can be finessed in many ways, the subject of a thread I hope to start as time permits.
Greetings,
Hello LT, Physics Prof, Poynt and the Rest.
I made the switch and am happy to be here. ;o)
I plan on doing some experiments on my new bench in the near future.
Some of which are...
1. Resonate an Ignition Coil from a regular Joule Thief and Observe output.
(I already found the Resonant Frequency of a $13 Ignition Coil from Checker)
* 1.33Khz... a 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V Peak to Peak Sine Wave at resonance.
2. Experiment with unmodified Disposable Camera Circuits and Identical Capacitors.
* Take identical capacitors --> charge 1st to 1.5 V --> use it in place of the battery in Camera Circuit.
After 1st Cap is completely drained, measure the voltage in the 2nd Cap.
* Because a 1.5 V battery can charge the cap to 100 V in 1 Second (through Camera Circuit)...
the end result may be more energy in the 2nd Cap. E=(1/2)*CV2
- This would be clear and undeniable proof of a USE (Unrecognized Source of Energy).
3. Set up a Joule Ringer that uses an Ignition Coil as the Bifilar Coil.
Best Regards,
The Observer
Quote from: The Observer on 2011.01.14, 20:34:10
Greetings,
Hello LT, Physics Prof, Poynt and the Rest.
I made the switch and am happy to be here. ;o)
I plan on doing some experiments on my new bench in the near future.
Some of which are...
1. Resonate an Ignition Coil from a regular Joule Thief and Observe output.
(I already found the Resonant Frequency of a $13 Ignition Coil from Checker)
* 1.33Khz... a 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V Peak to Peak Sine Wave at resonance.
2. Experiment with unmodified Disposable Camera Circuits and Identical Capacitors.
* Take identical capacitors --> charge 1st to 1.5 V --> use it in place of the battery in Camera Circuit.
After 1st Cap is completely drained, measure the voltage in the 2nd Cap.
* Because a 1.5 V battery can charge the cap to 100 V in 1 Second (through Camera Circuit)...
the end result may be more energy in the 2nd Cap. E=(1/2)*CV2
- This would be clear and undeniable proof of a USE (Unrecognized Source of Energy).
3. Set up a Joule Ringer that uses an Ignition Coil as the Bifilar Coil.
Best Regards,
The Observer
Welcome Observer. The Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets at overunity.com has been taken over by ....! It was impossible to follow or post any sensible discussions. Unmoderated Forums have their drawbacks.
You come at a right time. The PhysicsProf is doing confirmation experiments on my FLEET prototypes. He managed to produce his own prototype with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. He is running into the same problems we faced of "pseudo resonance measurements". Your experience will help.
I look forward to the experiments on your new bench. Now that you have concrete results that 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V peak-to-peak sine wave at resonance, I hope to work with you to produce one of the Conclusive Experiments to be shown in one of the US-China projects later.
Lawrence
Lawrence, thank you for the input --
QuoteHe is running into the same problems we faced
I was feeling quite frustrated yesterday with the results, but what you said makes some sense... and yes, I need to take more photos as we go along.
.99 -- agreed that even RMS values are not reliable for measuring power, but I carefully said our numbers are
1. preliminary
2. a means of comparing devices
3. -- and let me add: I tested the RMS "Tseung FLEET Comparison Index" or "Index value" with the heating of a resistor about ten days ago, as described in an earlier post. Let me add that the RMS value was close to but somewhat (about 25%) LESS than the heat output of the resistor, compared to a test resistor driven by a known power source. As for the input, the Vin,rms is close to the battery voltage measure by a multimeter, and the Iin, rms is close to that which I read by an analog mA-meter, which provides averaging. So although I do not claim that the rms-Index is the SAME as COP, don't claim that at all, I have taken some pains to check it as a means of getting preliminary values for purposes of comparing various Tseung-devices. That is all.
If I had an multiplying and integrating oscilloscope handy, I would use it! Indeed, if anyone can tell me how to get a Tektronix 3032 to do these functions "automatically" (without using Matlab, for example, although I could do that in time) -- I'd appreciate it.
@Observer -- welcome, and yes I agree that the Joule Ringer is mighty interesting... Is there a thread here about that? best thread on the Joule-ringer right now seems to be over at EnergeticForum.... but I do like this forum!
Professor,
Regarding the use of the DPO3032 Tek scope, go here (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/madetails.lotr?ct=MA&cs=mur&ci=15631&lc=EN) to download the manual, then go to page 108 and follow the steps to create a multiply math function. It even shows an example of "power" by multiplying the voltage and current.
Then go to the "Measurement" menu and select "Mean" (not "Cycle Mean") as shown on page 99 of the manual. This of course is applied to the math wave form. Now you will have a running average of the REAL power.
As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.14, 06:15:10
My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week. It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).
For reference, here is a photo of Prototype A, which we patterned our replica after, including same size 1" ferrite toroid.
We measured the "FLEET index" (basically as defined by Lawrence above) by comparing RMS values for input and output, with the device operating -- as follows, with values in parentheses taken last Saturday:
Well I stand corrected it looks like you can slip in the new term "Fleet Index" to circumvent the OUR rule and add a new layer of confusion all at the same time.
Congratulations Pete
vonwolf,
I'm not concerned about the Prof's use of Lawrence's new comparative term. Since they are converting voltages and currents to RMS, the power computations not only have no real meaning at all, but it is somewhat presumptuous to say that the so-called "FLEET index" even allows for a true performance comparison between prototypes. In fact I very much doubt it does.
Professor, you really should move on to a more proper method of testing. Respectfully, what you are doing now is pretty much a waste of time if you are truly interested in obtaining a COP figure for this device.
.99
Here is my way of testing if ANY boost converter is over unity or not.
(http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback1.gif)
(http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback2.gif)
You just connect a AA battery, an boost converter (JT) and a battery capacitor to the circuit and let it run.
The automated feed back circuit will take its power to run from the AA battery. The micro controller needs +5 Volt to run so we use an IC to boost the 1, 2 Volt up to 5 volt. The micro controller runs slowly on a 32 KHz crystal and uses approx. 60uA from the IC to run. So the total current usage of the circuit is approx. 0,25mA from the AA battery. The circuit will monitor both the battery capacitor voltage and the AA battery voltage. If the AA battery voltage is too low, then the circuit will attempt to charge the AA battery from the battery capacitor. If the battery capacitor gets too high in voltage then the circuit will dump energy to the output load, thus keeping the battery capacitor below the recommended 2, 7 volt.
The project (design files, software and documentation) can be downloaded here: http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar (http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar)
Alex.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.14, 22:36:21
Professor,
Regarding the use of the DPO3032 Tek scope, go here (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/madetails.lotr?ct=MA&cs=mur&ci=15631&lc=EN) to download the manual, then go to page 108 and follow the steps to create a multiply math function. It even shows an example of "power" by multiplying the voltage and current.
Then go to the "Measurement" menu and select "Mean" (not "Cycle Mean") as shown on page 99 of the manual. This of course is applied to the math wave form. Now you will have a running average of the REAL power.
As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value.
.99
Oh God,
If you had commented on my numerous scope postings since July 2010 at the overunity.com forum, I could have quoted the correct COP value! Even the China-made scopes had that functionality.
It is not too late. I shall pass this
extremely important piece of information to all the teams in Hong Kong and China. We can claim that we have the correct COP now and ignore the Tseung FLEET comparison index. There are dozens if not hundreds of COP > 1 devices in our possession.
Thanks so much Poynt99.
You are an angel. May God bless you.
Lawrence,
I am simply stating the facts. The most important factor regarding the scopes, is that they can perform both multiplication, and mean averaging.
Keep in mind however, that it's the old adage; "garbage in, garbage out", so ensure that your raw data is properly-acquired. I still have a great deal of doubt that good data can be obtained with passive probes, but you will have to take a chance I suppose, unless the Professor can borrow a current probe.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.14, 22:36:21
Professor,
Regarding the use of the DPO3032 Tek scope, go here (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/madetails.lotr?ct=MA&cs=mur&ci=15631&lc=EN) to download the manual, then go to page 108 and follow the steps to create a multiply math function. It even shows an example of "power" by multiplying the voltage and current.
Then go to the "Measurement" menu and select "Mean" (not "Cycle Mean") as shown on page 99 of the manual. This of course is applied to the math wave form. Now you will have a running average of the REAL power.
As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value.
.99
Poynty - I'm inclined to agree with you. It is, perhaps, NOT NECESSARY to apply an integrated value to these results. Unfortunately mainstream and academic experts consider it NECESSARY. I'm afraid their argument is based on the fact that 'mean average' and the properly integrated values DO NOT CORRESPOND. Since the latter is invariably the more modest value then I'm inclined to think this will become the required benchmark. And as there really is no way within a simple averaging - to incorporate a proportional 'time' difference between when the energy is being returned and when it is being delivered - then - the chances are that they've got a strong argument. If they corresponded - then your argument would carry.
And regarding Professor's input here. He has advised us REPEATEDLY that he is showing us his dirty washing. We're all - I think - rather glad of this. It will be ample opportunity to show us all where measurements have been erroneous and where they'll correspond to what it correct. I see this as his 'teaching exercise' and frankly, I think it's salutory. Just look at all the erroneous nonsense that's used in the analysis of motorised technologies. As I see it - we'll be given an opporunity to forge an acceptable method of analysis. Long overdue in my book. So. Thank you Professor. There are many of us who are most grateful for your input here.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 01:04:13
Lawrence,
I am simply stating the facts. The most important factor regarding the scopes, is that they can perform both multiplication, and mean averaging.
Keep in mind however, that it's the old adage; "garbage in, garbage out", so ensure that your raw data is properly-acquired. I still have a great deal of doubt that good data can be obtained with passive probes, but you will have to take a chance I suppose, unless the Professor can borrow a current probe.
.99
Yes. And if Professor can find a current probe that is able to measure at the frequencies that you're switching at. To the best of my knowledge there is no such animal. But I'd like to be proved wrong. I would LOVE to find that probe.
I really didn't think it was getting anything by you poynt99 it's just throwing a made up term to muddy the waters. I'm not nearly as advanced in these things as most of you but I have been following LT's work for years and this is the 1st time in a long time that its got the attention a real expert's with real measurement's and math.
It will be interesting to see the results but I'm having a hard enough time see how pulsed peak to peak power has anything to do with constant power output and throwing in new terms just makes it more difficult for a armature such as myself.
Pete
Sorry Lawrence - I missed your point. I agree with Poynty. Your results are more than enough proof provided only that COP is significantly greater than 1. And in your case it is well in excess.
And well done. I agree that your device is elegant evidence of a really challenging fact.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.01.15, 00:43:41
Here is my way of testing if ANY boost converter is over unity or not.
You just connect a AA battery, an boost converter (JT) and a battery capacitor to the circuit and let it run.
The automated feed back circuit will take its power to run from the AA battery. The micro controller needs +5 Volt to run so we use an IC to boost the 1, 2 Volt up to 5 volt. The micro controller runs slowly on a 32 KHz crystal and uses approx. 60uA from the IC to run. So the total current usage of the circuit is approx. 0,25mA from the AA battery. The circuit will monitor both the battery capacitor voltage and the AA battery voltage. If the AA battery voltage is too low, then the circuit will attempt to charge the AA battery from the battery capacitor. If the battery capacitor gets too high in voltage then the circuit will dump energy to the output load, thus keeping the battery capacitor below the recommended 2, 7 volt.
The project (design files, software and documentation) can be downloaded here: http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar (http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar)
That is a really elegant solution Groundloop. I was not aware of it and have been looking for something like this. Please check your pm's.
Rosemary
:) LOL Sorry about the editing.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.15, 01:10:12
Poynty - I'm inclined to agree with you. It is, perhaps, NOT NECESSARY to apply an integrated value to these results. Unfortunately mainstream and academic experts consider it NECESSARY
I very much doubt that, and, it absolutely depends on the characteristics of the device's power usage and delivery over time (see below).
Quote
I'm afraid their argument is based on the fact that 'mean average' and the properly integrated values DO NOT CORRESPOND. Since the latter is invariably the more modest value then I'm inclined to think this will become the required benchmark. And as there really is no way within a simple averaging - to incorporate a proportional 'time' difference between when the energy is being returned and when it is being delivered - then - the chances are that they've got a strong argument. If they corresponded - then your argument would carry.
Power and Energy measurements in their pure form are not supposed to correspond. It is their respective ratios that does.
Most if not all boost converter circuits and their derivatives will use and deliver a fixed average value of power after the unit has had sufficient time to stabilize, such as 20 or 30 minutes. This is assuming of course that the voltage supply and it's impedance do not change, ambient temperature does not change, and the load impedance does not change after stabilization has been reached.
The other important fact to realize, is that the device's cyclic wave form does not change over time. So in all aspects, the device, after stabilization, uses and delivers a steady continuous value of power. As such, it matters not if the output and input powers are divided as a ratio, or the output and input Joules are divided as a ratio, the results will be equal. In the latter case however, an extra unnecessary step was performed.
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.15, 01:12:12
Yes. And if Professor can find a current probe that is able to measure at the frequencies that you're switching at. To the best of my knowledge there is no such animal. But I'd like to be proved wrong. I would LOVE to find that probe.
This is simply not true.
The TCP202, DC-50MHz current probe is a good example. A 50MHz probe is sufficient to capture 10ns rise and fall times. And there are probes capable of >100MHz as well.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 01:51:13
This is simply not true.
The TCP202, DC-50MHz current probe is a good example. A 50MHz probe is sufficient to capture 10ns rise and fall times. And there are probes capable of >100MHz as well.
.99
WELL. That's news indeed. So. Can you PLEASE tell me where I can get this probe? I've been looking. EVERYWHERE.
Rosemary
added I've just seen that DC- number. Presumably it will manage our complex waveforms. I know we've tried one that simply flattens the waveform and gives an approximate number.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.15, 01:53:05
WELL. That's news indeed. So. Can you PLEASE tell me where I can get this probe? I've been looking. EVERYWHERE.
Rosemary
added I've just seen that DC- number. Presumably it will manage our complex waveforms. I know we've tried one that simply flattens the waveform and gives an approximate number.
To recap, the TCP202 is good to 50MHz, so it will manage quite fast transients. These and several other current probes are available from every major oscilloscope manufacturer out there. Go to their sites or speak to their sales people. Tell them you want as a minimum, an AC 50MHz current probe. They will either sell you direct, or provide a dealer list.
DC capability is nice, but more expensive and not really necessary for dynamic circuits such as these.
.99
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.01.15, 00:43:41
Here is my way of testing if ANY boost converter is over unity or not.
You just connect a AA battery, an boost converter (JT) and a battery capacitor to the circuit and let it run.
The automated feed back circuit will take its power to run from the AA battery. The micro controller needs +5 Volt to run so we use an IC to boost the 1, 2 Volt up to 5 volt. The micro controller runs slowly on a 32 KHz crystal and uses approx. 60uA from the IC to run. So the total current usage of the circuit is approx. 0,25mA from the AA battery. The circuit will monitor both the battery capacitor voltage and the AA battery voltage. If the AA battery voltage is too low, then the circuit will attempt to charge the AA battery from the battery capacitor. If the battery capacitor gets too high in voltage then the circuit will dump energy to the output load, thus keeping the battery capacitor below the recommended 2, 7 volt.
The project (design files, software and documentation) can be downloaded here: http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar (http://home.no/ufoufoufoufo/feedback.rar)
Alex.
Alex, as a suggested exercise for you, you should try to further qualify your tester with respect to what approximate COP level from the JT would be required for the device to run continuously. Without knowing that threshold specification, the information about the tester is incomplete.
Your tester discharges the battery to the point where it starts to drop in voltage as it charges the big capacitor. Then it starts to redirect the energy in the big capacitor back to the source battery. The battery has an unknown charging efficiency, and you indicated there is the overhead required to run the microcontroller also. These two effects reduce the net amount of energy that the big cap puts back into the battery. Therefore the JT has to have a COP sufficiently high to overcome these losses to self-sustain.
MileHigh
Quote
Dear xxx,
Please read the post from poynt99 at:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9174#msg9174
very carefully.
We have been looking for the integration function for months to get a true COP value. That is not necessary. Once we have the Channel 1 and Channel 2 multiplied to get the Instantaneous Power curve, we could have used the "mean" function to display the running Power!
Our displayed graphs need not be as complicated as we have been showing for months. All we need is to display the Instantaneous Power Curve and the mean running Power value. There is NO need to do any calculations at all. All the work on calculating the COP peak-to-peak and COP rms are NOT necessary and confusing.
Please redo the calibration of all the FLEET prototypes according to the directions from poynt99. Drop all the COP peak-to-peak calculations and do the correct COP comparisons. Please send me some sample screen shots and photos as soon as possible.
Skype me if you need more information or direction. Thank you.
Best regards and Happy Chinese New Year
Lawrence
The Hong Kong and China teams will be happy with this information. Thanks to poynt99 once again.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.14, 22:36:21
Professor,
Regarding the use of the DPO3032 Tek scope, go here (http://www2.tek.com/cmswpt/madetails.lotr?ct=MA&cs=mur&ci=15631&lc=EN) to download the manual, then go to page 108 and follow the steps to create a multiply math function. It even shows an example of "power" by multiplying the voltage and current.
Then go to the "Measurement" menu and select "Mean" (not "Cycle Mean") as shown on page 99 of the manual. This of course is applied to the math wave form. Now you will have a running average of the REAL power.
As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value.
.99
"Now you will have a running average of the REAL power." This is very helpful indeed. I have downloaded the manual and started reading. Thank you.
If we can get the running average for the real INPUT power and OUTPUT power separately, I would think the next step will be to take the "running ratio" of these, Pout/Pin.
Will this not provide a reasonable COP value? Perhaps there is a better way...
Seems this would require 4 channels on the Tek 3032... not sure how to do all this, but sounds feasible.
"As I have stated a couple times now, integration is
not necessary to obtain a COP value" -- OK, but can you specify what IS needed then to obtain a reasonable COP value using the Tek 3032? Does the method I suggest above do the job?
This is a very important discussion -- thanks again.
PhysicsProf:
You don't need two more DSO channels to measure the power consumption of the overall Joule Thief circuit. All that you need is some form of low-pass filtering system between your power source and the the Joule Thief circuit load. I am copy/pasting one version of this for your consideration below. I am assuming that you have or can get a variable power supply and a large capacitor or two? That's all that you really need.
Ion or Poynt probably have similar or better versions of what I explain below so you have some choices.
You should be able to make a very accurate power consumption measurement of the Joule Thief circuit using pure analog components and a very accurate power output measurement on the Joule Thief secondary output using the two channels of the DSO and the built-in averaging function. You can run both measurement systems live at the same time. So you are almost there.
For your consideration below with a few comments to tweak things for your low-power application. Instead of a 30,000 uF capacitor you could probably get away with a 5,000 or 10,000 uF cap. You should also put a 1 uF and a 0.1 uF capacitor in parallel with the big capacitor. You may need to experiment with the value of the resistor below suggested as 100 ohms. A 500-ohm resistor might be a better choice for your low power application. (It could possibly be even higher since you want to simulate a 1.5-volt battery, not a 12.6-volt battery. Something like running your bench power supply at a nominal 5 volts and having the resistor cause a 3.5 volt drop to simulate the 1.5-volt battery. That gives you reasonable 'breathing room' with the variable power supply.)
Best of luck, MileHigh
>>>
So let's discuss a very simple technique to get a very accurate power consumption measurement for your Bedini motor. There are many ways of doing this but let's start with one simple example.
Here is what you need:
1) A large electrolytic capacitor. Perhaps something like 30,000 uF at 25 volts. That might be the size of a 300 ml Coke can or larger.
2) A 1% precision resistor, let's say 100 ohms @ 1/2 watt. Alternatively you can take a regular 100 ohm resistor and measure the resistance of it with your multimeter.
3) A bench power supply that has a variable output voltage from 0 to 25 volts.
With these components you are going to simulate a 12-volt power supply with the large capacitor.
The circuit is very simple: You connect the output of the power supply to the 100-ohm resistor, and that is connected to the positive of your big capacitor. The positive of the big capacitor is also connected to the power input of the Bedini motor.
You set your power supply to 12.6 volts and you charge up the big capacitor to 12.6 volts. Then you connect your Bedini motor and get it running.
When you do this you are monitoring the voltage across the big capacitor. You notice the voltage across the capacitor starts to drop. So you compensate by increasing the voltage from your variable power supply.
Let's assume that after a few minutes, the Bedini motor is running normally at it's stabilized speed. You have also stabilized the voltage in the big capacitor back up to 12.6 volts to simulate a normal battery. To do this let's assume that the voltage from the power supply has to be set to 13.84 volts.
You have to check the voltage across the capacitor with your oscilloscope to see if it is relatively stable. If the ripple voltage is less than +/- 0.1 volts, then let's say that the voltage is stable enough. If there is too much voltage ripple, then simply add a second big capacitor in parallel to the first capacitor.
So how do you calculate the power consumption of the motor? It is very easy, you know the voltage supplied to the motor, it is 12.6 volts. And you know that the average current that you are feeding into the capacitor from the power supply is identical to the average pulsing current that is going into the Bedini motor. The current in must be equal to the current out if the capacitor voltage is stable.
So the current is (13.84 - 12.6)/100 = 12.4 milliamperes.
Therefore the power consumption of the Bedini motor is (0.0124 x 12.6) = 0.156 watts.
Note that you don't actually measure 13.84 volts and 12.6 volts and do the subtraction. You simply put your multimeter across the 100-ohm resistor and measure 1.24 volts. You are taking advantage of the fact that the multimeter is more accurate when measuring lower voltages.
Let's check the power dissipation in the resistor = (0.0124 x 0.0124 x 100 ) = 0.015 watts. So you are fine using a 1/2 watt resistor in this example and you are sure that it will not burn up.
Here is the big advantage with this setup: It will be able to measure the power consumption of a Bedini motor or any other device no matter how crazy the current waveform is. As long as your big capacitor is big enough to smooth out the voltage then it will work. It will allow you to make very accurate power consumption measurements without worrying about the limitations of digital and analog meters.
The disadvantage is that you have to work with a variable voltage power supply and you have to wait a few minutes to let everything stabilize before you make your final measurements. If you are doing research this should not be a problem.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.15, 06:16:44
"Now you will have a running average of the REAL power." This is very helpful indeed. I have downloaded the manual and started reading. Thank you.
*** Get someone familiar with the Oscilloscope to help is even better. My experience in Hong Kong was that purely learning from manuals took over two weeks and many subtle features were not properly digested. (Not knowing the "mean" function was the biggest mistake!)
If we can get the running average for the real INPUT power and OUTPUT power separately, ***please do this separate step first. When you have only one 2 channel DSO, this is the best you can do. This result will be important for any further experiments. Please share the results with photos, screen shots etc.
***If you can borrow another identical scope, you can have one to display the Input Power waveform and the mean Input Power reading. You can use the other to display the Output Power waveform the mean Output Power reading. It will be easy to see if the COP is greater than 1.
***With the two oscilloscope set up, you can modify the physical set up of the prototype (even with the breadboard). You can easily observe the change in frequency and waveform as you make the modifications. That is the technique we use to get high COP prototypes. (Notice that I now drop the Tseung Fleet Comparison Index.)
This is a very important discussion -- thanks again.
Please do one step at a time. The result may surprise you. With luck, you may be able to demonstrate a prototype with COP > 10 and average Output Power greater than 10 watts. Such results will be so good that you do not need to worry about the "noise". Good luck with the tuning.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.15, 06:43:15
PhysicsProf:
You don't need two more DSO channels to measure the power consumption of the overall Joule Thief circuit. All that you need is some form of low-pass filtering system between your power source and the the Joule Thief circuit load. I am copy/pasting one version of this for your consideration below. I am assuming that you have or can get a variable power supply and a large capacitor or two? That's all that you really need......
Best of luck, MileHigh
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
The FLEET prototype is a pseudo resonance circuit. Any small change or attachment is likely to shift the frequency and change the waveform. This is particularly true when the prototype exhibit high COP.
My advice is for the PhysicsProf to get the Input and Output Power curves and mean values first. He is not familiar with the oscilloscope yet. Let him get help and/or study the manual first. That is a tough task already.
Other tests can wait.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.15, 02:06:36
Alex, as a suggested exercise for you, you should try to further qualify your tester with respect to what approximate COP level from the JT would be required for the device to run continuously. Without knowing that threshold specification, the information about the tester is incomplete.
Your tester discharges the battery to the point where it starts to drop in voltage as it charges the big capacitor. Then it starts to redirect the energy in the big capacitor back to the source battery. The battery has an unknown charging efficiency, and you indicated there is the overhead required to run the microcontroller also. These two effects reduce the net amount of energy that the big cap puts back into the battery. Therefore the JT has to have a COP sufficiently high to overcome these losses to self-sustain.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
I will say it the other way around, if the COP value is high enough in the JT to allow for the device to run continuously, then the JT is over unity.
Alex.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.15, 08:14:18
Dear MileHigh,
The FLEET prototype is a pseudo resonance circuit. Any small change or attachment is likely to shift the frequency and change the waveform. This is particularly true when the prototype exhibit high COP.
My advice is for the PhysicsProf to get the Input and Output Power curves and mean values first. He is not familiar with the oscilloscope yet. Let him get help and/or study the manual first. That is a tough task already.
Other tests can wait.
Lawrence:
Your first sentence ironically highlights the reason it is advisable and important to measure both the power supplied to the device and the power output from the device simultaneously. If you measure the power output from the device only, and then change the test configuration and measure the power supplied to the device, you run the very risks that you stated. That being the two different test steps may change the frequency or waveform of the operating Joule Thief circuit.
The tough task is to get the oscilloscope set up and measuring the two waveforms. In contrast, it is very easy to set up the low pass filter for providing power to the Joule Thief. A capacitor charged to 1.5 volts with a trickle charge through a resistor keeping it charged at 1.5 volts while it powers the Joule Thief circuit will emulate the 1.5 volt battery perfectly. This can easily be verified. All that you have to do is look at what the Joule Thief waveforms look like while it is powered by the 1.5 volt battery. Then substitute the trickle-charged capacitor for the 1.5 volt battery and stabilize the capacitor voltage to 1.5 volts as described in my previous posting. You will then observe that the Joule Thief waveforms and operating frequency will be identical to the case when the the Joule Thief is powered by the 1.5 volt battery. This is a task that is very easy to accomplish.
Once this is done you are able to observe the power supplied to the Joule Thief and the power power output by the Joule Thief in real time. You are free to make changes to Joule Thief configuration and reestablish the proper capacitor voltage and record a new set of power measurements. In addition, you now have the flexibility to change the supply voltage to the Joule Thief if you want to and see how it performs at 2 volts or 3 volts, etc. You are free from the restriction of supplying the circuit with 1.5 volts.
When you compare the 1.5 volt battery to a large capacitor that maintains a 1.5 volt potential all of the time, from the point of view of the Joule Thief circuit they will look like identical power sources. As I previously stated, this can be easily proven by comparing the Joule Thief waveforms for the two different power sources. The two sets of waveforms will be identical.
The most credible way to measure your COP values is to monitor the power supplied to the device and the power output by the device at the same time with the identical configuration.
MileHigh
There is a very very minor issue that might crop up that I will address just in case some people believe it is relevant.
The issue is that a 1.5 volt alkaline AA battery might have an output impedance of perhaps 0.1 ohms. (It may be much less than that.) This is in contrast to the capacitor emulation of the 1.5 volt battery where the output impedance in this case for all practical intents and purposes is nearly zero. This might mean that you see a slight AC ripple on the battery voltage with your oscilloscope when the Joule Thief is running but you will not see the ripple on the capacitor voltage.
So If during the operation of the circuit you observe that the battery voltage has a slight AC ripple and the capacitor setup has no AC ripple it is highly unlikely that this will affect the overall operation of the Joule Thief circuit at all. Observing anything more than a very slight AC component on the 1.5 volt battery source may be an an indication that the battery itself is getting old. If you took any issue with the fact that the the battery shows a slight AC component it its output voltage and the capacitor emulation of the battery does not show an AC output voltage, then this "issue" can be fixed also.
The fix for this "issue" is to put a resistor in between the capacitor and the power input of the Joule Thief circuit so you can simulate the output impedance of the battery. It would have to be a resistor of perhaps 0.1 ohms. Then the voltage supplied to the the Joule Thief circuit by the capacitor setup would have a nearly identical slight ripple just like the battery.
The reality is that whether the power source for the Joule Thief has a 0.1 ohm output impedance or a near-zero output impedance, this will not affect the COP measurement for the Joule Thief in any significant way at all. If anyone wants to double-check this they can simply take the COP measurements with and without the 0.1 ohm output impedance resistor and they should not see any real change in the COP measurements.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.15, 13:02:19
Lawrence:
Your first sentence ironically highlights the reason it is advisable and important to measure both the power supplied to the device and the power output from the device simultaneously. If you measure the power output from the device only, and then change the test configuration and measure the power supplied to the device, you run the very risks that you stated. That being the two different test steps may change the frequency or waveform of the operating Joule Thief circuit.
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
Thank you for reminding me. The main reason why I use two oscilloscopes is that I do not need to disturb the set up. With only one oscilloscope, I have to measure the Input Power and then disconnect to measure the Output Power. The test configuration is likely to be changed. The result will not be scientifically valid.
@PhysicsProf, please borrow another identical or similar oscilloscope with the multiply and mean functionality to do the experiment. The additional good aspect of the two oscilloscopes is that you can tune for highest COP by looking at the two Power Waveforms and Mean values at the same time. Even small changes of moving wires closer together etc. can be observed and tuned. The highest COP value can be captured by camera and oscilloscopes. The result will be scientifically valid.
I also received the following email from Hong Kong:
Quote
Let me digest that first. Thanks for the advancement.
Aaron
Mr. Aaron Quant brought 50 one-inch toroids at the same time. I shall ask him to buy 100 for me to prepare for the coming expected requests for free prototypes. Now I shall insist that the verifiers must have access to two good oscilloscopes with the multiply and mean (or the multiply and integrate) functionality.
Thank you to all for the excellent discussion and suggestions. I am sure that our dear PhysicsProf will do many tests to confirm that the prototypes are really capable of COP > 1. May God bless you all. Amen.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.15, 06:16:44
"Now you will have a running average of the REAL power." This is very helpful indeed. I have downloaded the manual and started reading. Thank you.
If we can get the running average for the real INPUT power and OUTPUT power separately, I would think the next step will be to take the "running ratio" of these, Pout/Pin.
Will this not provide a reasonable COP value? Perhaps there is a better way...
Seems this would require 4 channels on the Tek 3032... not sure how to do all this, but sounds feasible.
While having a running Po/Pi ratio (COP) would be ideal, it is not necessary, unless attaching the scope probes has a significant effect on the power levels. In such a case, then a 4-channel scope, or 2x 2-channel scopes would be preferable.
Quote
"As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value" -- OK, but can you specify what IS needed then to obtain a reasonable COP value using the Tek 3032? Does the method I suggest above do the job?
This is a very important discussion -- thanks again.
As mentioned, if the DPO3032 is a 2-channel scope, you will have to obtain another scope that performs multiplication, preferably the same model, or get a 4-channel scope.
The DPO3032 (being a 2-channel scope) will only allow you to make one power measurement at a time.
The absolutely ideal scenario is to have a 4-channel scope, 2 current probes, and 2 differential voltage probes.
Here is what I suggest:
Place the entire JT in a metal enclosure, and attach BNC (or something suitable) connectors to the enclosure so you can measure the required points in the circuit. This should minimize influence on the JT operation and allow for using a single 2-channel scope to make your measurements.
Also, see if you can borrow a current and differential probe. I wouldn't be surprised if the electrical engineering department had them.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.15, 13:25:56
There is a very very minor issue that might crop up that I will address just in case some people believe it is relevant.
The issue is that a 1.5 volt alkaline AA battery might have an output impedance of perhaps 0.1 ohms. (It may be much less than that.) This is in contrast to the capacitor emulation of the 1.5 volt battery where the output impedance in this case for all practical intents and purposes is nearly zero. This might mean that you see a slight AC ripple on the battery voltage with your oscilloscope when the Joule Thief is running but you will not see the ripple on the capacitor voltage.
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
If you look at the sample screen shots in reply 106, you would find that the ripple on the FLEET is more than 1 volt!
That is why I do not trust any simulation for pseudo resonance set ups.
Lawrence
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.15, 14:24:36
Dear MileHigh,
If you look at the sample screen shots in reply 106, you would find that the ripple on the FLEET is more than 1 volt!
That is why I do not trust any simulation for pseudo resonance set ups.
Lawrence
The ripple you see on the battery output voltage in reply 106 is actually the JT output capacitively or inductively coupling back to the input. That's what it looks like by examining the JT output waveform. You should see approximately the same waveform if you use the proper output impedance resistor for the capacitor emulation of the battery setup.
Anyway I gave you my thoughts on how to accomplish the testing without having to use a second digital storage oscilloscope. It's up to PhysicsProf or any other testers to decide if they want to try them out or not. As Humbugger stated, if you believe that your COP values are greater than 2, you should not have to worry too much about the fine nuances in the test setup. If the gains are there they should be readily apparent as long as the test setup is reasonably well done.
Personally if I was to do the testing I would try the capacitor emulation of the supply battery and the thermal profiling of the output. For the very low power this system is running at I am assuming that you can get thermometers or thermocouples that would work fine in this application. Since it is low power you can put the output load components in a small insulated box so that the increased thermal resistance to the outside world results in higher and easier to measure temperature differentials. If the COP is greater than 2 then you should be able to generate conclusive data without the need for any fancy equipment. All that you need is the right test and measurement strategy and a high quality multimeter and a high quality temperature measurement device.
It's worth mentioning that when you do thermal profiling of the output, the output component of the system has a thermal mass, a.k.a. thermal capacitance. Therefore the instantaneous output power is being thermally integrated. In other words, if you took the output components and put them in a small container of thermal paste, that container is performing integration on the power waveform in exactly the same way the DSO could calculate the integration and do the averaging. So a thermal mass is just as good or better an integrator of instantaneous power as a DSO, provided you have a very accurate way to measure the temperature and you do proper thermal profiling. So the thought is to let Mother Nature do the difficult and complicated task of instantaneous integration and averaging for "free." A thermal mass is a low-pass filter that averages the high frequency thermal/electrical power waveform.
MileHigh
Heck of a day... The hard-drive on my lap-top went out -- ugh! Trying to recover. :-X
I'm borrowing a lap-top and that is much appreciated! I see responses, again much appreciated, .99 ::
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.15, 14:07:28
While having a running Po/Pi ratio (COP) would be ideal, it is not necessary, unless attaching the scope probes has a significant effect on the power levels. In such a case, then a 4-channel scope, or 2x 2-channel scopes would be preferable.
As mentioned, if the DPO3032 is a 2-channel scope, you will have to obtain another scope that performs multiplication, preferably the same model, or get a 4-channel scope.
The DPO3032 (being a 2-channel scope) will only allow you to make one power measurement at a time.
The absolutely ideal scenario is to have a 4-channel scope, 2 current probes, and 2 differential voltage probes.
Here is what I suggest:
Place the entire JT in a metal enclosure, and attach BNC (or something suitable) connectors to the enclosure so you can measure the required points in the circuit. This should minimize influence on the JT operation and allow for using a single 2-channel scope to make your measurements.
Also, see if you can borrow a current and differential probe. I wouldn't be surprised if the electrical engineering department had them.
.99
On this -- "current probe and differential probe"... sorry for my ignorance, can you take a few minutes and enlighten me on how these are used? I am quite certain I can borrow these all right, at the university.@ MileHigh:
QuotePersonally if I was to do the testing I would try the capacitor emulation of the supply battery and the thermal profiling of the output. For the very low power this system is running at I am assuming that you can get thermometers or thermocouples that would work fine in this application. Since it is low power you can put the output load components in a small insulated box so that the increased thermal resistance to the outside world results in higher and easier to measure temperature differentials. If the COP is greater than 2 then you should be able to generate conclusive data without the need for any fancy equipment. All that you need is the right test and measurement strategy and a high quality multimeter and a high quality temperature measurement device.
As I have indicated before, I'd like to perform different methods of measurement as a check.
Now, would you kindly explain this a bit more? -- " the right test and measurement strategy
and a high quality multimeter" -- where does the multimeter come in with your approach? Again, much appreciated.
@ Lawrence: rather than calculating "FLEET Index" values, let me provide Vin and voltage drop across the input resistor, then Vout across wires 5&6 along with V across a 1 ohm resistor in the out put chain (between wires 5&6), thus 4 measurements in that order. You can calculate the FLEET index if you wish; perhaps the raw values actually give information that is more useful to us for comparison purposes.
For sure, I will feel more comfortable when I get the Tektronix 3032 going on this, and ideally a thermal measurement as a check. The more checks and tests the better -- I'm sure you will agree -- although these take time. Then a hard-disk crashes... :-\
The values from our latest runs on our replication device, last evening, are interesting I think. But will have to wait till tomorrow to post.
PhysicsProf:
The reason I say a "high quality multimeter" is that you need one to make an accurate measurement of the voltage drop across the current bleeding resistor in the capacitor-based emulation setup of the supply battery. You also need to make an accurate measurement of the capacitor voltage and the resistance of the bleeder resistor.
Again, the true argument is that if you are assuming a system with a COP of 2 or greater, you don't literally need a high quality multimeter with three or four digits of precision after the decimal point. However, it would be "nice" to have a high quality multimeter just the same.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.16, 05:40:10
On this -- "current probe and differential probe"... sorry for my ignorance, can you take a few minutes and enlighten me on how these are used? I am quite certain I can borrow these all right, at the university.
Professor,
You may recall this post (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=564.0) which I previously referred you to and which I encourage you to read, including the attached document. It contains good information pertaining to what current and differential probes are and how to properly use them.
In short, a current probe is a non-invasive inductive-pickup, and a differential probe allows for a floating voltage difference measurement, and can often eliminate the use of ground leads. Both probes use only one channel each on the scope.
Feel free to ask if you have further questions about them.
.99
I am going to respond to Ion's quick test that he did with a blocking oscillator a.k.a. Joule Thief in his lab. Note that he tested the pulsing output of the JT transformer and did not wrap an extra energy pick-up winding around the toroid as in the Lawrence Tseung configuration.
If you go back to his original posting you can see the block diagram. He is using a large capacitor on the input, to convert the pulsing current load of the JT into smooth DC current that can be easily measured by a multimeter. On the output of the JT he takes the pulsing current output of transformer's secondary winding and also converts that into smooth DC current so the output current and voltage across a load resistor can also be easily measured by multimeters. The logic here is simple: He is measuring the average energy output from the discharging secondary transformer winding in the JT.
QuoteWhile all the arguing was going on, I built up a crude blocking oscillator and tested its efficiency at 75.0% using the method in post #168 of the Tseung thread. This took less than an hour.
I drew up a two step method outlined in the attachment and had intended to post it early in the Tseung thread, but as the existing described methods were misunderstood by many, I realized the purpose of the thread seemed more about discussion.
This should be a very sobering moment for anybody that thinks a JT circuit in whatever configuration is a potential over unity device. The numbers don't lie.
MileHigh
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.14, 06:02:57
I missed this. Output? Output from the battery or output from the load resistor? the output on the scope across the load resistor is related to voltage measurements. Those voltage measurements need to be related to the Ohms value of the resistor to establish volts times amps (vi) to establish its wattage. The Ohms value is impossible to determine. Or nearly impossible. So it's a meaningless exercise. I am still not sure of your point. But there is absolutely no way that the voltage measurements are wrong. They are usually correct within certain very small error margin parameters. It would be entirely feasible to determine the energy dissipated at the resistor - which is what I think you mean - provided only that it's determined calorimetrically. It's heat will be a precise measure of the energy it is dissipating. Are we even on the same page here Gibbs? I seem to be missing your point here.
Rosemary
Rosemary :)
I think earlier you are talking about the battery capacity. If a current flow out and in of the battery, it must be subtracted from each others while back and forth a resistor is an addition. If this is what you're talking about, then I am sorry.
On the bright side, I was talking about the load resistor. Yes, scope reading is unreliable in this case. I have a different opinion that the current is nearly impossible to determine, not Ohms. However, your thinking is not wrong. If V=IR and you hold I constant while varying R yields the same result as holding R constant and varying I. Yes, the best way to determine current/ohms function is to take the rate of change of the temperature vs time function. We're not in contradiction. :)
GH
Thanks for the responses, .99 and MH. Very instructive.
MH:
QuoteI am going to respond to Ion's quick test that he did with a blocking oscillator a.k.a. Joule Thief in his lab. Note that he tested the pulsing output of the JT transformer and did not wrap an extra energy pick-up winding around the toroid as in the Lawrence Tseung configuration.
Of course, it is the "energy pick-up winding" that is the basis of Lawrence Tseung's innovation.
As I wrote before:
Quote
@ Lawrence: rather than calculating "FLEET Index" values, let me provide Vin and voltage drop across the input resistor, then Vout across wires 5&6 along with V across a 1 ohm resistor in the out put chain (between wires 5&6), thus 4 measurements in that order. You can calculate the FLEET index if you wish; perhaps the raw values actually give information that is more useful to us for comparison purposes.
During our tests Friday evening, we set up a Tseung-replica with everything mounted on a breadboard and found the following 4 measurements as described above;
1.42 V / 0.040 V // 1.29 V // 0.004 V
I checked the connections on the breadboard -- and found all the connections to be good (no higher resistances on the output circuit, in particular). The output LED showed an extremely dim glow -- barely there but observable in reduced lighting.
I suggested to my colleague Les that we remove the output circuit from the pick-up winding from the breadboard -- to see what would happen. Lawrence had noted that changes might be observed in so doing and he ascribes the changes to resonance conditions or lack thereof. So we simply took the output wires from the pick-up winding and connected these directly to the 1-ohm output resistor and LED. The change was remarkable, see if you agree:
1.4 / 0.04 // 1.3 / 0.07
And now the output LED glows quite bright, indicating an increase in power in the output circuit.
Conclusion: the Tseung circuit is very sensitive to what appear to be small changes... as he previously noted.
Perhaps the breadboard affects a resonance condition, I'm beginning to think he may be right about that.
Next, we will check whether the circuit stays the same when we turn it on again tomorrow.
From the prof:
QuoteOf course, it is the "energy pick-up winding" that is the basis of Lawrence Tseung's innovation.
This is not Lawrence Tseung's innovation. Multiple windings are used on the secondary of most all switching power supply designs. A fixed amount of energy is stored in the inductor per cycle of operation. It is released to whatever coil or coils are there to grab it when the field collapses.
You do not get more energy by adding more windings, the energy divides up according to the burden load on each winding.
You folks and LT need to get a serious primer on switching magnetics and power supply design.
Do a little reading and you won't be groping in the dark. This stuff is so old hat and quite elementary.
Quote
While all the arguing was going on, I built up a crude blocking oscillator and tested its efficiency at 75.0% using the method in post #168 of the Tseung thread. This took less than an hour.
This should be a very sobering moment for anybody that thinks a JT circuit in whatever configuration is a potential over unity device. The numbers don't lie.
I believe the person who built a crude blocking oscillator did not try to tune for the pseudo resonance condition. PhysicsProf is doing a great job in finding and trying to understand this pseudo resonance phenomenon.
Doing crude experiments and jumping to conclusions may not be the most scientific approach when we are dealing with controversial and potentially world-shaking inventions.
May God open the eyes and minds of the researchers and replicators. Amen.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.17, 03:50:50
I believe the person who built a crude blocking oscillator did not try to tune for the pseudo resonance condition. PhysicsProf is doing a great job in finding and trying to understand this pseudo resonance phenomenon.
Doing crude experiments and jumping to conclusions may not be the most scientific approach when we are dealing with controversial and potentially world-shaking inventions.
May God open the eyes and minds of the researchers and replicators. Amen.
hmmm now where have I heard this kind of talk before......"pseudo resonance condition"
suddenly the new parameter requirement is thrown into the hat after being pulled out of you know where.
OK Larry I'll play...exactly where does the extra energy you claim come from in the simple but now "tuned to pseudo resonance" Joule Thief? (in engineering terms, no lead in bring out doubletalk).
and what is a "pseudo resonance condition" as opposed to a "real resonance condition"
Third, how can you claim something you took from another website as your own invention, when these things are in the public domain and have been for many many years.
Fourth: You are sending out units claiming they work and deliver OU "out of the box" and not requiring any tuning as all resistors are fixed. Now you are changing the rules?
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.17, 03:58:22
...
...and what is a "pseudo resonance condition" as
opposed to a "real resonance condition"
...
Has anyone yet come up with an authoritative definition
for "real resonance condition" yet?
("Double Yet" intentional)
I just did a quick review on the Joule Thief circuit on Wikipedia and noticed the following:
QuoteThe circuit works by rapidly switching the transistor. Initially, current enters the transistor base terminal (through the resistor and secondary winding), causing it to begin conducting collector current through the primary winding. This induces a voltage in the secondary winding (positive, because of the winding polarity, see dot convention) which turns the transistor on harder. This self-stoking/positive-feedback process almost instantly turns the transistor on as hard as possible (putting it in the saturation region), making the collector-emitter path look like essentially a closed switch (since VCE will be only about 0.1 volts). With the secondary winding now virtually directly across the battery, the secondary winding current increases until it approaches the battery's short-circuit current. This enormous current drain on the battery reduces the battery's output voltage to the point where it can no longer forward bias the Base-Emitter junction of the transistor. (This Thévenin-equivalent resistance of the source is actually a requirement for oscillation). When this happens, the transistor goes into the cutoff region (and opens the collector-emitter "switch"). The magnetic field collapses, inducing however much voltage is necessary to make the load conduct, or for the secondary-winding current to find some other path.
So in my proposed trickle-charged capacitor circuit for emulating the 1.5 volt battery and measuring the power consumption of the Joule Thief, you must put in an output impedance resistor, it is not optional like I was originally suggesting. As you can see from above, the Joule Thief has to momentarily short out the battery so that it's voltage output drops to nearly zero. Hence you must have a series output impedance resistor for the capacitor emulation of the battery.
As far as the oscillations go:
QuoteThe 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).
Frequency of oscillation is approximately equal to: V_battery x R_battery_output_impedance / Transformer_mutual_inductance
In the above example, given a 1.5v battery with a 1 ohm output impedance, the transformer's mutual inductance needs to be approximately 14 uH for the circuit to oscillate at 50 kHz. The oscillating frequency is principally a function of these three parameters, and is approximately linear, although this equation is only an approximation.
So Lawrence, we are operating in full reality mode now. When you say "pseudo resonance condition" it's a false statement. The Joule Thief circuit will resonate at it's resonance frequency. As you can see above the resonance frequency is primarily determined by the battery voltage and output impedance and the mutual inductance between the windings of the Joule Thief transformer.
I know that you want to believe that resonance causes "something special" to happen. This notion that resonance may be a source of over unity is seen everywhere on the free energy forums. However, if you study resonance in thousands of physics and electronics and electrical and civil engineering books, you will not see a single reference to any kind of over unity phenomenon. Passive resonance is simply the accumulation and storing of energy in a system from an outside energy source where the energy is provided to the system at the resonant frequency. In addition, the actual storage of the energy in a resonance condition means that the stored energy is cycling back and forth between two different storage elements. The first example that comes to mind is the ringing of a bell. On storage element is the fact that the bell can be deformed and the energy is stored in the bell like a compressed spring. The other storage element is when the mass of the bell is moving and the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the moving mass. Energy moves back and forth between compressed spring energy and kinetic energy at the resonant frequency and nothing special is going on in this passive resonance example. The Joule Thief circuit is an example of an active resonator that only resonates because there is an external power source that provides the energy required to keep it resonating. At the same time the Joule Thief operates on somewhat similar principles to a passive resonator.
So, we are hopefully embarking on the measurement phase now. All of the pieces of the puzzle are in place and it's just a question of collecting the data and seeing what it tells us.
MileHigh
Quote
The circuit works by rapidly switching the transistor. Initially, current enters the transistor base terminal (through the resistor and secondary winding), causing it to begin conducting collector current through the primary winding. This induces a voltage in the secondary winding (positive, because of the winding polarity, see dot convention) which turns the transistor on harder. This self-stoking/positive-feedback process almost instantly turns the transistor on as hard as possible (putting it in the saturation region), making the collector-emitter path look like essentially a closed switch (since VCE will be only about 0.1 volts). With the secondary winding now virtually directly across the battery, the secondary winding current increases until it approaches the battery's short-circuit current. This enormous current drain on the battery reduces the battery's output voltage to the point where it can no longer forward bias the Base-Emitter junction of the transistor. (This Thévenin-equivalent resistance of the source is actually a requirement for oscillation). When this happens, the transistor goes into the cutoff region (and opens the collector-emitter "switch"). The magnetic field collapses, inducing however much voltage is necessary to make the load conduct, or for the secondary-winding current to find some other path.
So in my proposed trickle-charged capacitor circuit for measuring the power consumption of the Joule Thief, you must put in an output impedance resistor, it is not optional like I was originally suggesting. As you can see from above, the Joule Thief has to momentarily short out the battery so that it's voltage output drops to nearly zero. Hence you must have a series output impedance resistor for the capacitor emulation of the battery.
Dear MileHigh,
Thank you for the information. It made my day. I was stipulating that the Joule Thief circuit itself forces an oscillating frequency. If there were a small momentary disturbance, the JT circuit would get back to the oscillating frequency.
That was the logic I had in mind in putting on the secondary windings. "Take out some energy in a pulsing mode and let the system swing back into the resonance condition".
We still differ in our opinion that I hypothesized that surrounding energy (electron motion energy) was brought-into the system at resonance. But we can lay that difference aside and wait for our dear PhysicsProf to master the oscilloscope. The best scenario is that he can borrow another identical one to show Input and Output Instantaneous Power simultaneously.
Let us give him some breathing space. I like your too many cooks scenario.
Lawrence
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.16, 19:54:05
A fixed amount of energy is stored in the inductor per cycle of operation. It is released to whatever coil or coils are there to grab it when the field collapses.
You do not get more energy by adding more windings, the energy divides up according to the burden load on each winding.
You folks and LT need to get a serious primer on switching magnetics and power supply design.
Do a little reading and you won't be groping in the dark. This stuff is so old hat and quite elementary.
MileHigh similarly appeals to existing technology and text-book primers:
QuoteI know that you want to believe that resonance causes "something special" to happen. This notion that resonance may be a source of over unity is seen everywhere on the free energy forums. However, if you study resonance in thousands of physics and electronics and electrical and civil engineering books, you will not see a single reference to any kind of over unity phenomenon.
Now just a minute... Are we to bound to what is already known, such that we cannot proceed with experiments that might show a NEW effect? Is that what you guys are saying?
OR -- can EXPERIMENTS, quite apart from theoretical understanding, establish a new effect -- even when the source of the incoming energy remains for the moment unknown?
If your rules, gentlemen, require us to find our effect in existing textbooks, or in counting the number of windings, then I for one see little reason to proceed with discussion of empirical data here. We should spend our time, if I understand you, reading the textbooks rather than doing experiments.
Please clarify. @Lawrence -- I think we need experiments and data to guide our research at the stage. IF the energy output is greater than energy input -- IF this is demonstrated empirically and repeatably, then we can proceed to study and talk about where the extra energy comes from. That is my suggestion.
Before you throw out the books, I am merely suggesting you will have a better reach in searching for something new when you are well grounded in established switchmode design.
Otherwise, without the understanding you will be looking at something you are deluded to believe is new, when actually it is quite ordinary.
This is the current state of things.
For the record, I spent many years designing Blocking Oscillators very similar to the one LT lifted and claimed as his baby and many more advanced and exotic versions.
I have been well down the road that you are only at the entrance ramp of.
Continue in your delusion if you like. LT is another pied piper of free energy and has led many of the entranced over the cliff with his hypnotic music.
Best of Luck in your research....you will need it.
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.17, 13:56:33
Before you throw out the books, I am merely suggesting you will have a better reach in searching for something new when you are well grounded in established switchmode design.
Otherwise, without the understanding you will be looking at something you are deluded to believe is new, when actually it is quite ordinary.
This is the current state of things.
For the record, I spent many years designing Blocking Oscillators very similar to the one LT lifted and claimed as his baby and many more advanced and exotic versions.
I have been well down the road that you are only at the entrance ramp of.
Continue in your delusion if you like. LT is another pied piper of free energy and has led many of the entranced over the cliff with his hypnotic music.
Best of Luck in your research....you will need it.
My delusion? What delusion? I am conducting experiments to determine whether or not there is an effect here in Lawrence's particular design of input energy from an unknown source such that the output energy exceeds the KNOWN input energy.
Are you saying it is delusional to do experiments -- that you know, in advance of taking data, that such an effect does not exist?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.17, 14:03:52
My delusion? What delusion? I am conducting experiments to determine whether or not there is an effect here in Lawrence's particular design of input energy from an unknown source such that the output energy exceeds the KNOWN input energy.
Are you saying it is delusional to do experiments -- that you know, in advance of taking data, that such an effect does not exist?
I'm saying I have done the research, collected the data, there is no effect, continue on, have fun it's a great and very steep learning curve.
Professor,
I think you should expect some skepticism, in light of the experience that exists here. However, as far as the comments go, don't let them discourage you from your experimenting and testing. Rarely is this done at all in these circles, so it is refreshing to have someone actually attempting to discover the truth, all the while actually taking to heart the advice being offered along the way. In this I commend you, and it is my hope that this may lay the groundwork and perhaps become a template for similar testing in the future, for here, and at other forums where the checks and balances simply are not enforced.
So in short, carry on, and don't feel rushed or pressured. I and hopefully others will help along the way. I sense that you are open and unbiased, and that is exactly the approach to take. Let the resulting indicators speak for themselves.
.99
ION:
QuoteI'm saying I have done the research, collected the data, there is no effect,
Before you say this -- Have you actually built a replica of the Tseung device, as shown in photographs earlier in this thread?
Or just the Joule Thief device without the added winding and output circuit? [/b]
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.17, 14:48:57
Professor,
I think you should expect some skepticism, in light of the experience that exists here. However, as far as the comments go, don't let them discourage you from your experimenting and testing. Rarely is this done at all in these circles, so it is refreshing to have someone actually attempting to discover the truth, all the while actually taking to heart the advice being offered along the way. In this I commend you, and it is my hope that this may lay the groundwork and perhaps become a template for similar testing in the future, for here, and at other forums where the checks and balances simply are not enforced.
So in short, carry on, and don't feel rushed or pressured. I and hopefully others will help along the way. I sense that you are open and unbiased, and that is exactly the approach to take. Let the resulting indicators speak for themselves.
.99
Well and nicely said, .99. I will continue on. "Some skepticism" is expected and is alright of course. I don't know what the results will be yet regarding "unknown input energy".
I have been reviewing the waveform traces this morning, and learning.
Where the energy is coming from is not important at this stage? How much energy in and out is what is needed to confirm. What is the operating frequency of the DUT. Since all components are fixed values that were "supposedly matched to achieve a form of resonance with the complete circuit as is, meaning proper feed supply, unhindered device operation, normalized output, then ANY form of additional side pick up coils or probes will change this resonance. So maybe such questions should not be asked on small DUTs.
I have been trying to explain that same thing in my last few post, about using capacitors. @Milehigh "seems" to agree with this also.
With low energy DUTs, it would be best to simply use a high enough mF cap as feed, another dioded (germanium diode) capacitor as output and just let it run. The feed capacitor will have the same flyback throughput as a battery, it will eliminate the time factor you would have to equate if run by a battery, then dealing with depleted batteries, you will not have to poke and prod or apply near field pick-up coils to the DUT causing any unknown adverse effects or causing or being a potential additional energy source. The output capacitor will stabilize the final energy count regardless of running frequencies, etc. Just put your volt meter probes on the feed cap, measure and remove the probes quickly, then do the same to the output cap never leaving the meter on the cap while running the DUT.
This would provide at least a quick enough method of qualifying a "potential" small OU device for further scrutiny, based solely on how the first method results are. If the results of this first method are so obviously OU or so obviously not OU, then you can just stop there and provide the results. Only if the result of the first method is too close to call, would you then consider doing some more precise analysis.
Also, if such a capacitor run method can be standardized, then potential inventors of small potential overunity devices will have an easy method of doing this test themselves before they even consider sending it in for confirmation.
Now I clearly understand that a high level measurement of any "purported" OU device is desirable including caloric accouting but in many instances, the inventor claims OU without the inclusion of such values. If an easy method was available for all to do, without having to invest in rather expensive equipment and know-how and credibility, then maybe, just maybe that would be a good way to start. The inventor makes his device, tests it with this simple and "accepted" method, reports the results quickly, sends a few sample devices out, testers quickly corroborate those results and that gives you a solid basis to move forward or not to more advanced methods.
What could be devised is a simple table where based on the devices required feed, test duration and anticipated output levels would be replaced with set capacitors of predefined values, set diode values or model numbers, etc.
So if you have a feed cap of 10,000mf 6 volts, charged to 1.500 volts and you have another identical cap on your output at 0 volts, but now, after you run the test you have 4 volts stored in output cap and 0 volts stored in the input cap, then you know it's OU. Simple and sweet. But if your output shows 1.501 volts, then the inventor may decide to tweak the device further to improve on those results before considering declaring it as OU.
wattsup
PS: Keep it simple.
That's what we need.
Question: Is there a formal build spec on this device that one can use to make a unit and test it ourselves? Not just a picture. Maybe this should always be provided when the inventor supplies his device.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.17, 13:34:57
If your rules, gentlemen, require us to find our effect in existing textbooks, or in counting the number of windings, then I for one see little reason to proceed with discussion of empirical data here. We should spend our time, if I understand you, reading the textbooks rather than doing experiments.
Please clarify.
You will be hard-pressed to find any useful effect in textbooks, and if you first find an effect, you will be hard-pressed to explain it.
When we turn on an electrical circuit, what really occurs? We are performing work to move electrons.
Are the electrons the soruce of the energy in the circuit, or is the source imbalanced energy?
So, if our conventional method of induction requires 10 units of work and we devise a method of induction that produces the same amount of power for 1 unit of work, then we have devised a more efficient method if induction and no laws are broken and no additional energy is required.
I suggest everyone look for a more efficient method of induction rather than "additional energy".
@wattsup
QuoteSo if you have a feed cap of 10,000mf 6 volts, charged to 1.500 volts and you have another identical cap on your output at 0 volts, but now, after you run the test you have 4 volts stored in output cap and 0 volts stored in the input cap, then you know it's OU. Simple and sweet. But if your output shows 1.501 volts, then the inventor may decide to tweak the device further to improve on those results before considering declaring it as OU.
That was a good post, however I would like to point out one issue in regards to using capacitors to measure input/output. Let's say our input is a capacitor which feeds a black box circuit and the output charges another capacitor, now if our black box has any capacitance or capacitive effects we then have two capacitors in series. At this point the law of inverse squares applies and we magically lose one half or more of the energy initially present in the system. This is why it is important to consider the effects of every field present as well as the standard current, voltage and time functions.
@Ion
Your last post was priceless, you seem to be implying that if we do not think just like you then we are delusional and that you know all the facts before any data has even been presented, which does not sound much like science to me. Unfortunately being an expert counts for nothing unless you can improve a technology which is kind of odd, all those self-proclaimed "experts" who never actually improve anything,lol. Which raises the question what good are they?
Regards
AC
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.17, 05:34:04
...
As far as the oscillations go:
So Lawrence, we are operating in full reality mode now. When you say "pseudo resonance condition" it's a false statement. The Joule Thief circuit will resonate at it's resonance frequency. As you can see above the resonance frequency is primarily determined by the battery voltage and output impedance and the mutual inductance between the windings of the Joule Thief transformer.
I know that you want to believe that resonance causes "something special" to happen. This notion that resonance may be a source of over unity is seen everywhere on the free energy forums. However, if you study resonance in thousands of physics and electronics and electrical and civil engineering books, you will not see a single reference to any kind of over unity phenomenon. Passive resonance is simply the accumulation and storing of energy in a system from an outside energy source where the energy is provided to the system at the resonant frequency. In addition, the actual storage of the energy in a resonance condition means that the stored energy is cycling back and forth between two different storage elements. The first example that comes to mind is the ringing of a bell. On storage element is the fact that the bell can be deformed and the energy is stored in the bell like a compressed spring. The other storage element is when the mass of the bell is moving and the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the moving mass. Energy moves back and forth between compressed spring energy and kinetic energy at the resonant frequency and nothing special is going on in this passive resonance example. The Joule Thief circuit is an example of an active resonator that only resonates because there is an external power source that provides the energy required to keep it resonating. At the same time the Joule Thief operates on somewhat similar principles to a passive resonator.
So, we are hopefully embarking on the measurement phase now. All of the pieces of the puzzle are in place and it's just a question of collecting the data and seeing what it tells us.
MileHigh
The Blocking Oscillator variants operate as
non-linear resonance (pulled) devices.
The resonance conditions are a combination
LC (high frequency) and RC (low frequency).
The inherent modulation process is capable
of being "tweaked" or "tuned" by various
electrical adjustments and/or influences.
Its operation is quite sensitive to loading changes.
I'm delighted that this "simple" circuit is being
fully explored and evaluated by the present team
of well qualified and thoughtful participants.
Please continue gentlemen; who can say what
further experimentation will reveal?
allcanadian => Well said!
PhysicsProf:
I also encourage you to do your experiments and make your measurements. Don't mind me making reference to established sources of information. This is a place where we are looking for something new.
Wattsup:
Your general concept of using capacitors on the input and output of a DUT to make definitive power/energy measurements is a good one. However this has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The DUT may or may not work properly with a capacitor as the load. A Bedini motor output for example is a discharging inductor and would be very amenable to driving a capacitor as a load. The Lawrence Tseung flavour of the JT circuit however has an output that is a transformer secondary coil. In this case you could rectify the output and charge a capacitor. As soon as the capacitor got charged to the maximum voltage output by the JT transformer secondary coil it would then stop charging and disappear as a "load" from the point of view of the JT secondary winding. In this case a capacitor is not a suitable way of measuring the power or energy output from the Lawrence Tseung version of the Joule Thief circuit.
A little addendum here: I should also add that if you use a very large capacitor for the load then it might not get charged to the maximum voltage of the JT secondary winding like I indicated above. Instead it will look like a short circuit to the JT secondary transformer output and the capacitor voltage will slowly increase as the circuit runs. Again, this is not an appropriate type of load for the circuit and it will not be a good indicator of the output power or energy.
MileHigh
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.01.16, 17:45:52
Rosemary :)
I think earlier you are talking about the battery capacity. If a current flow out and in of the battery, it must be subtracted from each others while back and forth a resistor is an addition. If this is what you're talking about, then I am sorry.
On the bright side, I was talking about the load resistor. Yes, scope reading is unreliable in this case. I have a different opinion that the current is nearly impossible to determine, not Ohms. However, your thinking is not wrong. If V=IR and you hold I constant while varying R yields the same result as holding R constant and varying I. Yes, the best way to determine current/ohms function is to take the rate of change of the temperature vs time function. We're not in contradiction. :)
Good stuff Gibbs. I see we are on the same page. Take care.
Rosemary
Golly guys. Am I seeing a sea change in general attitudes. What a pleasure are these last posts - and even MileHigh coming to the party with an open mind. Well done Professor. We all needed you. My take is that LT's circuit will give the required proof. Hopefully. And if this forum acknowledges that proof then we've made deep inroads into some rigid paradigms.
Professor. More to the point. You'll have finally thrashed out a required method for measurement. If this is done conclusively, on 'small values' then that is, indeed, a milestone. And it will certainly 're-ignite' this rather commendable research. I cannot tell you how well I respect your efforts here. It is that rare that an academic openly acknowledge any kind of interest at all. And your own efforts are just so thorough. I personally hope that you're a trend setter. LOL.
:)
Rosie
Thanks for the encouraging comments. I'll tell you -- some effects with this Tseung device surprise me.
Milehigh wrote in reply 210:
QuoteThe 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).
Frequency of oscillation is approximately equal to: V_battery x R_battery_output_impedance / Transformer_mutual_inductance
In the above example, given a 1.5v battery with a 1 ohm output impedance, the transformer's mutual inductance needs to be approximately 14 uH for the circuit to oscillate at 50 kHz. The oscillating frequency is principally a function of these three parameters, and is approximately linear, although this equation is only an approximation.
I decided to run the Tseung DUT with a power supply -- the output values were much the same as running with a battery. I had thought several days ago to vary the input voltage to see what would happen, and did this today. Very exciting response, really.
Now, MH -- you say that with your equation (approximation, granted) that decreased V_battery will decrease the frequency. This is the OPPOSITE to what I observed today when I lowered the voltage from the power supply (PS).
Here are observed data (I feel I need to re-emphasize that experimental data trump theory):
Input voltage (PS) Frequency Input LED Output LED
1.40 64 KHz Bright Bright
0.70 112 KHz Dimmer Bright
0.52 177 KHz Dim Bright, somewhat dimmer
0.46 259 KHz Almost out. Bright still, though somewhat dimmer to the eye. I should like to have a measurement of the lumens...
0.39 Oscillations die; both LED's out.
Above with "constant voltage" on the PS. When I tried to limit the current, at about 1.4 volts roughly, the DUT would not oscillate stably (tried it once or twice).
Now, we could talk about the input and output voltages if any are interested -- and is there a way to post the oscilloscope traces here? Very interesting! particularly at the end, at 0.46 volts It really made my day! and I hope you folks will not tease Lawrence. This is quite a little device, I think -- very instructive.OK -- Mile High, you (or your equation) say that the frequency should go DOWN as the voltage goes DOWN -- that is shown to be 100% wrong by the experimental evidence. Further, the effect is non-linear -- again contrary to your equation. I'm losing confidence in your equation, and therefore in your "theory." Explain the empirical results (if you can).
That said, I think it is useful to bring up an equation as you did even when it is shot down by the data -- love when that happens actually. Makes it fun.
It is obvious to me from the LED's that the input power is going down and yet the output power remains sufficient to keep the output LED brightly lit.
Hi PhysicsProf:
Great to see that you are getting your hands dirty! lol
For starters, I was simply quoting from this Wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief)
I can't be 100% certain that the Wikipedia entry is correct, but it looks legit. Note that I was quoting a description that describes the operation of a generic Joule Thief, and your circuit is not a generic Joule Thief. Also, if we assume that your power supply voltage could not be pinched off by the Joule Thief transistor, then it could imply that your Joule Thief may have been oscillating in a different operating mode as compared to connecting a battery to it.
So I think it's too soon to say anything definitive because it looks like you were comparing proverbial apples and oranges.
It would be awesome if you could post some oscilloscope traces. I believe that all that you have to do is upload your jpegs to a file sharing website like rapidshare.com. Then you can use the URLs for the images and post them here. There is an "attach image" icon on the toolbar. Please resize the images first if they are very high resolution.
If I may offer you some advice a helpful tool would be to probe around your circuit and then draw up a timing diagram for it. It should make it easier to explain your voltage vs. frequency observations.
MileHigh
Dear PhysicsProf,
If the file size of the photos or screen shots are too large, I normally use either the Paint program or the PowerPoint program to reduce its size. Most of my pictures posted in the overunity and in this forum are done that way. Some resolution will be lost but you always have the original.
Also, if you lower the Input Voltage, you are likely to get a higher COP!
Continue your great work. See if you can have two oscilloscopes to do the conclusive Output and Input Power tests. Meanwhile share some of your exciting screen shots or photos.
Lawrence
Professor,
When you are making a post, there is an "Additional Options..." link at the lower left of the message window. Click on that and you can browse your computer to attach photos and files.
Any luck with the second scope and/or probes?
.99
Thanks for the comments... Will see what I can do re: attachments as time permits.
@Lawrence: yes, clearly the FLEET index increases as the input voltage is lowered. There is a point near 0.40 volts for this DUT that the input LED is evidently off, yet we can still see the ringing in the system using the oscillosope and the output LED glows quite brightly. As one lowers the voltage to about 0.39 volts, the system goes off, stops ringing. Bringing the voltage back up, it does not re-start ringing until about 0.5 volts. Fascinating.
I should add that as the input voltage is lowered to the critical point, the current in both input and output circuits goes down. The output P-P voltage is still about 4.1 volts when the input voltage is 0.46 volts from the PS, so this seems to be what is driving the output LED to glow brightly (input LED hardly visible at all at this point).
But currents in both input and output circuits are low, in the several milliamps range (PS at 0.46 V). I'm thinking I'd like to lower impedance in the input circuit, to get more current flowing in both input and output circuits even at low input voltage... Any ideas how to do this, while keeping the windings in the ferritic-core toroid? That little 2n2222 transistor is a champ, by the way, to keep the system oscillatiing at 0.40 input voltage...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.18, 16:27:19
I should add that as the input voltage is lowered to the critical point, the current in both input and output circuits goes down. The output P-P voltage is still about 4.1 volts when the input voltage is 0.46 volts from the PS, so this seems to be what is driving the output LED to glow brightly (input LED hardly visible at all at this point).
But currents in both input and output circuits are low, in the several milliamps range (PS at 0.46 V). I'm thinking I'd like to lower impedance in the input circuit, to get more current flowing in both input and output circuits even at low input voltage... Any ideas how to do this, while keeping the windings in the ferritic-core toroid? That little 2n2222 transistor is a champ, by the way, to keep the system oscillatiing at 0.40 input voltage...
Increase the 1K ohm resistor to 33K ohm. That was one of our successful attempts. You can try other values. You can also try to put a capacitor in parallel with the 1K resistor. We had to try different capacitor values. Some suggestions are available at the overuntiy.com Joule Thief thread. You will probably find that the Input Current will be much lower but the Output current will not drop that much. That is another trick to achieve high COP.
At this stage, focus on getting a value of COP >1.
Looking forward to your success.
Per .99 suggestion, trying a graph attachment. This is the input to Lawrence's prototype A, with power supply set to 1.4 volts -- the input signal is chopped and modified by the JT circuit:
Note that I did a screen shot to get a .png -- hope it's sufficiently legible. One can clearly see the waveform I think.
Next the voltage drop on the 1 ohm INPUT resistor (i.e., the current):
Next the output voltage across the secondary-winding, with 1 ohm resistor in series with the output LED on the output side -- again, with 1.4 V in from the PS:
Finally, the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor in series with the output LED on the output side ("output current") -- again, with 1.4 V in from the PS:
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.18, 19:43:38
Per .99 suggestion, trying a graph attachment. This is the input to Lawrence's prototype A, with power supply set to 1.4 volts -- the input signal is chopped and modified by the JT circuit:
This is the voltage measure across the input power supply? I cannot see the scale factors at all, but it looks like your supply is very high impedance at high frequencies. Can you point out the zro line and the nominal supply DC voltage line here?
It sure looks like your probe, including the ground lead, is picking up those spikes or your P.S. is high impedance (not a good voltage source). I find it extremely odd that only this measurement shows any big spikes. If there are no spikes in any of the other waveforms, where do these come from? All the other waveforms look quite smooth and clean, but this one has lots of different levels and huge spikes. Quite strange. If you pinch your probe ground lead between your fingers and move it around in different positions and those spikes change, then you are not set up right and not getting a true "pictue" of the voltage dynamics.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.18, 19:43:38
Per .99 suggestion, trying a graph attachment. This is the input to Lawrence's prototype A, with power supply set to 1.4 volts -- the input signal is chopped and modified by the JT circuit:
Dear PhysicsProf:
Pictures are worth a thousand words. When you have digested the set up of the good oscilloscope, please display the Instantaneous Input Power Curve using the multiply function. Use the "mean function" to produce a running Input Power value. I believe that you can display them on the same screen shot.
Repeat that for the Output Power. If you have only one oscilloscope, you may do them separately. Critics will say that the configuration may have changed during the reconnection.
The best scenario is to have another identical oscilloscope and display both the Input and Output power side-by-side.We all look forward to your mastering the multiply and mean functions of your oscilloscopes. The screen shots will be the conclusive proof of COP > 1.
Prototype A has the lowest Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. Other better prototypes will be even more convincing. If possible, display them all as comparisons.
If you have two oscilloscopes for the simultaneous display, you can also show the effect of tuning via a video. Move the wires or place an object near the prototype. Both the frequency and the Power waveforms will change. You would have then mastered the secret of building and verifying the FLEET prototypes.
Welcome to the Party.
Lawrence
@PhysicsProf
Have you noticed when you lowered the applied voltage and saw the same brightness, while seeing the frequency increase, did you notice anything regarding the pulse width?
The fact that the output LED is still "Bright" when lowering the voltage tells me this DUT may be a good candidate for the cap/cap test method since a lowering of the voltage is what one would expect with a cap feed and the DUT is still providing a reasonable output level. If there was a germanium diode and an output capacitor instead of the output LED, you can then take the final measurements and "maybe" add 0.2 volts to the final output cap reading to compensate for the germanium diode. This should at least provide some idea on the OU status.
I am still asking if there is a build spec anywhere on this DUT.
wattsup
PhysicsProf:
Permit me to make a few suggestions about improving the information conveyed in your scope shots.
1. The first go round was good, but you really need to eliminate the whole desktop and give us a larger view of the scope display only. Hopefully we will be able to see the ground level, the voltage scale, the time base, and the virtual graticule. You must have some sort of a "select a rectangle" tool for grabbing an image of your desktop?
2. I hope that was "Plan B" and "Plan A" is to take pics of your real scope display and upload those pics. As a bare minimum you might have to annotate the pictures of the real scope display to show the ground reference if it is not visible.
3. You need to upload a schematic that shows where your test points are. For each test point you have to show exactly what two points in the schematic your scope probes are measuring across. This may seem 'silly' but I don't take anything for granted here.
4. The best thing would be to pick a waveform that you think is a good reference waveform. For example the waveform in post #234, the voltage across the secondary, is a good reference waveform. Then whenever you take a pic of a new waveform, you always include the reference waveform in the picture. In other words, always use both channels of the scope and always show the "new" waveform relative to the reference waveform. The reference waveform can be set up to be much smaller than the "new" waveform if you want.
I realize that this is really my personal "wish list" and it takes some effort to do but the rewards are there in that the data presented will be clearer for everyone, the most important person being you.
MileHigh
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.18, 21:01:46
I am still asking if there is a build spec anywhere on this DUT.
wattsup
Dear wattsup,
I deliberately do not provide a build spec.
The reason is that this is a pseudo resonance device. Small changes can affect the results tremendously. PhysicsProf demonstrated in his post citing the drop of the Tseung FLEET Comparison Index from over 20 to less than 1 just by moving the components to a breadboard.
In Hong Kong, at least one Company was interested in "mass producing" an educational prototype initially. They would do the necessary quality control, testing and have certificates, pictures and videos of the waveforms. They hoped to charge US$1,000 for each guaranteed prototype. They were willing to exchange guaranteeing that the prototype will have COP > 1..
I do not know what happened to their plans. But the PhysicsProf followed my post on reply 80 and managed to create his own FLEET – much better than Prototype A. At least thirteen groups in Hong Kong and China have done that. Many of them are experimenting with different transistors, different toroids, different LCR values and a few are rumored to have achieved Output Power greater than 1 KW. At least one told me that they will not reveal any information until they have products ready for market.
You can act on existing information and share the inventor's joy in playing with your own FLEET prototype or wait to buy a working product.
I don't think MH was asking for "a build spec". A schematic with no part values or component details would suffice. It seems odd, though, that you purport to be an open source save the world promoter and a humble old guy eager to give all credit to God, yet you tell folks to just watch and wait to buy your gizmo. Seems like a contradiction.
What is the point of having the good professor present his testing here if no one can tell just what and how he is testing? The refusal to release even a blank schematic seems a bit constipated. Maybe you need a FLEET. (If you don't know what this is, check with your pharmacist at your local drug store).
http://www.fleetlabs.com/ (http://www.fleetlabs.com/)
Here is hoping more Forum members don't waste their precious time.
;D
Catlady
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.18, 22:30:54
Dear wattsup,
I deliberately do not provide a build spec.
The reason is that this is a pseudo resonance device. Small changes can affect the results tremendously. PhysicsProf demonstrated in his post citing the drop of the Tseung FLEET Comparison Index from over 20 to less than 1 just by moving the components to a breadboard.
This is why some of us with a lot of bench testing experience are wondering if things are "kosher" on the professor's bench, Lawrence!
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.18, 23:16:27
...A schematic with no part values or component details would suffice. It seems odd, though, that you purport to be an open source save the world promoter and a humble old guy eager to give all credit to God, yet you tell folks to just watch and wait to buy your gizmo. Seems like a contradiction.
...
There should be no need for anyone to "wait to buy
[a] gizmo."
The circuit under discussion is amazingly simple. Even
the several variants are simple and require few components.
The average person should be able to fabricate a suitable
equivalent for less than $5.00 (U.S.) even with new parts.
The tiny new "supertransistors" which exhibit very low Vce(sat)
(BISS) do work exceptionally well in this circuit.
Any who may have some old germanium transistors will have
great fun.
A scope is a necessity for performing the "fine tuning" in order
to achieve maximum output with minimum input current.
For higher powered versions a MOSFET is advantageous.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.19, 00:02:33
There should be no need for anyone to "wait to buy
[a] gizmo."
The circuit under discussion is amazingly simple. Even
the several variants are simple and require few components.
The average person should be able to fabricate a suitable
equivalent for less than $5.00 (U.S.) even with new parts.
My comment was in regard to MH's request that we see a diagram showing where exactly in the circuit the test probes were being placed by the professor. That's not likely to happen without a schematic involved. Lawrence answered by saying (to Wattsup) he would not allow publication of his "build spec". If, as Lawrence says, the circuit and test lashup is so finicky that COP (excuse me...FLEET index) abruptly changes from below 1 to over 20 by moving the components to a breadboard, then any sharing of test specifics with those not sitting next to the professor at his bench will require at least some information about where the probes and ground clips are. If the scope probe ground wire is laying across the toroid, for instance, it will show a remarkably different waveform than if it was short and far away from the toroid. There are many things that can give false pictures on a scope.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 00:16:27
...
If, as Lawrence says, the circuit and test lashup is so finicky that COP (excuse me...FLEET index) abruptly changes from below 1 to over 20 by moving the components to a breadboard...
...
Discovering why this is so and what causes the apparent
"change" in circuit operation is a fascinating exercise.
Some have already hinted at what may be the cause.
Additional verification would be helpful.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 00:16:27
...
There are many things that can give false pictures on a scope.
Then we all must learn to use the scope in such a way that
any "false pictures" are precluded and their possible generation
is prevented. Hopefully, progress is being made towards that
end.
Personally I don't see why having the schematic should be an issue. It's evident that it's a Joule Thief type of circuit with an extra secondary winding around the toroid driving two resistors and an LED. There are also photographs of it provided by Lawrence and he stated the component values! There are Joule Thief threads on OU and the EF that are hundreds and hundreds of pages long. On OU the Joule Thief crowd have been playing with adding extra secondary windings for a long time. People have also used Joule Thief circuits based on larger toroidal cores that can light up CFL's with the guts stripped out of them.
I can't tell anybody what to do but it looks like we would all benefit by having the proper information about this particular version of a well known circuit. The two challenges are to understand how it works and to make measurements to check for over unity. It's a mistake to presume anything at this point.
MileHigh
Lots of good comments. I'm climbing the learning curve regarding all this -- Joule-Thief circuits, oscilloscopes with fancy math, displaying data intelligibly...
Thanks for your patience.
And I'd really like to spend more time working with the DUT -and with a good scope (lots of other duties in life despite -- or perhaps because of -- being early-retired)...
One thing -- I see Lawrence as out to seek confirmation/checking -- not the big bucks. I don't think that is his motivation. And it certainly isn't mine.
Let me be clear: I am willing to fight one more battle to help a nascent science/technology get off the ground and hopefully into the hands of the millions worldwide, without being stopped by the big-oil boys. Was I too frank?
I should note that I now live about seventy miles from my university, and getting access to the Tek 3032's on campus takes arranging and travel. Its a LONG commute, 140 miles round-trip. The BitScope that my colleague and I are using (posted displays) is his, on his little PC lap-top...
If I had my own wish list (MH), I would get a lap-top (Mac) based oscilloscope with quadruple inputs and the ability to multiply V and I traces and calculate power, and from that, the mean power. Will settle for 2 lap-top based units with dual inputs and fancy math (multiplying traces). Does such a measurement tool exist? I have some savings... ;)
PS -- I plan to get a decent scope-shot of the input V tomorrow for you all, using a battery input to compare with the result from the PS. All the spikes on the input V are strange, I agree...
And the photo from Lawrence (which I displayed earlier in this thread) IS labeled -- I think this gets you started on your own build... but yes, will see if we can generate a schematic for you. Not that all devices will work the same! I hope that's clear... So in that sense, we're all climbing a learning curve with this amplified JT circuit.
TK made this great little U-tube and Poynt posted it in his Oscilloscope power measurement thread. Because it so nicely illustrates the kinds of errors that simple variations in probe/ground placement can induce, I thought it should be linked in this thread and possibly others as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ&feature=player_embedded#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ&feature=player_embedded#!)
It would have been even more striking had he continued to re-configure the ground until the trace from the current probe looked exactly like that of the shunt/voltage probe. Probably not possible with the length of the ground clip wire he was using.
In the RF power work I've done, you quickly find out that using any length at all on your probe ground wire is a no-no. We always used little tiny short spring-wire grounds that attach right to the tip of the probe and always built our circuits compactly (using the shortest leads possible or surface mount parts soldered to each other) on a ground plane. Even that was insufficient in many cases.
If you really want to know what your circuit is doing, and you use a high bandwidth scope, you MUST use impeccable methods. If the object is to ooo and aah and play with the mystical spiky waves all day, attributing magical properties to them, then by all means, put your circuit together with clip-leads and long wires over a large area and use real long ground leads on your scope probes!
All of this is why I highly recommend using simple RC integration techniques close to the shunt itself when measuring current to derive power in pulsing circuits. Especially if you are not an experienced expert in scope probing or don't have a wideband AC/DC current probe.
Yes indeed TinselKoala made an awesome little clip there. It's quite striking how the spike appears in his voltage waveform when he moves his ground clip down the wire and further away from the resistor. It's very evident how this can mess up your measurements.
Now, I am going to go slightly off-topic and pose a related question for the masses. The question is why does that voltage spike appear when he moves the ground clip?
Please no cheating from some of the contributors to the forum that we suspect will know the answer. You are excluded from the pop quiz. Why does the spike appear?
Note that if you understand why the spike appears you should be able to appreciate the point made in TK's clip that much more.
MileHigh
Is it the zipon radiant energy of cold electricity being longitudinally propagated away from the shunt resistor in its never-ending search for a battery to charge and gaining free energy from the dark matter hidden inside the copper wire? Just an educated guess.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 12:10:36
Is it the zipon radiant energy of cold electricity being longitudinally propagated away from the shunt resistor in its never-ending search for a battery to charge and gaining free energy from the dark matter hidden inside the copper wire? Just an educated guess.
No biatch! Not even close!
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm through dealing with you pompous know-it-alls with closed minds! I quit!
:D
[edit] Please note: After receiving two PMs suggesting I please not "quit" and a comment from Rose regarding this post, I guess my attempt at humor was taken seriously. This post and the last one of mine and MH's one in between there were intended as wry sarcastic humor, which I will try to refrain from in other people's threads in the future simply because it might be taken seriously or might be found as snide or mean-spirited by some people here. I was poking fun at folks who seem unable to accept any criticism when they are wrong.
The more people attempting to properly measure Lawrence's and Rose's devices the better.
So anyone who has the necessary resources and inclination, speak up. I believe allcanadian has offered to test Lawrence's JT. Any status on that?
I am now offering to test either device myself using the oscilloscope method . I presently have all or most of the necessary equipment, and hopefully in a short while, I will have a very nice set (or two) of new high-end Tektronix gear.
So, Lawrence and Rose, if you take up my offer, I would mostly be interested in testing your actual device, so it would have to be shipped to me. Obviously, it would have to be one which you claim exhibits OU.
.99
If there is no formal build spec, then count me out. I have had it with guessing games. The only excuse is finicky coils but we already know about them. This is then not open source.
As far as proper scope probe placement is concerned, of course, the lower the applied voltage used in the DUT, the more important it is to place probes away from any other lines leading to the DUT otherwise you will get mutual inductive effects. The probe wire is like any other wire even though you would think it is shielded. In my pulsing coils videos some of my coil/LED combos would light up when placed over the scope lead, so yes there is mutual induction happening all the time that can skew your results.
This again is why I am insisting on using the cap/cap method. This eliminates all requirements for probes since the only results that are important is DUT start and stop voltage of the feed and output caps. Four measurements and you will know right away if it is OU or not.
wattsup
I would like to add to my previous post, and in particular regarding Lawrence's version of JT, once you are happy with a certain positioning of the various components, take a snapshot so that this configuration may be duplicated for testing at the device's new destination. Even better would be to place the device in an enclosure and fix in place all the components, while providing connectors for the sampling points in the circuit. Having said that, it would be advisable to replace all the alligator leads with short wiring.
.99
I would be thrilled and honored to apply my test procedure as outlined in this thread
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=580.0)
to Rosemary Ainslee's device. I have a 4 Channel Tektronix 500MHz scope and good meters and a great bunch of Agilent System Power Supplies (66XX Series). I decline to get into the business of building and tuning and tweaking her circuit or load. That's my only caveat.
I would have to borrow a unit that has already been tuned up for performance satisfactory to Rose and a Rose-approved load resistor. I don't have the time or inclination to go to all that trouble just to be told (in the event the results show a low COP) that I have built it wrong or tuned it wrong or used the wrong load. I have a couple of good 18 Ah 12V Lead Acid Gel batteries and a lab thermometer. I would gladly pay the return shipping and pack it with the utmost in care, returning it intact and promptly when the testing is done and results are published here on the forum (exclusively). I would also sign an NDA, if that's desired.
Bryan
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.19, 13:50:17
If there is no formal build spec, then count me out. I have had it with guessing games. The only excuse is finicky coils but we already know about them. This is then not open source.
As far as proper scope probe placement is concerned, of course, the lower the applied voltage used in the DUT, the more important it is to place probes away from any other lines leading to the DUT otherwise you will get mutual inductive effects. The probe wire is like any other wire even though you would think it is shielded. In my pulsing coils videos some of my coil/LED combos would light up when placed over the scope lead, so yes there is mutual induction happening all the time that can skew your results.
This again is why I am insisting on using the cap/cap method. This eliminates all requirements for probes since the only results that are important is DUT start and stop voltage of the feed and output caps. Four measurements and you will know right away if it is OU or not.
wattsup
wattsup,
You apparently missed the main point of my post and TK's video.
It is mostly in regards to series circuit inductance, i.e. stray or leakage inductance where there should not be any. While inductive coupling can play a role in what the probe might pick up, the video clearly demonstrates what a tiny bit of parasitic inductance will do when it exists in between the probe leads and in series with the CSR.
If TK had a few probe gnd leads of differing lengths, that too would have shown a similar effect, that being from the inductive coupling effect you mentioned.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.19, 14:11:13
I would like to add to my previous post, and in particular regarding Lawrence's version of JT, once you are happy with a certain positioning of the various components, take a snapshot so that this configuration may be duplicated for testing at the device's new destination. Even better would be to place the device in an enclosure and fix in place all the components, while providing connectors for the sampling points in the circuit. Having said that, it would be advisable to replace all the alligator leads with short wiring.
.99
I echo those sentiments regarding the Rosemary device. It would be preferable if the device was contained in a sealed box that had tamper-proof "cal stickers" or something like that so no accusation of tampering could be levelled. In the Rose device, there would be no need for any internal test point access; just two terminals for input power and two for the load resistor.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.19, 14:15:18
wattsup,
You apparently missed the main point of my post and TK's video.
It is mostly in regards to series circuit inductance, i.e. stray or leakage inductance where there should not be any. While inductive coupling can play a role in what the probe might pick up, the video clearly demonstrates what a tiny bit of parasitic inductance will do when it exists in between the probe leads and in series with the CSR.
If TK had a few probe and leads of differing lengths, that too would have shown a similar effect, that being from the inductive coupling effect you mentioned.
.99
@99
I do understand about that regarding extra length circuit wires between test points. I just wanted to point out that it is not only the probe position but also how the probe wire is positioned and if it is crossing over any DUT wires.
Actually, TK could have made a video #2 to also show his ground lead being affected by simply running that ground as he did over the circuit before he connected it to either of those two points. It would have been good for him to show the same effect on the scope with the ground really coming from the outside only and not over the circuit to see the differences. Also, I would have liked to see the scope shot with that extra wire completely removed from the device having those two test points now as one point.
From the many difficulties of declaring OU with low voltage DUTs, it is becoming more evident that any intrusive measuring, even with your differential probe requirement as you have stated to Rose on the other thread, which is very educational I must add, there will always be points of contention with any such low voltage DUT declaration. There will always be something that someone will say is not right.
We seem to think that the OU aspect is load dependent, when it should not be. Energy output is energy output regardless of how you decide to either consume it on the spot or store it for ultimate comparisons. I feel the only real way the OU community will be satisfied will be either with an accepted cap/cap method having no outside measurement probes around the device while it is running, or you have to design your OU device in a loop that will run indefinitely with just one impulse charge. You therefore will be able to calculate joules in the former or just live the evident fact of OU with the later.
Either that or you will have to design an OU device that runs on voltages above and beyond running simple LEDs. That would require having the present build spec and working an upscaled design, but again, if there is no build spec, then what is the point.
wattsup
Hmmm... very interesting video by TK, thanks Humbugger, I agree with his caveats.
Before seeing this, I had watched the two following videos, both of which use modified JT circuits called Joule Ringer circuits, and both of which show strong evidence of rf-pickup --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5CKK_lFoZw Shows double LED's and neon light, lighting up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOCUAL12Xsw&NR=1
Small radio picks up the radiated rf...
Same caveats arise as from TK's video... short leads, etc.
The Joule Ringer circuit is intriguing... Standard oscilloscope measurements become difficult. The capacitor input allows energy-in measurement. Capacitor on the output might work as wattsup suggests:
QuoteI feel the only real way the OU community will be satisfied will be either with an accepted cap/cap method having no outside measurement probes around the device while it is running, or you have to design your OU device in a loop that will run indefinitely with just one impulse charge. You therefore will be able to calculate joules in the former or just live the evident fact of OU with the later.
Either that or you will have to design an OU device that runs on voltages above and beyond running simple LEDs.
But I also like the thermal method recommended earlier in this thread, which we tried once on the output of the Tseung DUT.
The TK video showing effect of long wires producing inductance or other effects that may affect the Oscilloscope Displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ
Many thanks to TK in producing this very educational video clip. It explains why small changes in the Physical Layout or wiring can affect the displayed values. I believe PhysicsProf also experienced that already. We discovered that in the Hong Kong University Workshop on Oct 9, 2010 where some participants produced FLEET prototype with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of more than 280 and some produced prototype with Index less than 1. They all listened to the same lecture, used the same batch of material and the same test equipment.
*** My explanation is that the configuration happened to be in a pseudo resonance condition. To get the correct COP, we need to simultaneously measure the Input and Output Instantaneous Power. It would be good to have both the Power Curves and the running mean value on the two oscilloscopes.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.19, 13:26:17
The more people attempting to properly measure Lawrence's and Rose's devices the better.
So anyone who has the necessary resources and inclination, speak up. I believe allcanadian has offered to test Lawrence's JT. Any status on that?
I am now offering to test either device myself using the oscilloscope method . I presently have all or most of the necessary equipment, and hopefully in a short while, I will have a very nice set (or two) of new high-end Tektronix gear.
So, Lawrence and Rose, if you take up my offer, I would mostly be interested in testing your actual device, so it would have to be shipped to me. Obviously, it would have to be one which you claim exhibits OU.
.99
Dear poynt99,
I have communicated with allcanasian. He may not have access to two good oscilloscopes that have the multiply and the mean functions. He was going to use a different method for determining whether the COP was greater than 1.
I asked him to hold off until the PhysicsProf has done the experiments using the oscilloscope method.
If you have two sets of new high-end Tektronix gear, please indicate the model number and I shall be happy to ship you a prototype with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index from Hong Kong. The prototype should have Index greater than 100 and actual mean output wattage greater than 20 watts. I shall ask the Hong Kong experimenter(s) to enclose it in a transparent container and try to protect it from any shaking or movement from the shipping.
The prototype I shipped to Bob Boyce in USA got damaged. A soldered connection was broken even though I put it inside a padded box. Thus some caution must be observed when you receive the prototype.
The pictures, video and the test results from the China-made oscilloscopes will be shown first in this thread before the shipment. Thanks to you, we can now have running mean Input and Output Power values.
Your task will first be a simple matter of verification and confirming the results from Hong Kong and then replicate it from the components package that will be shipped together with the working prototype. That should be fun for you.
We shall invite comments from the Forum Members to see if such arrangement is acceptable. The Hong Kong team will be happier if they can get your Prize. If there were additional requirements, please post them now.
Thank you and we look forward to benefiting the World together.
Lawrence
Poynty and Humbugger - thanks for your offers to test - but I'll pass. I'd prefer this to first be done by local experts for a variety of reasons - not least of which is the real and present danger of dedicated objectors that lurk these forums. All over the place. :o
But if and when we do a public demo - then, thereafter, and if Professor is up for it - I would LOVE to send him our apparatus for confirmation. Hopefully he'll discuss the required protocols with Poynty Point. Frankly I'd be prepared to trust the two of them - entirely. But nor will I compete with Lawrence's prize application. That's a given. I really think that the Joule Thief variant is a well deserved contender. But we're some way away. Have only now determined the feasibility of doing a public demo. I'll first need to see if this is ever likely to happen. And even before then - I'll need to establish some reliable results. Right now the circuit is in sulk mode and all I can get from it is resonance with absolutely no heat. Hopefully this is correctible. Otherwise you'll all be hearing some reluctant retractions to earlier claims. God forbid.
:'(
Rosie
:)
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 12:10:36
Is it the zipon radiant energy of cold electricity being longitudinally propagated away from the shunt resistor in its never-ending search for a battery to charge and gaining free energy from the dark matter hidden inside the copper wire? Just an educated guess.
HUMBUGGER. Indeed. Well done. You are clearly a man of quintessential discernment and appropriate gravitas.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 13:10:45
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm through dealing with you pompous know-it-alls with closed minds! I quit!
:D
Spoken like a man. Well done again.
Rosie
:)
Lawrence,
Why not let people test it using their various means, as long as the method is appropriate and executed properly? (i.e. thermal etc.)
If you decide to send me a unit to test, I will test it according to good practices, as I have outlined here. I have no control over how the testing is performed anywhere else and by anyone else, and to be honest with you, I trust almost no one but myself. Unless a great deal of detail is provided by those performing the tests, it would be difficult to compare and verify. The numbers, properly obtained however, will speak for themselves.
I can assure you, that if I feel my test results are not solid and reliable, I will state this. However, with the equipment I have now at my disposal (1GHz 4-channel Tektronix scope, plus various current probes, and a differential probe), I should be able to easily surpass the quality of oscilloscope testing done by anyone thus far. I know the methods, the equipment, the pitfalls, and the subtleties involved.
In addition as I mentioned earlier, I may have access to two new sets of high end Tektronix equipment, in a short while's time. If this equipment arrives, it would be used to verify my previous test results obtained with my own high end equipment.
.99
I read a predictable round of applause for TK's video where he rather ponderously compares one junction of the wire to another junction from what? The blue wire? I'm as blind as a bat which possibly explains why I can't see see this. Not even close. Actually that's also not right. It IS close to the blue wire. Just not ON the blue wire.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.19, 19:43:00
I read a predictable round of applause for TK's video where he rather ponderously compares one junction of the wire to another junction from what? The blue wire? I'm as blind as a bat which possibly explains why I can't see see this. Not even close. Actually that's also not right. It IS close to the blue wire. Just not ON the blue wire.
Rosemary
What are you actually trying to say here Rose?
.99
Rose,
I don't care much for many of the aspects of TK's work. However, I can assure you, even if he didn't make the connections he claimed, that little loop of short wire would cause that particular change in the scope display.
There should be no doubts the video contents were completely correct.
A bit of stray inductance or capacitance does make a great deal of difference in scope displays whenever the frequency or rise/fall time goes beyond the design of the circuit.
Of course, this is only my opinion. This opinion is based upon decades of experience with such circuits and test equipment. I don't need the theory or math to convince me.
Respectfully,
John (WW)
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.01.19, 22:01:13
A bit of stray inductance or capacitance does make a great deal of difference in scope displays whenever the frequency or rise/fall time goes beyond the design of the circuit.
Of course, this is only my opinion. This opinion is based upon decades of experience with such circuits and test equipment. I don't need the theory or math to convince me.
I'll take that as a halfhearted attempt to answer the pop quiz and unfortunately it's incorrect. Theory and math should not be so casually brushed aside by you. Theory and math is what electronics and by extension every other energy system is all about. Understanding how the world goes round is what allows us to make the world go round.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.19, 22:39:11
I'll take that as a halfhearted attempt to answer the pop quiz and unfortunately it's incorrect. Theory and math should not be so casually brushed aside by you. Theory and math is what electronics and by extension every other energy system is all about. Understanding how the world goes round is what allows us to make the world go round.
You took it wrong.
I could give a Rat's behind about your pop quiz. I meant what I said. I don't need either to convince me these problems happen. I understand the math and the theory so I understand why it happens. I don't need them to believe it happens.
If I wished to jump on your pop quiz hook I would have done so.
So..... Stuff it.Inappropriate and rude. Sorry.
Well if you are going to be rude and say that you understand the math and the theory, then why not answer the pop quiz?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.20, 00:22:48
Well if you are going to be rude and say that you understand the math and the theory, then why not answer the pop quiz?
I don't like to read into people's mind but it's a habbit of mine.
I think your pop quiz involve a situation "if the blue wire was straighten out", what would happens? ^-^
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.19, 11:18:22
Yes indeed TinselKoala made an awesome little clip there. It's quite striking how the spike appears in his voltage waveform when he moves his ground clip down the wire and further away from the resistor. It's very evident how this can mess up your measurements.
Now, I am going to go slightly off-topic and pose a related question for the masses. The question is why does that voltage spike appear when he moves the ground clip?
Please no cheating from some of the contributors to the forum that we suspect will know the answer. You are excluded from the pop quiz. Why does the spike appear?
Note that if you understand why the spike appears you should be able to appreciate the point made in TK's clip that much more.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.20, 00:22:48
Well if you are going to be rude and say that you understand the math and the theory, then why not answer the pop quiz?
MH, I took it as though your pop quiz was directed to those that might not be too experienced in electronics, or perhaps mainly the hobbyists. Just so you know, WW by no means falls under that category. He's one of our senior, highly-respected engineers, and although I get under the skin of him and ION and yourself once in a while, I have a great deal of respect for everyone here. In fact there are
several very knowledgeable people here; quite a power-house actually. We are very fortunate indeed.
.99
Let me get this straight
Some units, for no reason that is fully understood or agreed on, exhibit conditions which experienced people are at odds to explain.
Lawrence has stated that duplication probably will not give the exact same results as just a wire length here or there will alter the results.
It's the same for the measurement methods, again wire lengths etc.
Surely there is no point in arguing a theory that is not fully understood.
These things look a lot like Steve marks early unit.
Surely its possible that some misunderstood kind of electromagnetic switching is occurring
Surely giving up because the books dont say it can happen is against what this effort is about .
Mass duplication of circuit (not replication) will help , even failures will help as long as people dont think they are making a free energy machine , but rather, contributing to research for all.
Blocking oscillators are one of the most controversial linear circuits .
add a torroid(ring) and its even worse.
Clearly people are seeing non conventional efficiency increases at the very least.
I think that it is possible that some kind of magnetic spin is happening around some units that may be tuning in to something else from outside.
It's bothersome to see people going against each other over semantics , nobody is right here because new terms will have to be developed thru experimentation and collaboration.
I thank Lawrence for his approach and frankness.
A dick waving competition on theory will prove even more futile for for the wavers if this actually can be made to work repeatably somehow... see the problem ?
This effort is still one of the best I have seen to date .Thanks to every body who contributes . I hope to contribute something worthwhile to this cause myself at some point.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.19, 19:21:43
Lawrence,
Why not let people test it using their various means, as long as the method is appropriate and executed properly? (i.e. thermal etc.)
For the first round public tests, I would like the verifiers to use the oscilloscope method which I and the teams in Hong Kong and China did for dozens if not hundreds of times. I know the Ins and Outs. I can help over the Internet or over the phone. After the positive results in the first round, the verifiers can do whatever they want. I do not know enough about the thermal methods or the simulation methods and there will be the unnecessary lengthy discussions.
I did not realize that the PhysicProf had to travel 70 miles to access the good oscilloscopes. Driving that distance in the snow and icy roads will be a big effort. I sincerely thank him for what he has done and what he will be doing.
Quote
If you decide to send me a unit to test, I will test it according to good practices, as I have outlined here. I have no control over how the testing is performed anywhere else and by anyone else, and to be honest with you, I trust almost no one but myself. Unless a great deal of detail is provided by those performing the tests, it would be difficult to compare and verify. The numbers, properly obtained however, will speak for themselves.
I can assure you, that if I feel my test results are not solid and reliable, I will state this. However, with the equipment I have now at my disposal (1GHz 4-channel Tektronix scope, plus various current probes, and a differential probe), I should be able to easily surpass the quality of oscilloscope testing done by anyone thus far. I know the methods, the equipment, the pitfalls, and the subtleties involved.
In addition as I mentioned earlier, I may have access to two new sets of high end Tektronix equipment, in a short while's time. If this equipment arrives, it would be used to verify my previous test results obtained with my own high end equipment.
I have seen enough posts from you to build up the confidence that you will be able to do an unbiased and truly scientific job. All the prototypes I bought to USA have been allocated to other verifiers in the last few days. Thanks to the publicity in this forum.
These potential verifiers include UCI, Construction University in Beijing, a potential investor, a semi-Government organization and a subsidiary of Tektronics!
You will have a prototype from Hong Kong. As I mentioned before, the details of that prototype will be provided in this thread first before shipment. The true COP will be at least 100 and the actual mean Output Power will exceed 20 watts as defined with your help. Obviously, you and other forum members may question or comment on any of their testing methods or results before the prototype is shipped. I shall ask the Hong Kong experimenter(s) to do this favor for me. It may take a little time. They are NOT my employees and they have no obligation to do it for me. I hope that they will support me to get open and
conclusive results. Amen.
Hold your horses Lindsay, you're getting way ahead of things here. :o
As far as I am concerned, no one is debating the theory of operation, nor to explain any weird "condition". So far all can be explained with conventional theory.
And no one has yet proven that "people are seeing non conventional efficiency increases". Where did all this come from?
Respectfully, relax and wait for the properly-obtained numbers to roll in, and try not to read too much into things here. This is not SM's device by any stretch!
.99
Lawrence,
You may do whatever you wish in terms of coordinating your testing etc.
All I ask is that you be respectful of the OUR guidelines, and that you allow someone appointed by OUR to examine the test results before you post any claims of OU on this forum. Also, VERY IMPORTANT!: When submitting test results, the more detail the better, in terms of how the testing was conducted etc. You could not ever supply too much information! I can not stress this enough. However, we will tackle that issue if/when it arises ;)
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.19, 13:10:45
[edit] Please note: After receiving two PMs suggesting I please not "quit" and a comment from Rose regarding this post, I guess my attempt at humor was taken seriously. This post and the last one of mine and MH's one in between there were intended as wry sarcastic humor, which I will try to refrain from in other people's threads in the future simply because it might be taken seriously or might be found as snide or mean-spirited by some people here. I was poking fun at folks who seem unable to accept any criticism when they are wrong.
Who would have THOUGHT? I'm rather pleased that Humbugger explained himself so fully. You see the fact is that there are still those of us who contribute to this thread who are also still mere mortals. As mere mortals we do NOT have your level of elevated consciousness. We do not have the wherewithall required to detect 'sarcastic humour'. Nor do we have the wherewithall to determine our tests outside of your assessments. You may not realise it Humbugger - but we are all riveted to attention when we read your posts - especially if and when you explain that we're 'wrong'. Then your comments are read with the kind of attention that one would - under normal circumstances - only allow to God Himself. But I, personally, will look out for a 'sarcastic' edge to your future posts. The trouble is that I'm not sure I'll get it right. What if you DON'T endorse our findings? What then? Will you at lest give us a clue ... in the unfortunate and unlikely event that your report is actually based on sarcasm and is actually NOT intended to be taken seriously? You see the problem? Perhaps you could use one of Poynty's emoticons to explain your position. That may help. Or. Better still. Sign an affidavit to the effect that you won't use sarcasm. And then publish it here. That way I can relax. Else I'll be in a perpetual tail-spin - obsessing over the very real concern as to your true meaning - you true communication. I see myself in caught in the trap - forever trying to resolve this difficult problem. Is Humbugger's post sarcastic? Is Humbugger's post NOT sarcastic? You see the problem? It's insuperable. Untenable. Just would not know what to do.
Golly.
Rosemary
Rose,
Relative to me, you're from a country far far away...but more often than not, you're out of this world :o
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.20, 03:42:58
Rose,
Relative to me, you're from a country far far away...but more often than not, you're out of this world :o
.99
:) Indeed. I think you're pointing to Lala Land. LOL. I've taken out permanent residence and am looking for full citizenship. It's a passport to the only place where I can identify with the locals.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.01.19, 22:01:13
Rose,
I don't care much for many of the aspects of TK's work. However, I can assure you, even if he didn't make the connections he claimed, that little loop of short wire would cause that particular change in the scope display.
There should be no doubts the video contents were completely correct.
A bit of stray inductance or capacitance does make a great deal of difference in scope displays whenever the frequency or rise/fall time goes beyond the design of the circuit.
Of course, this is only my opinion. This opinion is based upon decades of experience with such circuits and test equipment. I don't need the theory or math to convince me.
Respectfully,
John (WW)
John - I would have thought that his argument would ONLY have been proved if he also IN FACT attached the connection to the wire he claimed he attached it to. But I'm happy to be in a minority of one in this assessment. My personal opinion is that he's using Mylow's techniques of 'misdirection' to prove an unsubstantiated claim. But I get it that we should not question this. It's not the evidence that matters. It's the implied evidence. And only us reckless free energy enthusiasts may NOT imply anything. It's the contenders who must be allowed to alter the fact and vary the test parameter as required. That's only fair.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 04:04:32
John - I would have thought that his argument would ONLY have been proved if he also IN FACT attached the connection to the wire he claimed he attached it to.
Rosemary
Rose, what are you trying to say here?
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 03:32:21
Who would have THOUGHT? I'm rather pleased that Humbugger explained himself so fully. You see the fact is that there are still those of us who contribute to this thread who are also still mere mortals. As mere mortals we do NOT have your level of elevated consciousness. We do not have the wherewithall required to detect 'sarcastic humour'. Nor do we have the wherewithall to determine our tests outside of your assessments. You may not realise it Humbugger - but we are all riveted to attention when we read your posts - especially if and when you explain that we're 'wrong'. Then your comments are read with the kind of attention that one would - under normal circumstances - only allow to God Himself. But I, personally, will look out for a 'sarcastic' edge to your future posts. The trouble is that I'm not sure I'll get it right. What if you DON'T endorse our findings? What then? Will you at lest give us a clue ... in the unfortunate and unlikely event that your report is actually based on sarcasm and is actually NOT intended to be taken seriously? You see the problem? Perhaps you could use one of Poynty's emoticons to explain your position. That may help. Or. Better still. Sign an affidavit to the effect that you won't use sarcasm. And then publish it here. That way I can relax. Else I'll be in a perpetual tail-spin - obsessing over the very real concern as to your true meaning - you true communication. I see myself in caught in the trap - forever trying to resolve this difficult problem. Is Humbugger's post sarcastic? Is Humbugger's post NOT sarcastic? You see the problem? It's insuperable. Untenable. Just would not know what to do.
Golly.
Rosemary
At least we can all tell when you are being snide, condescending and sarcastic! ::)
Anyone who has followed your posts on the various forums knows that you despise TK and have had many bitter and heated battles with him including horrible accusations of spreading viruses and knocking out your computer, etc. To look at his video and conclude that he is foisting off trickery on us is just, well...outright paranoid and delusional. He was just demonstrating something that most everyone who has ever used a high-speed scope has seen a million times!
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.20, 04:10:19
Rose, what are you trying to say here?
.99
Poynty - check the video. The probe connection is BEHIND a junction. It is NOT on the blue wire. Or not that I can see. And I KEEP LOOKING.
Rosie
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 04:13:03
Poynty - check the video. The probe connection is BEHIND a junction. It is NOT on the blue wire. Or not that I can see. And I KEEP LOOKING.
Rosie
Good grief!
The CSR is connected between the MOSFET Source (or transistor emitter) and the circuit GND (at least that's how I see it).
So, the probe connection is at the transistor emitter and remains there for the entire video. The probe reference lead (gnd lead) is placed in two positions, one very near the resistor body, and two, right at the circuit ground junction. In the latter case, the gnd lead does not have to be attached to the blue wire, because the blue wire is connected to that junction. There is probably only 0.5cm difference between the end of the blue wire and where TK placed the gnd lead on the junction.
There was no fakery or attempt at duping the audience....what the heck for? What exactly are you suspicious of or think he did anyway?
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 04:13:03
Poynty - check the video. The probe connection is BEHIND a junction. It is NOT on the blue wire. Or not that I can see. And I KEEP LOOKING.
Rosie
I have carefully viewed the video. It is true, Rosemary, that he seems to connect his clip to the nice bare transistor lead that sticks out of the solder blob where the blue wire is attached. It looks like the blue wire has insulation on it right up to the solder joint. Are you so insanely foolish as to assert that the result would be visibly different had he clipped to the solder blob or had stripped back 1/8 inch of insulation on the blue wire and hooked up there? True, technically he did say he had hooked to the other end of the blue wire. Are you honestly calling him and the spirit of the video a fraud because of that? It's just a bit much, Rosemary. JUST A BIT MUCH.
If I know TK, he will probably redo the demonstration. All because of some silly crass nonsense!
.99
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.20, 04:35:11
I have carefully viewed the video. It is true, Rosemary, that he seems to connect his clip to the nice bare transistor lead that sticks out of the solder blob where the blue wire is attached. It looks like the blue wire has insulation on it right up to the solder joint. Are you so insanely foolish as to assert that the result would be visibly different had he clipped to the solder blob or had stripped back 1/8 inch of insulation on the blue wire and hooked up there? True, technically he did say he had hooked to the other end of the blue wire. Are you honestly calling him and the spirit of the video a fraud because of that? It's just a bit much, Rosemary. JUST A BIT MUCH.
Guys, bear in mind I'm not only an amateur but I'm as blind as a bat. What little learning I have inclines me to understand that the ground reference is a critical reference. Long have I heard how important it is to keep one's reference accurate. And what can happen on one side of a junction is entirely different to what happens on the other side. And who am I to point to 'motive'? As far as I'm concerned you can all conclude what you will. Don't mind me. I'll just pretend to agree that my vision is faulty and my learning along with it. And the voltages values can be taken behind any junctions as required.
Humbugger - far from not liking TK - I'm half way in love. Always been partial to the moustache. And I enjoy watching his videos - even if I don't agree with his conclusions.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.20, 04:43:22
If I know TK, he will probably redo the demonstration. All because of some silly crass nonsense!
.99
NOT NECESSARY. I HAVE SUBMITTED THE VIDEO TO THE CIA FORENSIC LABS AND THE JET PROPULSION LABORATORIES. BOTH ORGANIZATIONS CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE VIDEO AFTER BLOWING UP THE AREA IN QUESTION AND USING SOPHISTICATED INTERPOLATION AND PIXEL ANALYSIS, BOTH LABS DETERMINED THAT A TINY BIT OF THE STRIPPED END OF THE BLUE WIRE ACTUALLY STICKS OUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SOLDER BLOB AND LAYS NEXT TO THE TRANSISTOR LEAD! HE WAS INDEED CONNECTED TO THE END OF THE BLUE WIRE! NOW WE CAN ALL REST EASY, KNOWING WE HAVE NOT BEEN TRICKED.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 04:48:05
Humbugger - far from not liking TK - I'm half way in love. Always been partial to the moustache. And I enjoy watching his videos - even if I don't agree with his conclusions.
Rosemary
Please accept my apology and I retract my statement about you despising TK. I got my furry animals mixed up. Tinsel Koala and Fuzzy Tom Cat. It's the latter one you despise and make horrible public criminal accusations against, right? When it comes to TK, you just attack his educational videos as sleight of hand trickery. I got it now. Sorry.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.20, 05:09:42
Please accept my apology and I retract my statement about you despising TK. I got my furry animals mixed up. Tinsel Koala and Fuzzy Tom Cat. It's the latter one you despise and make horrible public criminal accusations against, right? When it comes to TK, you just attack his educational videos as sleight of hand trickery. I got it now. Sorry.
Apology accepted. But you're still wrong. I find the act of despising people way too emotionally committed.
Rosemary
You can have the last word here on this, Rosemary. I give. Time to let the thread get back to testing Lawrence's gizmo.
Humbugger
And on that note, here is my stab at what Lawrence's circuit looks like (since some folks were requesting a schematic). Please let me know if there are any errors, and I'll make the changes.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.20, 05:28:15
And on that note, here is my stab at what Lawrence's circuit looks like (since some folks were requesting a schematic). Please let me know if there are any errors, and I'll make the changes.
.99
Polarity dot missing on tertiary winding. Could be important unless duty cycle is exactly 50/50. And to pre-empt a million questions and arguments.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.20, 05:38:59
Polarity dot missing on tertiary winding. Could be important unless duty cycle is exactly 50/50.
Humbugger
I left it out as I see that as a TBD...unless it's not?
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.20, 03:46:53
:) Indeed. I think you're pointing to Lala Land. LOL. I've taken out permanent residence and am looking for full citizenship. It's a passport to the only place where I can identify with the locals.
Welcome Rosemary!
I've been here in Lala Land for several years. The population
is slowly increasing as more and more become disenchanted
with "normal" terra firma as it presently is.
Lala Land is essentially terra incognita to the "establishment"
and that bodes very well for all present and future "citizens."
All things are possible here... O0
Once the "free running" devices are fully explored and evaluated
we may then desire to direct our attention to Pulse Width Modulated
devices for purposes of comparison.
PWM/PFM offers some very distinct switching advantages.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.20, 05:28:15
And on that note, here is my stab at what Lawrence's circuit looks like (since some folks were requesting a schematic). Please let me know if there are any errors, and I'll make the changes.
.99
I made some additional notes.
More notes on the poynt99 schematics
I added the exact position of the oscilloscope probes.
As I mentioned before, when I send out the prototypes, I include a prayer. I am doing the same here.
May God Guide you in your replication efforts. Amen.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.20, 22:32:16
More notes on the poynt99 schematics
I added the exact position of the oscilloscope probes.
As I mentioned before, when I send out the prototypes, I include a prayer. I am doing the same here.
May God Guide you in your replication efforts. Amen.
Are you isolating the scope from ground, ie no ground prong on the power cord, when connecting scope probe ground to B2 & B4?
Itzon
Quote from: itzon on 2011.01.20, 22:43:19
Are you isolating the scope from ground, ie no ground prong on the power cord, when connecting scope probe ground to B2 & B4?
Itzon
In the China-made oscilloscopes (Atten), they already have a power ground. In addition the Channel 1 and Channel 2 are common grounded internally. Thus Instantaneous Voltage measured at Channel 1 and Instantaneous Current measured at Channel 2 are timed simultaneously. I hope that the US made oscilloscopes have same or similar feature.
You can get more information on the China-made scope on-line. Just do a google search on Atten oscilloscopes.
And I'm back. Your schematic is helpful, .99 -- a few corrections: the start-points on the toroid windings need to be reversed (so left dot is down, right dot is up); The start-point on T3 is UP (recognizing that I may have made a mistake, but I did double-check.)
Below, I juxtapose your schematic with one from OU today, showing a Joule Ringer schematic. One can see interesting similarities. This schematic replaces the lone transistor typical of JT circuits with a Darlington pair -- worth trying in the Tseung mod also. Lawrence has referred to a cap across the resistor feeding the base of the transistor, which is shown in the J-Ringer schematic.
Several things we have learned in the past couple days of testing:
1. Probe calibration and matching is VERY important.
2. Leads with alligator clips connecting components can generate erroneous readings on the scope, due I think to inductive pick-up. See the TK video above. The joule-thief circuit emits RF typically.
3. We found that the FREQUENCY of the Tseung-device is sensitive to:
a. Input voltage. As Vin goes down, the frequency goes up (data given in an earlier post) sharply.
b. A 50 nF capacitor across the 1Kohm resistor leading to the base of the transistor DECREASES the frequency. Today, on prototype A, adding the cap reduced the frequency from 61 KHz to 27 KHz. The FLEET index also went down (from about 1 to 0.6).
c. Changing the temperature of the toroid from roughly 50 to 70 to 80 F had no noticeable affect on the frequency or FLEET index.
d. Replacing the output LED with a simple diode reduced f (from 61 to 30 KHz), and reduced the FLEET index also about half.
e. Increasing R on the input resistor to the transistor base from 1Kohm to 5Kohm dropped the frequency (from 753 to 270 KHz with one build). There was little change in the FLEET index in this instance.
f. The frequency of the oscillations in the JT circuit depends strongly on the toroid used in the circuit; we have not yet attempted to correlate frequency with number of windings etc.
I need to add -- early readings of higher FLEET indices (over 3) have not maintained as have decreased the length of various lead wires, moved some components around, etc. We have looked at five different toroids to date.
Quotea. Input voltage. As Vin goes down, the frequency goes up (data given in an earlier post) sharply.
Seeing the schematic makes it easier to suggest a possible explanation for this phenomenon.
As a reminder the Wikipedia article states the following:
QuoteFrequency of oscillation is approximately equal to: V_battery x R_battery_output_impedance / Transformer_mutual_inductance
At very low excitation voltages the overall voltages and currents in the JT circuit will go down. This includes the voltages and currents in the secondary winding. So it's possible that the LED diode's forward voltage in the secondary winding starts to choke off the flow of current. This starts to make the secondary winding partially "disappear" from the circuit. The net result of this will be a reduction in the effective transformer mutual inductance. The rate of reduction in transformer mutual inductance will be faster than the rate that the excitation voltage drops causing the oscillation frequency to increase.
The root cause behind the frequency determination is the standard time constant for an inductor-resistor configuration which is L/R. Therefore the associated frequency related to the time constant is the inverse of this, R/L. You can see the similarity with the formula for the approximate oscillation frequency for a standard Joule Thief.
MileHigh
If for the sake of argument what I just said in my last posting is correct, then there is a moral to that story. The moral of that story is that every single observation that you make when you experiment with Lawrence's Joule Thief circuit is just "Mother Nature" doing exactly what she is supposed to be doing. No matter how "unusual" a phenomenon you think you are seeing might appear to be, in fact it's "usual" and perfectly normal.
The worst trap any experimenter can fall into is to go in with a set of biases and preconceived notions that may not have any basis in fact. Taking a random hypothetical example with no connection to the circuit, someone might say, "Increased resistance must decrease the frequency" and they actually find that increasing the resistance increases the frequency. If the experimenter then says, "I have found something unusual and non-standard about my circuit" then they are making the gravest of errors. You can't forget that the Joule Thief will do exactly what it is supposed to do, irregardless of whatever preconceived notions or biases or educated or uneducated opinions you might have. There will be a reason for every observed change in the operation of the circuit and if you see something that you didn't expect, it's up to you to decide if you want to try to figure out why the circuit is behaving like that.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.20, 23:14:25
And I'm back. Your schematic is helpful, .99 -- a few corrections: the start-points on the toroid windings need to be reversed (so left dot is down, right dot is up); The start-point on T3 is UP (recognizing that I may have made a mistake, but I did double-check.)
Below, I juxtapose your schematic with one from OU today, showing a Joule Ringer schematic. One can see interesting similarities. This schematic replaces the lone transistor typical of JT circuits with a Darlington pair -- worth trying in the Tseung mod also. Lawrence has referred to a cap across the resistor feeding the base of the transistor, which is shown in the J-Ringer schematic.
Dear PhysicsProf,
Thank you for making the comparison with J-Ringer. They indeed have similarities.
We all look forward to your driving the 140 miles return trip to your esteemed University and test the Prototypes. Please take your time and make sure the roads are safe before the journey. Do not let the pressure from the posts here stress you.
If possible, please consider doing the 4 tuning fork experiment at the same time. That should not take long and will save you an additional trip.
Thank you in advance,
Lawrence
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.20, 22:58:29
In the China-made oscilloscopes (Atten), they already have a power ground. In addition the Channel 1 and Channel 2 are common grounded internally. Thus Instantaneous Voltage measured at Channel 1 and Instantaneous Current measured at Channel 2 are timed simultaneously. I hope that the US made oscilloscopes have same or similar feature.
You can get more information on the China-made scope on-line. Just do a google search on Atten oscilloscopes.
All modern, probably even ancient scopes have the probe ground connected to the "earth power ground" on the power cord.
You can isolate the probe grounds(and scope chassis) from "earth ground" by not having the power cord ground connected to "earth ground", thereby having the probe grounds floating, ie...your scope probe gnd is at whatever potential your circuit is at and minimizing the scopes interference of the circuit being probed. Some circuits won't work at all when scope probe gnd grounds the point at which it's connected.
My point was, the schematic as shown does not show points B2 & B4 as being grounded.
Connecting the probe gnd at those points makes them grounded through the scope.
Is the schematic wrong?
Edit...Oops, I just remembered the circuit being probed is running off of battery power, so never mind the "earth ground" stuff.Itzon
Quote from: itzon on 2011.01.21, 01:40:46
All modern, probably even ancient scopes have the probe ground connected to the "earth power ground" on the power cord.
You can isolate the probe grounds(and scope chassis) from "earth ground" by not having the power cord ground connected to "earth ground", thereby having the probe grounds floating, ie...your scope probe gnd is at whatever potential your circuit is at and minimizing the scopes interference of the circuit being probed. Some circuits won't work at all when scope probe gnd grounds the point at which it's connected.
My point was, the schematic as shown does not show points B2 & B4 as being grounded.
Connecting the probe gnd at those points makes them grounded through the scope.
Is the schematic wrong?
Edit...Oops, I just remembered the circuit being probed is running off of battery power, so never mind the "earth ground" stuff.
Itzon
Itzon - Professor - Poynty - someone. What is the signifance here? Stefan Hartman went to some trouble to tell me that we may be getting our power through the ground pin of our plugs. Since the only ground is from our scopes and from the functions generator - then the assumption is that we are getting our extra energy from that point. Is this somehow obviated as Itzon mentions - when we use a battery as our supply? I'm trying to understand how the energy could come from the ground in the first instance - let alone to our circuit. Or indeed - if this is a valid concern.
Be glad of some advice here guys.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.21, 01:54:43
Itzon - Professor - Poynty - someone. What is the signifance here? Stefan Hartman went to some trouble to tell me that we may be getting our power through the ground pin of our plugs. Since the only ground is from our scopes and from the functions generator - then the assumption is that we are getting our extra energy from that point. Is this somehow obviated as Itzon mentions - when we use a battery as our supply? I'm trying to understand how the energy could come from the ground in the first instance - let alone to our circuit. Or indeed - if this is a valid concern.
Be glad of some advice here guys.
Rosemary
If Stefan was hinting that you might be somehow sucking energy from the earth ground through the scope probes, he would be incorrect.
I think perhaps he was referring to something else, that being when two single-ended scope probes are used, their grounds must be tied to the same point. Further to that, the probe gnd leads themselves are troublesome in high frequency measurement in that they can cause ringing in the scope trace; "ringing" that isn't actually present in the circuit. The problem being, that the probe capacitance and gnd lead inductance form a resonant tank circuit that rings due to induced currents in the gnd lead. That's why you want the gnd lead to be as short as possible.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.21, 02:11:07
If Stefan was hinting that you might be somehow sucking energy from the earth ground through the scope probes, he would be incorrect.
I think perhaps he was referring to something else, that being when two single-ended scope probes are used, their grounds must be tied to the same point. Further to that, the probe gnd leads themselves are troublesome in high frequency measurement in that they can cause ringing in the scope trace; "ringing" that isn't actually present in the circuit. The problem being, that the probe capacitance and gnd lead inductance form a resonant tank circuit that rings due to induced currents in the gnd lead. That's why you want the gnd lead to be as short as possible.
.99
Ta muchly Poynty.
The fact is that I also asked Stefan if I could publish our report there. I'll check out my emails - in case I misunderstood him. He categorically assured me that his primary concern was that we were getting our energy from ground and through the grid. And my thought was to disconnect the ground pin. On discussion with some experts on this - I was assured that there was a campus that actually addressed this by disconnecting the ground. In as much as it was ever addressed - I thought there was a valid concern.
So Poynty. Can I quote you on this? Is this absolutely correct? In which case I'll rest easy.
Take care
Rosie
Without seeing the actual emails from Stefan, I am only speculating as to what he may have meant.
Regarding the fact that you could not draw power through the scope probes if the scope is connected to earth ground (as it should be), yes I believe that to be true, and also quite true and well known in the art, are the pitfalls with using passive single-ended probes in high frequency measurement, as described above and partly what I've been emphasizing for what seems an eternity.
.99
Let us look at the hot topic at Overunity.com which is similar to my FLEET prototype.
Reply 130 in the Joule-Ringer! thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg271488#msg271488
The first picture is their test set-up. Their scopes have the multiply function and they should be able to get the Input Instantaneous Power Curve easily. If they also use the mean function as recommended by poynt99, they should get the running mean Input Power.
The second picture is my modification to their set-up. The second oscilloscope will measure the Output Instantaneous Power. Channel A +ve will be connected to B1. Channel A –ve will be connected to B2. That will measure the Instantaneous Output Voltage. Channel B +ve will be connected to B3. Channel B –ve will be connected to B4. That will measure the Instantaneous Output Current across the 1 ohm resistor. They can compare the Output Mean Power with the Input Mean Power to get a true COP.
I am sure that they will find a COP value greater than 1 with some playing around. Since they use 12 V Input to start and use the double transistor technique, they should get a much higher actual Output Wattage. Lead-out energy is responsible in both prototypes in providing the extra energy. It is a matter of how efficient the actual device is!
God has revealed the Truth in more than one Open Forum. Blessed is His Name.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.21, 03:03:35
Without seeing the actual emails from Stefan, I am only speculating as to what he may have meant.
Regarding the fact that you could not draw power through the scope probes if the scope is connected to earth ground (as it should be), yes I believe that to be true, and also quite true and well known in the art, are the pitfalls with using passive single-ended probes in high frequency measurement, as described above and partly what I've been emphasizing for what seems an eternity.
.99
Poynty. We use probes on both our LeCroy and our Tektronix that are rated to operate at a given maximum frequency. We never exceed that maximum. THEN. We can get the circuit to resonate at frequencies as slow as 50Hz - and get the same recorded benefits albeit at a required higher applied voltage from our supply. At no point does the measurement accuracy become 'stressed' or 'suspect' due to high frequency. There is a point at which it becomes absurd to insist that 'stray' and 'hidden' voltages are 'skewing' our results. If so - then they skew ALL results everywhere. Which means that NO RESULTS can ever be relied on. Then we're flirting with a range of possibilities that exceed any kind of scientific assessment. Surely?
Your concerns regarding the accuracy of the probes is valid. What is not valid is to infer or imply that we're operating beyond it's rating and thereby getting inaccurate results. We do not.
But that aside. Thanks for your comments regarding the ground pin leaking in extra energy. I saw it as a possibility - in as much as the Joule Thief circuits seem to make good use of this. I was therefore concerned that his point was valid. I'll look for Harti's email on this and forward it to you.
Regards,
Rosie
Quote
This enormous current drain on the battery reduces the battery's output voltage to the point where it can no longer forward bias the Base-Emitter junction of the transistor. (This Thévenin-equivalent resistance of the source is actually a requirement for oscillation). When this happens, the transistor goes into the cutoff region (and opens the collector-emitter "switch").
I was skeptical about this part so I reasoned if I use a separate source of voltage for the feedback (another battery), then it wouldn't oscillate (not meeting requirement). It oscillated. ???
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.21, 03:30:54
Poynty. We use probes on both our LeCroy and our Tektronix that are rated to operate at a given maximum frequency. We never exceed that maximum.
This issues being discussed have little to do with exceeding the
frequency limit of the probes. I'm relatively certain that you won't find any references made by me in that regard. btw, in order to actually use these standard 500MHz probes near their frequency limit, requires extreme care regarding very short gnd leads (actually no lead at all, use the spring accessory as humbugger mentioned), and restricting the measurement to sine waves only. And at 500MHz, not only will the amplitude be down by 3 decibels, but the probe will have already shifted the phase of the signal by a substantial amount.
Quote
THEN. We can get the circuit to resonate at frequencies as slow as 50Hz - and get the same recorded benefits albeit at a required higher applied voltage from our supply. At no point does the measurement accuracy become 'stressed' or 'suspect' due to high frequency.
Incorrect assumption again. If there are switching transients, and I am certain there are, then there are high frequency currents present in the circuitry, regardless of how low the switching and resonant frequency are.
Quote
Your concerns regarding the accuracy of the probes is valid. What is not valid is to infer or imply that we're operating beyond it's rating and thereby getting inaccurate results. We do not.
Again, see my response above regarding switching transients and the presence of the resulting high frequencies.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.20, 23:14:25
And I'm back. Your schematic is helpful, .99 -- a few corrections: the start-points on the toroid windings need to be reversed (so left dot is down, right dot is up); The start-point on T3 is UP (recognizing that I may have made a mistake, but I did double-check.)
Classically, Professor, the dots on the windings of transformers shown on schematics have nothing to do with how the winding was started or finished. They are simply relative indicators to show polarity between windings. In other words, when the dot end of the primary is drven positive, all secondaries will also be positive at their dot ends (AC waveform assumed).
Classical thinking would say that it mattered not a whit which ends of the wires were put on the toroid first and last. Only on forums like this would one expect to hear arguments about the manufacturing sequence of toroid windings. What matters iis the relative direction of windings on a finished unit; the dots show this and are completely arbitrary as long as they show polarity correctly. To say that a schematic is in error because the winding dots must be placed on the end where the first winding was placed on the toroid core is nonsensical in the classic physics understanding of transformer action. I was surprised to hear your statement implying that this was important.
Thank you for pointing out that you consider it to be important (I do not agree but it does no harm) and thank you for showing us the relative polarity of your third winding, which is important if folks are going to be comparing scope traces on different replications..
Rosemary: Are you talking about your heater circuit when you say "our circuit" or are you building JTs and talking about them here? I am confused about what context your comments are to be taken in.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.21, 04:26:24
Rosemary: Are you talking about your heater circuit when you say "our circuit" or are you building JTs and talking about them here? I am confused about what context your comments are to be taken in.
humbugger,
Rose is talking about her heater apparatus. Perhaps it is time to re-open the Ainslie thread?
.99
Maybe so, but I doubt it would stop her from filling other threads with comments about her circuit, somehow. C.C
According to her last report, her heater circuit was "in sulk mode" and wasn't working at all, so there wouldn't be much for her to talk about there right now. Perhaps she is procrastinating (as many of us do) and looking for distraction (as many of us also do when we have come to a temporary impasse on our own pet projects) .
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.01.21, 03:35:58
I was skeptical about this part so I reasoned if I use a separate source of voltage for the feedback (another battery), then it wouldn't oscillate (not meeting requirement). It oscillated. ???
Can you try and explain that in more detail because it's not clear to me. What's "the feedback?" Ideally you could annotate the latest schematic and show what modifications you made. Alternatively call the coil connected to the transistor base L1 and the coil connected to the transistor collector L2 and the coil connected to the extra secondary pick-up winding L3. With those references and the latest schematic can you describe what you are doing? (If somebody could annotate the schematic with full component designations it would be appreciated)
With the Joule Thief when the transistor switches on and starts to energize L2, the transformer coupling back to L1 causes L1 to generate potential to switch the transistor on even harder. That's normally what's considered to be "the feedback." When L2 is fully energized there is no more transformer coupling back to L1, and you assume that the supply battery voltage is croaking at the same time. That causes the transistor to switch off, and that creates feedback to L1 to switch the transistor off even harder. Then the battery voltage comes back and starts to switch on the transistor through L1 and the whole process starts all over again.
Whatever you did, there must be a similar explanation as to why the circuit is oscillating.
QuoteMaybe so, but I doubt it would stop her from filling other threads with comments about her circuit, somehow.
As opposed to "electron drift" I would call that "Rosie drift" and Rosie needs to be conscious of that.
MileHigh
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.21, 02:40:10
Ta muchly Poynty.
The fact is that I also asked Stefan if I could publish our report there. I'll check out my emails - in case I misunderstood him. He categorically assured me that his primary concern was that we were getting our energy from ground and through the grid. And my thought was to disconnect the ground pin. On discussion with some experts on this - I was assured that there was a campus that actually addressed this by disconnecting the ground. In as much as it was ever addressed - I thought there was a valid concern.
So Poynty. Can I quote you on this? Is this absolutely correct? In which case I'll rest easy.
Take care
Rosie
Hi Rosie,
I meant the ground current loops that might be flowing between your equipment, that is your scope
and your function generator.
These could induce also currents inside your circuit.
If you ever have seen the trouble musicians go through, when they have a live
Gig and all the amplifiers have a huge hum due to ground current loops
you will know, what I am speaking of.
The same can be true in your several equipment all grounded maybe to different
grid plugs getting ground current loops into your circuit.
Thus it is a must to measure this all floating from earth ground and
disconnect the earth ground from your scope ground and function generator
ground and tie together the scope and function generator ground at the same
location in your circuit.
I hope it gets clearer now.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.21, 06:31:28
Can you try and explain that in more detail because it's not clear to me. What's "the feedback?" Ideally you could annotate the latest schematic and show what modifications you made. Alternatively call the coil connected to the transistor base L1 and the coil connected to the transistor collector L2 and the coil connected to the extra secondary pick-up winding L3. With those references and the latest schematic can you describe what you are doing? (If somebody could annotate the schematic with full component designations it would be appreciated)
With the Joule Thief when the transistor switches on and starts to energize L2, the transformer coupling back to L1 causes L1 to generate potential to switch the transistor on even harder. That's normally what's considered to be "the feedback." When L2 is fully energized there is no more transformer coupling back to L1, and you assume that the supply battery voltage is croaking at the same time. That causes the transistor to switch off, and that creates feedback to L1 to switch the transistor off even harder. Then the battery voltage comes back and starts to switch on the transistor through L1 and the whole process starts all over again.
Whatever you did, there must be a similar explanation as to why the circuit is oscillating.
MileHigh
Yes, I see L1, L2, L3 as you described. The feedback I was refering to is L1 . Your explaination is pretty much the same as wiki and almost completely described what the JT is doing. The part I was skeptical about is that Wiki said the reason the transistor initially switches off because it does not have enough voltage
from the battery to forward bias the base-emitter. This can't be the reason because I know a lot of circuit just need a jump start and it self-oscillate.
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.01.21, 13:43:26
Yes, I see L1, L2, L3 as you described. The feedback I was refering to is L1 . Your explaination is pretty much the same as wiki and almost completely described what the JT is doing. The part I was skeptical about is that Wiki said the reason the transistor initially switches off because it does not have enough voltage from the battery to forward bias the base-emitter. This can't be the reason because I know a lot of circuit just need a jump start and it self-oscillate.
Yes I think that this issue merits some further investigation. Let me suggest three cases worth investigating:
Case 1: Using an old battery with a relatively high output impedance. This is where the Joule Thief shines because it soaks up energy from a nearly dead battery. It will charge up L2 with current flow, and then L2 discharges through one or more LEDs lighting them up. It can light up 50 or more LEDs in series like this. So the question is does the output voltage from the battery dip as we expect? It's highly likely that the answer is yes because of the high output impedance of the battery.
Case 2: Using a fresh alkaline battery with a relatively low output impedance. Assuming that the Joule Thief oscillates, does the battery voltage still dip? If not, what about the potential at the transistor base input? It's possible that the potential induced across L1 itself is enough to cause the transistor to switch off, without pinching off the battery voltage.
Case 3: Using a power supply with a very low output impedance. Here you assume that the transistor cannot pull the power supply voltage low enough to switch off the transistor. Therefore if there is oscillation you assume that the mechanism works like described in Case 2.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.21, 14:29:35
It's possible that the potential induced across L1 itself is enough to cause the transistor to switch off, without pinching off the battery voltage.
MileHigh
Bingo!!! ^-^
For purposes of circuit performance comparison
may I suggest replacing the 1.0 Ohm resistor
(a) with first a 0.10 Ohm for current monitoring,
then,
(b) with a 0.010 Ohm for current monitoring?
The scopes used have sufficiently high gain
to amplify the current waveform with precision.
Do you then observe any differences in the
efficiency, or other operation, of the circuit?
It is very interesting that the "non-ideal" method
of circuit construction seems to produce the most
beneficial result.
Could it be that "standard practices" for EMI/RFI
reduction are counterproductive (for OU considerations?)
Did not Tesla show that Radiant Energy sinks to or absorbs into any metal in the surrounding environment?
Why let it go to waste? A diode becomes just a length of wire.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.21, 19:05:29
It is very interesting that the "non-ideal" method
of circuit construction seems to produce the most
beneficial result.
Could it be that "standard practices" for EMI/RFI
reduction are counterproductive (for OU considerations?)
Putting too low a current sensing resistor means that you have to turn up the gain to amplify the signal, but that also amplifies the noise. There is a law of diminishing returns that eventually kicks in.
A suggestion for PhysicsProf: It appears that you want to investigate how the circuit operates first. There have been many ideas and suggestions for your consideration. Pick a few main lines of investigation that interest you and no more than that. Try to make the investigations relatively short endeavours. Then reconfigure the sample device back to it's original configuration, the one that Lawrence sent to you. Then test it for over unity using whatever strategy or strategies you deem appropriate and share the results. The point is to not loose focus and complete the project within a reasonable amount of time. Try to avoid the too many cooks syndrome. There are no project managers on the over unity forums like there are in the real world and in an ideal forum world there would be.
MileHigh
Quote from: hartiberlin on 2011.01.21, 12:55:12
Hi Rosie,
I meant the ground current loops that might be flowing between your equipment, that is your scope
and your function generator.
These could induce also currents inside your circuit.
If you ever have seen the trouble musicians go through, when they have a live
Gig and all the amplifiers have a huge hum due to ground current loops
you will know, what I am speaking of.
The same can be true in your several equipment all grounded maybe to different
grid plugs getting ground current loops into your circuit.
Thus it is a must to measure this all floating from earth ground and
disconnect the earth ground from your scope ground and function generator
ground and tie together the scope and function generator ground at the same
location in your circuit.
I hope it gets clearer now.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
IMHO ..... you should know there are differences in the type of electrical power supplied from Utilities to consumers around the World ( please find attachments ) which have characteristics and permanent installations that are "NOT" the same and must be treated that way. The only way to elevate any potential "ground loop" problems a Isolated grounding system must me invoked and permanently installed to all applicable electrical codes that may apply, this is the same system all reputable testing laboratories and facility's use to isolate the equipment ground to a clean electrical ground. The use of any equipment that has a grounded power outlet is for equipment and personal life protection and as a professional in the industry for over 30 years I would never recommend not to user this mandatory safety feature delegated from electrical installers, engineers and insurance company's around the globe to "INSURE" proper grounding.
As for Musicians and "ground loop" audio feed back in LIVE presentations 99% of the time are from the XLR 3-wire audio patch cord cables used between mixers, snakes and other audio equipment such as mixers, amplifiers and microphones seen first hand from my volunteer MCTV Staff experience recording several times at the famous Portland, Oregon "Waterfront Blues Festival" years ago ..... stomp and walk on XLR patch cord .... twirl a microphone by the XLR patch cord ...... drop a microphone stand on a patch cord ..... just to name a few things, none that are a permanent wiring system with equipment grounding protections in place.
Regards,
Glen
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.21, 19:58:04
Putting too low a current sensing resistor means that you have to turn up the gain to amplify the signal, but that also amplifies the noise. There is a law of diminishing returns that eventually kicks in.
...
MileHigh
There are cases where that is indeed a possibility.
Generally, reducing the resistance (or impedance)
of the current monitoring component will increase the
signal to noise ratio.
A lower resistance in the series switching circuit will
enable higher peak pulse current during transistor
"on" time. At the low voltage of the circuit a One Ohm
series resistor represents a considerable power loss.
How advantageous a reduced series resistance may
(or may not) be would be revealed by circuit performance.
The reasoning for placing the resistor in the emitter circuit
is understandable; however, the "degenerative feedback"
thus produced may alter switching characteristics (and
overall circuit performance) in some manner.
All means of measuring current in a circuit leg will have some effect on circuit performance. Even shuntless methods such as AC/DC current probes will raise the impedance of the leg where it is placed slightly.
The point being that if the shunt or current probe insertion impedance is small compared to other impedances in the measured leg, then its effects on the circuit will be small as well. If too small a shunt value is used, I agree with MH that the signal will be so small as to get lost in the noise.
It's a matter of setting the shunt value to a small enough value to where it won't have more than a percent or two effect on the circuit performance. Trying to make it much bigger or much smaller is asking for trouble either way. So, in a way, I agree with your suggestions about experimenting with the shunt value. But I also agree with MH's points on this matter. Finding the best compromise is the correct "engineering solution".
If the goal is to accurately measure input power to the circuit being tested (as opposed to observing instantaneous currents within the circuit), then I would use the method below. For increased (theoretically perfect) accuracy, one just measures the voltage on C lowZ, which is the actual DC voltage going to the circuit. This compensates for the slight loss of battery voltage in the shunt.
It seems like no one wants to directly measure the integrated DC input power but rather use a high-speed DSO and expensive probes to see the instantaneous currents and then try to multiply them with the battery voltage. This approach, to me, is a whole lot of extra work annd is fraught with potential errors due to scope probing and math problems. The method also eliminates the effects of battery impedance at high frequencies.
Just my two cents again O0
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.21, 23:37:09
If the goal is to accurately measure input power to the circuit being tested (as opposed to observing instantaneous currents within the circuit), then I would use the method below. For increased (theoretically perfect) accuracy, one just measures the voltage on C lowZ, which is the actual DC voltage going to the circuit. This compensates for the slight loss of battery voltage in the shunt.
It seems like no one wants to directly measure the integrated DC input power but rather use a high-speed DSO and expensive probes to see the instantaneous currents and then try to multiply them with the battery voltage. This approach, to me, is a whole lot of extra work annd is fraught with potential errors due to scope probing and math problems. The method also eliminates the effects of battery impedance at high frequencies.
Just my two cents again O0
This is an excellent suggestion, and is a variation of what ION showed the other day. O0
Check your polarity of the averaging cap though, it is reversed.
.99
btw, I was hung out to dry by suggesting a similar method a year or so ago. Folks just won't believe that a simple DMM can provide an accurate DC average for AC signals. I proved it and showed it in 3 videos. The fact is, that it does a better job at averaging, then the scope could ever do.
Perhaps you've not seen the videos?
.99
Humbugger:
I agree and that's a pretty nifty setup you have there for doing the filtering and measuring. What makes sense to me is some form of low-pass filtering on the supply side to the DUT. You really don't need anything too fancy there. "Not too fancy" is not synonymous with inaccurate either. The one caveat about the Joule Thief is that it may need a measurable output impedance from the source to support the oscillator, so you may need to add a series resistor. You can't easily account for the power lost in that resistor but if you are allegedly in COP > 2 territory who really cares.
I think that there is an irrational "fear" about implementing an analog low-pass filtering measuring system for powering the DUT. It is almost never done on the forums, almost like it is too "radical" a concept and there is a suspicion that it will "disturb" the "secret sauce." I have made hundreds of suggestions like that until I was blue in the face and they almost never have been tried out. That's somewhat ironic considering the people around here are supposed to be radical "outside of the box" free thinkers. Needless to say we know one proponent of free energy that's convinced any type of low-pass filtering and measuring system will "ruin the oscillations."
On the separate secondary pick-up coil using the DSO measurement system makes perfect sense. Or doing the measurements thermally is also very good. If you make separate measurements with the two different systems and they correlate then it's excellent.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.22, 00:47:42
This is an excellent suggestion, and is a variation of what ION showed the other day. O0
Check your polarity of the averaging cap though, it is reversed.
.99
I don't think so. Think about it: the minus side of the battery will be at a lower voltage than ground. Only if net current were being pumped into the battery would my cap be upside down. ??? Same thing I've been showing all along over in my Power Measurement thread.
Am I wrong? Only for Rose's circuit, which puts a net charge into the battery while heating the load would the cap need reversing. C.C
Same basic circuit (minus details) just drawn differently:
Poynt gets some inverse Brownie Points! ;D
It does seem backward at first glance. I had to ponder it a minute myself! It's easier to see if it's drawn with the shunt in line with the load instead of under the battery. Same flow though! O0
After watching Poynt's videos, I'd say he gets a net Big Gold Star (forget the inverse brownie point. it was a spurious transient lost in the noise). ;D
I assume (it wasn't outright stated) that the DMMs were set to DC Volts. They have internal integrator RC filters to limit noise. Correct Poynt?
The big revelation here is that it's easier to fool a fancy scope (and the 784A is a beauty...I've owned several) with its internal math than it is to fool a good old simple RC integrator! Especially with aperiodic or complex spikey waveforms.
You bet, DC Voltage setting.
Regarding that cap polarity...voltage drops are the same, so + to - in the battery, and + to - across the CSR. Therefore, the cap polarity is inverted.
;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.22, 02:18:35
You bet, DC Voltage setting.
Regarding that cap polarity...voltage drops are the same, so + to - in the battery, and + to - across the CSR. Therefore, the cap polarity is inverted.
;)
.99
Do you insist? Look carefully at the diagrams. The bottom two are identical except for how they are drawn. Are you hell-bent on getting that inverse brownie point? :D
You are correct humbugger. ;D
Apparently my mind was stuck on something else. C.C
.99
I trust I'm allowed to make the odd silly mistake ? 8)
Sorry for making you do all those diagrams, it's appreciated :)
I do like that input power measurement method though, but as MH mentioned, it's hard to convince even the so-called experts that it works well, or even at all!
.99
You are allowed as many tiny nit-picking mistakes as you may make, sire! As long as I'm allowed the tenacity to convince you of your error no matter what it takes. :)
This was in the category of an optical illusion, basically.
Here's hoping you'll be there to correct me when I fail to see the finer points! I truly enjoyed the calm, straightforward professionalism in your videos there. Your methods, lab gear and bench practices appear to be immaculate as are your presentation skills.
humbugger,
I appreciate both your tenacity and the compliments, thanks.
An illusion indeed! "ok now, free your mind, ...free your mind!" 8)
.99
By the way, Poynt, we (apparently all males, but she specifically mentions you and I and MileHigh) have been publicly accused of being ignorant sexist chauvinist pigs today in Rosemary Ainslee's blog here:
http://www.newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/ (http://www.newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/)
"Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement."
She is saying that I am Tinsel Koala and he is me, which is true only in her paranoid imagination. Quite laughable if it were not so sad.
These accusations are unfounded and slanderous to us as people and to this forum. I consider these irresponsible statements to be quite offensive. She is trying to come off as a martyr to the "old boys club", it seems. I guess it's easier for her to do this than to work on her "invention" or learn at least the proper semantics for technical discussions (if not the physics and electronics).
This is not a "call for banning" on my part; only a heads up in case you were unaware that she tippy-toes away from here and splatters falsehoods and ugly reports about members here on her public blog.
Yesterday, 1-21-11, my friend at the university and I put in a couple of hours doing measurements/tests of Lawrence Tseung's device, using Prototype A which he sent me.
Our principal measurement tool was a Tektronix 3032B scope, 300 MHz.
The university is approx 70 miles from my home (we have moved since I taught and did research there), and the scope is his -- so I cannot easily do the tests I'm sure you will request... I can do a more tests over time, yes -- but if you want certain tests done, I might suggest you get started on your own DUT!
The set-up has been shown previously -- here I display a photo with labels provided by Lawrence for convenience in the discussion.
During data taking on 1-21-11, we removed the 10 ohm resistor much of the time, using only the 100 ohm resistor. And then at times, for another measure, we replaced this 100 ohm resistor with a 1 ohm resistor (so that the voltage drop across the one ohm gives the current directly). I will let you know which output resistor is being used.
We used the math function on the Tek 3032 to calculate power, following the instructions from the manual as recommended by .99 -- see the manual page below.
In the waveforms which will be shown, channel 1 will be Voltage In (i.e., across the 1.5V AA battery, points 1 and 2) OR -- when we move the 2 probes to the output circuit -- Voltage Out (taken between points labeled a and b). Input current is measured by measuring the voltage drop across the input 1 ohm resistor, points 2 and 3.
Output current is measured across the output resistor (connected in series to the output LED), points b and c -- note again that we just used one output resistor at a time, not two as shown in the photo.
Quoteignorant sexist chauvinist pigs
humbugger,
I was made aware of her latest entry, but thanks again for the headsup. She didn't quite use all those adjectives, but the message is basically the same, I agree.
I am not too concerned about her rant at this point, as it's quite tame relative to the formidable wrath of Rose that she is capable of unleashing. And she is entitled to her opinion, even though it is borne of frustration.
She claims to have "deregistered" herself, but it's not so.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.22, 14:44:48
We used the math function on the Tek 3032 to calculate power, following the instructions from the manual as recommended by .99 -- see the manual page below.
In the waveforms which will be shown, channel 1 will be Voltage In (i.e., across the 1.5V AA battery, points 1 and 2) OR -- when we move the 2 probes to the output circuit -- Voltage Out (taken between points labeled a and b). Input current is measured by measuring the voltage drop across the input 1 ohm resistor, points 2 and 3.
Output current is measured across the output resistor (connected in series to the output LED), points b and c -- note again that we just used one output resistor at a time, not two as shown in the photo.
Professor,
This may seem illogical, but I can assure you that it could have a significant effect on your measurements.
Rather than measure the battery voltage at points 1 and 2, please solder (if possible) a 1 inch (or less) wire to the battery holder terminals directly and use those for the scope connections instead. This is called a "Kelvin" measurement method, and mitigates the effect of high transient currents flowing through the measurement wire. What we aim to measure is the battery voltage directly, not the battery voltage on the other side of a current-carrying inductance.
Make sense?
.99
I make note of your suggestions, .99 -- makes sense.
My post with 3 attachments appears to have been lost. It took me about 45 minutes to assemble this post, and I am not inclined to waste time. Can you recover my post, .99? The problem evidently occurred when other posts came in while I was trying to post my post with 3 attachments... It starts thus:
Preliminary Results -- Tek3032 waveforms for 1.5V AA battery as power source, and 1-ohm resistor as the output resistor.
I cannot recover the lost text, and I have an appointment in 35 minutes. No time to re-do all that text.
I will provide the text (which walks you through the Tek 3032 outputs) later... irritating to lose the text when other posts came in and the system declined my post... At least the 3 attachments were posted... have fun. I'll be back in about 3 hours.
Some of you will be able to figure out the waveforms and the printed RMS values on the scope, without my walking you through it. I also provided CAVEATS regarding these data -- and I have more data to show later that make me question a naive COP > 1... not sure at this point!!
I compared the (Vrms X Irms), i.e., Lawrence's suggestion when the scopes lack the fancy-math multiply feature -- with the (V X I)rms calculated by the Tek3032 -- and the results you can read off the screen-captures are:
input: 4.27 mW versus 4.39 mW
output: 6.05 mW versus 6.48 mW.
I conclude that the "FLEET Index" method (Vrms X Irms) of Lawrence may provide a reasonable approximation to permit comparisons between DUT's (not as final results).
Gotta run.
Professor,
I have no explanation for your post getting "lost". That has never happened to me, and no one else has ever reported this happening that I am aware of.
Peter, do you have any suggestions? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the host server was too busy just as you sent the post, and it could not connect to the database.
If it was lost, it is probably gone for good. Apologies. I would suggest for the future, that you do a ctrl-c ("copy" for MAC users) of your text before you hit the post button. That way if something goes wrong, you simply reply again and ctrl-v ("paste" for MAC users) your text back in. This is an especially good practice when making long posts.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.22, 15:21:49
I make note of your suggestions, .99 -- makes sense.
My post with 3 attachments appears to have been lost. It took me about 45 minutes to assemble this post, and I am not inclined to waste time. Can you recover my post, .99? The problem evidently occurred when other posts came in while I was trying to post my post with 3 attachments... It starts thus:
Preliminary Results -- Tek3032 waveforms for 1.5V AA battery as power source, and 1-ohm resistor as the output resistor.
Dear PhysicsProf,
Thank you so much for the post with the 3 screen shots. Prototype A is one with relatively low Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. It appears that the resultant Output Power over Input Power ratio is greater than 1 with the Tek 3032 DSO.
The apparent COP is 1.48 (6.486/4.388).The Tseung FLEET Comparison Index I normally use would yield:
3.33 (Vpp*I pp out divided by Vpp * Ipp in with a 10 ohm resistor on the out)
See the original post on
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg267627#msg267627
We shall have much discussion with the apparent COP = 1.48 value.
I shall start posting the screen shots of the various prototypes with much higher Tseung FLEET Comparison Index. If the shots by PhysicsProf are acceptable, I shall ask the Hong Kong and China teams to post something similar. I shall try to do the same myself in Irvine.
As the PhysicsProf said, "You can try it yourself." Do not wait for a retired old man to beg his friends to do a favor.@PhysicsProf, I usually do my typing in Word and then paste for posting. I experienced your same happening once in the overunity.com forum when I stupidly typed a long post. I never did that again.
May God guide us all. Amen.
Professor,
May I suggest that you take the battery voltage measurement as I previously described.
And may I suggest that you not apply any math at all to the voltage and current traces before applying a math function to multiply them together.
To do it properly, take the voltage and current measurements and leave them in their "native" form. Apply a math function to multiply the two channels together to get instantaneous power. Then use the "mean" function (as I described before and referenced in the manual) to average the resulting power trace. Note what the final value is and perform the same measurement on the output.
Then compare these two numbers.
Multiplying Vrms x Irms is most likely providing misleading data. Do you understand why that is?
.99
Lawrence,
Your post above is noted, however as I mentioned above, the numbers produced by the professor's measurements are most likely misleading and should not carry much weight. The method is flawed, as I have pointed out a number of times.
I am trying to encourage the professor to make the measurements properly. Using RMS functions totally precludes the possibility of obtaining correct results with this circuit.
I would insist that anyone serious about making proper measurements (including your China team), perform the measurements as I just outlined above. Any use of math functions applied before the channel multiplication, is to be considered unscientific.
.99
Just a few preliminary comments on the traces themselves. There is a lot of noise across the current sensing resistors. I really can't be sure where it is coming from. Note of course that resistors themselves actually generate noise, but I doubt that it is at the levels seen in the graphs. Note also that the scope's vertical gain is very high, and that means that noise inherent in the circuitry of the scope itself is being amplified. As a general comment, the lower the amplification of anything, the better off you are.
So when the noisy current sensing signal gets multiplied by the voltage waveform, you get the red trace as the resultant. It's important to state that the displayed red trace does not even resemble the actual real-world red trace. That's because it gets washed through the display filter/algorithm for the scope itself, which tries desperately to fit the waveform onto the appropriate display pixel on the LCD screen. When the bandwidth in the waveform is much higher than the number of horizontal pixels on the display, and you are dealing with a signal that has random noise in it, all hell breaks loose and the algorithm has a really hard time deciding what to display.
The noise in the current sensing resistor waveform needs to be filtered out. There is a decent chance that the scope can do it itself if it has built-in signal processing functions. Alternatively, this is a job for a good old-fashioned operational amplifier. The op-amp can take a nice differential input across the current sensing resistor and generate a nice clean output waveform provided you implement the right low-pass filter and build it properly. That would take some effort.
I will defer to Poynt and Ion and Humbugger and others here for their expertise on what to really do. Here is where I feel the limitations of being in my armchair. If I was on the bench the first thing I would have done would have been to solder a small 0.1 uF ceramic cap across the current sensing resistor(s) just to see what that would have done to the noise. I would also have checked the scope itself, and shorted the probe leads together to see how much noise is displayed when the scope's vertical gain is set very high.
MileHigh
@PhysicsProf
In all forums, while you are opening a post window and preparing your post, others may have posted some posts. So when you click to post yours, the software will come back saying something like "others have posted while you are posting". Just ignore it and click again on the post button.
Most of my posts are prepared in Ulraedit then copied and pasted on the post window. This enables me to keep a copy of my posts.
@ltseung888
This has nothing to do with your device but simply a recommendation when you are referring wishes to your GOD.
Such as;
"May God guide us all. Amen."
You have to be very very very careful on how you formulate such statements because they do have power but people do not know how to use that power. In essence, your use of the word "May" is the worst word to use in such cases.
When you say May God Guide Us, you are in fact saying "right now God is not guiding us but hopefully in the future he will".
What God does in such cases is simply keeps you in the same state you are asking him. You are asking him to keep you in a stake of "wishing he will guide you". Very bad for you and very very bad for others for whom you are wishing this also.
Instead, always say such things with the perspective that you already have it in hand, you already live it, you already experience it. Instead of May God Guide Us, it is better to say "God is guiding us". That removes all chances for misinterpretation because he will really really do what you literally say and keep you in that state.
So you have a choice. Do you want to be kept in a state of wishing he guides you or do you want him to keep guiding you.
Don't ever wish anything. Always state it like it is already in hand, already materialized.
When I do this I have a special method and always the same way.
Example;
Thank you all powerful for the great life you give me filled with love, success and happiness, all in a just and perfect manner".
You always finish with "in a just and perfect manner". This is your insurance coverage. If you simply thank him for your new heart transplant, he will give it to you, but it could be the heart of your son. Saying in a just and perfect manner makes the heart come to you from an honorable method that will not hurt anyone.
Playing with such statements is like playing with slow acting dynamite. You always have to make sure it explodes in the right way.
Off topic, but if you are going to make such statements in the future using the word "us", meaning everyone here, I think you should use the proper method.
All the best.
wattsup
PS: When you understand the above, you quickly realize why your should never say the standard prayers that are designed to keep you in the same state you are in. Well I am an atheist that recognizes only the power of the all mighty and not in the pseudo power of all religions. But I respect them all for what they are.
MH, et al:
Yes, the vertical gain is set to 10mV/DIV.
The cap shunting the CSR is not going to help this, because the resistor is not the source of the "noise". It is the scope. The "hair" seen on digital scope traces is due to sampling limits, and is inherent in every digital scope.
Even an analog scope will begin to show noise at this setting, but let's be real for a moment here folks, digital scopes as far as I am concerned, are still in their "infant" stage, and albeit they are extremely useful, they are basically 'crap' when it comes to making low level measurements, and measurements of signals that posses a high dynamic range.
Remember, they are STILL only 8-bit devices. 8 bits is an absolutely horrible resolution by today's standards, but unfortunately, this is a limit we will have to live with until the physicists and electronics geniuses can figure out how to make affordable high speed 16-bit A/D converters. By high speed, I mean at least 20Gb/s. Today, they simply don't exist.
So, this is one of the artifacts, pitfalls, subtleties, nuances, that one must be aware of when using these scopes. They are great tools, but they have their limits and we must know how to work around them to get useful data from them.
.99
When I was last on the bench the fist generation of "digitally assisted" analog scopes had just come out. They were great analog scopes that had a second electron beam(?) or they were multiplexing the single electron beam to display alphanumeric data on the scope display. There were cursors on the display that you could line up with your waveform to display period or equivalent frequency. There were horizontal cursors that displayed voltage. Awesome!!! If my memory serves me correctly I think they were the first generation of scopes to have built-in 3.5" floppy drives. If the scopes didn't have floppy drives then the latest generation of logic analyzers did. Cutting edge stuff at the time! lol
But back to those late-Eighties "digitally assisted" analog scopes. I loved them, they were really nice!!!
I am surprised that the DSO PhysicsProf is working with has only 8-bit sampling! On the other hand, it's not surprising because I think the scope is about 15 years old. 10-bit gives me a better feeling and 12-bit would be awesome!
Nonetheless, the scope should be able to do the job but like Poynt said it does require that you understand how to use your instrument properly.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.22, 16:19:48
Professor,
May I suggest that you take the battery voltage measurement as I previously described.
And may I suggest that you not apply any math at all to the voltage and current traces before applying a math function to multiply them together.
To do it properly, take the voltage and current measurements and leave them in their "native" form. Apply a math function to multiply the two channels together to get instantaneous power. Then use the "mean" function (as I described before and referenced in the manual) to average the resulting power trace. Note what the final value is and perform the same measurement on the output.
Then compare these two numbers.
Multiplying Vrms x Irms is most likely providing misleading data. Do you understand why that is?
.99
Dear poynt99,
Are you sure that the PhysicsProf did the math function to voltage and current traces incorrectly?
If I use the figures as shown on the scope:
Input
Ch1 rms = 1.52V
Ch2 rms = 2.81mV
The product would be = 4.2712mVV and not 4.388mVV as shown on the screen.
Output
Ch1 rms = 2.91V
Ch2 rms = 2.08mV
The product would be = 6.0528mVV and not 6.486mVV as shown on the screen.
It is getting exciting.
Lawrence
The DPO3032 is an 8-bit scope.
It has an 11-bit mode using "Hi-Res", but this is only a processing trick to make it appear to have a better vertical resolution.
btw, please use the full model name when mentioning the Tektronix scopes. They use DPO, MSO and TDS as prefixes, so it can be any one of them, and they are different. The suffix can be A, B, C, or D, but they are not quite as important to note.
The Professor uses a DPO3032, and there is no such model as a "Tek3032".
I doubt the DPO3032 model is much older than a few years. Maybe you were looking at the "TDS3032" ?
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.22, 18:12:59
Dear poynt99,
Are you sure that the PhysicsProf did the math function to voltage and current traces incorrectly?
If I use the figures as shown on the scope:
Input
Ch1 rms = 1.52V
Ch2 rms = 2.81mV
The product would be = 4.2712mVV and not 4.388mVV as shown on the screen.
Output
Ch1 rms = 2.91V
Ch2 rms = 2.08mV
The product would be = 6.0528mVV and not 6.486mVV as shown on the screen.
It is getting exciting.
Lawrence
Looking at it again, I jumped the gun a little in saying the math should not be applied to the voltage and current wave forms, it does not matter because I remember now that this only computes and displays the RMS on the wave form, it does not change the wave form. The two channels are still being multiplied in their raw format. The resulting red wave form then is indeed the instantaneous power, but using the RMS computation on this is incorrect. The "MEAN" computation is the one that should be used. Alternatively, an "averaging" function can be applied to the actual wave form, which in theory should provide the same result. Let's keep it simple for now though and just try the "MEAN" computation.
Is this relatively clear?
.99
What we require is the average of the instantaneous power, not the RMS.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.22, 18:45:11
What we require is the average of the instantaneous power, not the RMS.
.99
Returned -- Thanks for the comments. Won't loose another long post, I think. Seems you fellows are reading the screen-print-out just fine, without my having to walk you through it.
The scope is: Tektronix TDS3032B 300 MHz 2 Channel Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope.
.99 -- would you kindly save me some time in the manual -- how does one get the 3032 to provide the average power, rather than the RMS? I would like to try it (next time at the university).
So let me proceed to the next data set. Realizing that the 1 ohm resistor on the output circuit provided a signal too small for reliability, we replaced it with a 100 ohm resistor. Now we have significant signal above noise, as you will see. Big caveat -- if Lawrence is right about the circuit resonating, then changing the output resistor in this way will also change the performance...
Below are the data, displayed much as i did earlier. Note that to get the output current, one must divide the voltage drop on the 100-ohm resistor by 100, and the power needs to be so divided also.
I should say that John and I felt this was a learning exercise, not a final judgement in any way. Taking "average power" values will have to wait for next time. Meanwhile, perhaps we can learn something from the waveforms -- and more tests from yesterday will follow.
Professor,
I stand corrected, TDS3032 it is. Not sure where I got that it was the DPO3032.
Anyway, here is the manual for the TDS3032B (http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/tektronix/TDS3000B_UserManual.pdf).
I'll look into it and let you know what page to see. Essentially, it will be available through the same menu you accessed to get the RMS computation. Simply select "MEAN" rather than "RMS".
.99
This TDS3032B manual is not as good as the one for the DPO3032, unfortunately.
However, if you go to page 3-45, you will see the listing for the "Mean" computation. As I mentioned, choose this the same way you chose RMS. It's just a simple change.
.99
Thanks, .99 -- I appreciate your finding out these things. It's really fun for me learning/reviewing all these things.
OK -- our next test, now that we have a decent signal-above-noise on the 100 ohm output resistor, was to drop cut the input voltage by half. (No other changes to the circuit.) Just wanted to see what would happen. Here we went to a power supply, set at 0.754 volts DC (as read by an external multimeter, agrees with the Vrms value, see data below).
We also decided to take the RMS values over one second -- this cuts the jitter way down. You can also see some interesting variations in both the input and output voltages at the longer time scale -- I provide the observed data below.
Now here's the question -- the input LED is noticeably dimmer with 0.75V in, but the output LED remains VERY bright. Now, the input power RMS according to the scope analysis is 160 micro-watts... that's 0.16 mW. And the current in the output circuit determined by the output resistor (100 ohms) is something like
1.33mV/100ohms =13.3 microamps, which is not much at all for lighting the LED.
Now that bright output LED is running at less than 2.3 volts (2.3 V rms across the output including LED and 100-ohm R) with a current of about 13 MICROamps. How in the world does it light up so brightly??
OK -- I realize that the LED is blinking at about 100 Hz -- and that there are voltage spikes that will get the LED to light up, but BRIGHTLy at this low current and power? How is that done?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.22, 19:44:03
Thanks, .99 -- I appreciate your finding out these things. It's really fun for me learning/reviewing all these things.
OK -- our next test, now that we have a decent signal-above-noise on the 100 ohm output resistor, was to drop cut the input voltage by half. (No other changes to the circuit.) Just wanted to see what would happen. Here we went to a power supply, set at 0.754 volts DC (as read by an external multimeter, agrees with the Vrms value, see data below).
We also decided to take the RMS values over one second -- this cuts the jitter way down. You can also see some interesting variations in both the input and output voltages at the longer time scale -- I provide the observed data below.
Now here's the question -- the input LED is noticeably dimmer with 0.75V in, but the output LED remains VERY bright. Now, the input power RMS according to the scope analysis is 160 micro-watts... that's 0.16 mW. And the current in the output circuit determined by the output resistor (100 ohms) is something like
1.33mV/100ohms =13.3 microamps, which is not much at all for lighting the LED.
Now that bright output LED is running at less than 2.3 volts (2.3 V rms across the output including LED and 100-ohm R) with a current of about 13 MICROamps. How in the world does it light up so brightly??
OK -- I realize that the LED is blinking at about 100 Hz -- and that there are voltage spikes that will get the LED to light up, but BRIGHTLy at this low current and power? How is that done?
If I use the rms Power Values (the best we have now until PhysicsProf's next trip), the apparent COP is:
Apparent COP = Output Power/Input Power (rms value)
= 4.687 *1000/160.0
= 29.29375
This is getting even more interesting. I do not think noise is a big factor. The use of mean, average or rms values are unlikely to make a huge difference. This is worthy of further research (and replication). Any one agree?
Thank you for the wonderful job. My dear PhysicsProf.Edit: I have not taken into account the 100 ohm resistor on the output. Should I???
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.01.21, 20:19:55
Hi Stefan,
IMHO ..... you should know there are differences in the type of electrical power supplied from Utilities to consumers around the World ( please find attachments ) which have characteristics and permanent installations that are "NOT" the same and must be treated that way. The only way to elevate any potential "ground loop" problems a Isolated grounding system must me invoked and permanently installed to all applicable electrical codes that may apply, this is the same system all reputable testing laboratories and facility's use to isolate the equipment ground to a clean electrical ground. The use of any equipment that has a grounded power outlet is for equipment and personal life protection and as a professional in the industry for over 30 years I would never recommend not to user this mandatory safety feature delegated from electrical installers, engineers and insurance company's around the globe to "INSURE" proper grounding.
As for Musicians and "ground loop" audio feed back in LIVE presentations 99% of the time are from the XLR 3-wire audio patch cord cables used between mixers, snakes and other audio equipment such as mixers, amplifiers and microphones seen first hand from my volunteer MCTV Staff experience recording several times at the famous Portland, Oregon "Waterfront Blues Festival" years ago ..... stomp and walk on XLR patch cord .... twirl a microphone by the XLR patch cord ...... drop a microphone stand on a patch cord ..... just to name a few things, none that are a permanent wiring system with equipment grounding protections in place.
Regards,
Glen
Hi Glen,
I am commenting only on the measurementdone in the new Rosemary circuit,
that she has already shown me privately , which is not yet public.
So this is offtopic to this Lawrence Tseng topic here, sorry..
Well, I have a Hameg 312 scope and that is also grounded and there is
a connection between the scope ground and the case and the earth ground
of the grid plug.
I measured 2 years ago the voltage of a cap bank of 10 x 100 nF ceramic caps in parallel,
so it was basically a 1 uF ceramic cap and wondered,
why the capbank always charged up on the scope.
It was only, because the scope connected to the capbank was earth grounded via the scopehead.
So you see, this is just one problem.
If you additionally use another earth grounded function generator that
might also be connected to a different plug in the room,
you will get all kinds of measurement problems and probably groundloop current problems.
The only thing what the earth ground connection is good for is for security.
But if you had made sure that all the internal connections of the scope
are okay, you can surely disconnect the earth ground for just a measurement.
So it is much better to use battery operated measurement scopes and function
generators in this area, so you will not have these earthground current looping problems.
Regards, Stefan.
Hello Stefan,
Remember me? How have you been? I have two comments on your post above.
1) What would be the problem if all the bench gear was plugged into a common outlet striip on the bench? With critical items plugged into adjacent outlets.
2) Are measurements made by OU folks really that special? How in the world could all the rest of the world manage to do just fine with our AC-powered bench equipment? If AC line connected test equipment was as problem-plagued by "ground loops" as you say, wouldn't all test gear have been battery-powered by now?
I am not saying that problems cannot arise; just that there are usually other, better solutions than cutting off the thrid prong ground in the great majority of cases.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers!
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.22, 10:50:06
By the way, Poynt, we (apparently all males, but she specifically mentions you and I and MileHigh) have been publicly accused of being ignorant sexist chauvinist pigs today in Rosemary Ainslee's blog here:
http://www.newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/ (http://www.newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/)
"Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement."
She is saying that I am Tinsel Koala and he is me, which is true only in her paranoid imagination. Quite laughable if it were not so sad.
These accusations are unfounded and slanderous to us as people and to this forum. I consider these irresponsible statements to be quite offensive. She is trying to come off as a martyr to the "old boys club", it seems. I guess it's easier for her to do this than to work on her "invention" or learn at least the proper semantics for technical discussions (if not the physics and electronics).
This is not a "call for banning" on my part; only a heads up in case you were unaware that she tippy-toes away from here and splatters falsehoods and ugly reports about members here on her public blog.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.22, 14:49:24
humbugger,
I was made aware of her latest entry, but thanks again for the headsup. She didn't quite use all those adjectives, but the message is basically the same, I agree.
I am not too concerned about her rant at this point, as it's quite tame relative to the formidable wrath of Rose that she is capable of unleashing. And she is entitled to her opinion, even though it is borne of frustration.
She claims to have "deregistered" herself, but it's not so.
.99
Is this sort of "DRAMA" truly necessary (or even desirable)
within a forum principally composed of MEN?
That Women can be challenging (even threatening) to the Male
comfort zone level is ancient history.
Sometimes MEN are guilty of saying too much. Especially the
new phenomenon "Forum Man."
Too Much DRAMA.
I agree. My post should have been sent via PM rather than posted here.
But to claim all men and especially "Forum men" (whatever that is) are threatened by the female species is too vast a generalization for me. My remarks to Rosemary and comments about measuring her circuit would have been exactly the same were she a male.
Humbugger
Quote from: hartiberlin on 2011.01.22, 20:48:33
Hi Glen,
I am commenting only on the measurementdone in the new Rosemary circuit,
that she has already shown me privately , which is not yet public.
So this is offtopic to this Lawrence Tseng topic here, sorry..
Well, I have a Hameg 312 scope and that is also grounded and there is
a connection between the scope ground and the case and the earth ground
of the grid plug.
I measured 2 years ago the voltage of a cap bank of 10 x 100 nF ceramic caps in parallel,
so it was basically a 1 uF ceramic cap and wondered,
why the capbank always charged up on the scope.
It was only, because the scope connected to the capbank was earth grounded via the scopehead.
So you see, this is just one problem.
If you additionally use another earth grounded function generator that
might also be connected to a different plug in the room,
you will get all kinds of measurement problems and probably groundloop current problems.
The only thing what the earth ground connection is good for is for security.
But if you had made sure that all the internal connections of the scope
are okay, you can surely disconnect the earth ground for just a measurement.
So it is much better to use battery operated measurement scopes and function
generators in this area, so you will not have these earthground current looping problems.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan,
Yes your correct that sometimes battery powered electronic measurement devices have there places of use and most of us don't have access to such equipment ... but there is alternative device that can be used for short durations of circuit measurements that give some types of electrical protections.
I use a Uninterruptible Power Supply or "UPS" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply ) one sized with large enough back up batteries for all the electronic measurement devices plus any external power supplies needed plugged into it, using a plug strip for enough outlets for
everything being used if required. I just disconnect the "UPS" from the incoming utility power to quickly take any measurements keeping all the testing equipment grounded on the same ground plane and powered by the "UPS" batteries, this effectively removes all connections to a earth ground and utility power stray voltages or harmonics although extreme care should be taken a electrical short circuit is still a electrical short circuit.
Regards,
Glen
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2011.01.22, 21:52:13
Hi Stefan,
Yes your correct that sometimes battery powered electronic measurement devices have there places of use and most of us don't have access to such equipment ... but there is alternative device that can be used for short durations of circuit measurements that give some types of electrical protections.
I use a Uninterruptible Power Supply or "UPS" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply ) one sized with large enough back up batteries for all the electronic measurement devices plus any external power supplies needed plugged into it, using a plug strip for enough outlets for everything being used if required. I just disconnect the "UPS" from the incoming utility power to quickly take any measurements keeping all the testing equipment grounded on the same ground plane and powered by the "UPS" batteries, this effectively removes all connections to a earth ground and utility power stray voltages or harmonics although extreme care should be taken a electrical short circuit is still a electrical short circuit.
Regards,
Glen
Yes, this makes sense, but you have to watch out that you also don´t have any ground loops
inside this setup.
Just one meter with double grounding can generate a ground loop current in special cases...
So better just disconnect the earth ground from all your measurement euipment
and put and tie all groundcables from your scopeheads just to one place in your circuit.
I am not sure , if that is why Rose might have these mysterious bursts at her heating load resistor,
because maybe the transistor goes into oscillation due to induced ground currents.
You really have to take care how you do the measurements and how you set it all up.
Regards, Stefan.
Pre-empting the possible criticisms
Some of the criticisms will include:
1. The rms value of the Instantaneous Power Curve was used as pointed by poynt99.
2. Only 1 oscilloscope was used. The configurations at the two separate measurements may not be identical.
3. The voltage and current values are too small.
4. The grounding may cause problems.
5. The apparent COP value varies with Input Power and could drop below 1.
These above issues will be resolved in the coming weeks.
The most important outcome is that of the first 3 screen captures. The apparent COP was greater than 1 when the resistor value was both 1 ohm at the Input and Output. Better prototypes, two better DSOs and a video showing effect of modifying connections and power input will be shown.
God is performing a Miracle in front of our eyes. He is showing us how to use the existing, almost inexhaustible, non-polluting energy that is surrounding us. Amen.
@Lawrence -- yes, one must utilize that a 100 ohm resistor was used in the output circuit for the 2nd and 3rd test series.
I will be working on trying to build a higher-output DUT; but if you have another prototype, I would be glad to test it! So far, prototype A is our best DUT...
@all:
No answer as to how the output LED an be so bright... I don't have a solution either. The question stands:
QuotePhysicsProf: Now here's the question -- the input LED is noticeably dimmer with 0.75V in, but the output LED remains VERY bright. Now, the input power RMS according to the scope analysis is 160 micro-watts... that's 0.16 mW. And the current in the output circuit determined by the output resistor (100 ohms) is something like
1.33mV/100ohms =13.3 microamps, which is not much at all for lighting the LED.
Now that bright output LED is running at less than 2.3 volts (2.3 V rms across the output including LED and 100-ohm R) with a current of about 13 MICROamps. How in the world does it light up so brightly??
[/b]
My colleague John at the University has a PhD and a great deal of electronics experience -- and he was puzzled by the brightness of the output LED given the input power -- and the output power. So he hooked up a light detector to get a quick look at the LED signal -- on channel 2 (so ignore the power calculation in the attachments below). The first is with the white LED provided by Lawrence. We noted that this has a phosphor which extends the light output, so we replaced this with a fast-response red LED, and obtained the second plot. With the red LED, it is clear that the light output is in synch with the jump in output voltage -- no surprise there.
Then back to the white LED, but with the red LED in parallel -- but with reversed direction. Guess what, BOTH white and red light up in this case! the RED faintly... but shows that there is a back EMF in the output circuit to light the reversed red LED.... More fun.
Still the mystery remains, how the white LED can glow so brightly under these conditions, such low power input.
PhysicsProf:
QuotePhysicsProf: Now here's the question -- the input LED is noticeably dimmer with 0.75V in, but the output LED remains VERY bright. Now, the input power RMS according to the scope analysis is 160 micro-watts... that's 0.16 mW. And the current in the output circuit determined by the output resistor (100 ohms) is something like
1.33mV/100ohms =13.3 microamps, which is not much at all for lighting the LED.
Now that bright output LED is running at less than 2.3 volts (2.3 V rms across the output including LED and 100-ohm R) with a current of about 13 MICROamps. How in the world does it light up so brightly??
I am assuming that we are still working with the Poynt99 schematic. Let's also assume that the output LED lights up the moment the transistor switches off. The instant before the transistor switches off there is magnetic energy stored in the ferrite toroid that was put there by L2 which got the energy from the power supply. So the discharge of this stored energy has nothing to do with the power supply voltage. Naturally the power supply voltage affects the absolute amount of energy that can be stored in the ferrite core but that's all that it can do.
So when the transistor switches off that stored energy can go through the input LED and one-ohm resistor, or it can go through the output LED and resistors via the secondary pick-up coil. It just so happens that the secondary path through the output LED and resistors has the lower impedance so most of the energy is discharged through that path and therefore the output LED glows brightly. This would all have to be confirmed on the bench.
QuoteThen back to the white LED, but with the red LED in parallel -- but with reversed direction. Guess what, BOTH white and red light up in this case! the RED faintly... but shows that there is a back EMF in the output circuit to light the reversed red LED.... More fun.
You are still talking about the secondary winding here so there is no back-EMF. Both LEDs light up because there is an AC voltage on the secondary winding.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.22, 19:44:03
OK -- I realize that the LED is blinking at about 100 Hz -- and that there are voltage spikes that will get the LED to light up, but BRIGHTLy at this low current and power? How is that done?
I think the brightness is proportional to voltage(spikes) squared (I just pull this one out of the vaccum, can't back it up :( )
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.22, 22:34:31
Pre-empting the possible criticisms
The most important outcome is that of the first 3 screen captures. The apparent COP was greater than 1 when the resistor value was both 1 ohm at the Input and Output. Better prototypes, two better DSOs and a video showing effect of modifying connections and power input will be shown.
Lawrence,
You have been asked by Poynt99 to not make any references to COP values until some valid test data has been generated. At this point in time as far as I am aware there is no valid test data available.
By the same token, my personal advice to you is to refrain from discussing RMS voltages multiplied by RMS currents. It is truly nonsensical data that would be universally rejected anywhere. I believe that is the basis for your "FLEET index" so my personal advice to you would be to refrain from using that terminology also. These are just my personal opinions, I can't tell you what to do.
With respect to this Joule Thief circuit, you are up against some formidable obstacles to achieving over unity. The source battery puts a measurable amount of energy into the ferrite toroid and then that energy gets discharged through the circuit. There is no explainable mechanism for excess energy to magically appear out of nowhere. Nor is there an explainable mechanism for your circuit to be receiving energy from an "unknown source." This design is essentially a transformer design, and transformers are not over unity devices.
I am just giving you a brief reality check here. At this point in time you have a belief that your Joule Thief circuit produces excess energy but you have no credible evidence to back up your claim. Until there is some credible evidence to do just that, the wisest course of action would be to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.23, 02:15:04
With respect to this Joule Thief circuit, you are up against some formidable obstacles to achieving over unity. The source battery puts a measurable amount of energy into the ferrite toroid and then that energy gets discharged through the circuit. There is no explainable mechanism for excess energy to magically appear out of nowhere. Nor is there an explainable mechanism for your circuit to be receiving energy from an "unknown source." This design is essentially a transformer design, and transformers are not over unity devices.
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
Please study the information from my bench:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=610.msg9586#msg9586
The explainable mechanism is Lead-out or Bring-in Energy Theory. This is not the traditional transformer design. It has elements of resonance pulsing with feedback. The operation is deliberately tuned to near the resonance frequency of a transformer. (Which is a no-no for transformer engineers!!!)
Lawrence:
I will give you the simplest analogy that I can think of for the way the energy flows through your Joule Thief circuit:
The ferrite toroid is like a container that can store magnetic energy. Let's pretend it is a bucket and let's pretend that the "energy" is water.
Here is how your Joule Thief operates:
1. Water is poured into the bucket. (Energy from the battery is transferred into the toroid.)
2. The bucket is then picked up and poured down two drains at the same time. One drain has a small opening and another drain has a big opening so most of the water goes down the big drain. (The small drain is the input LED circuit and the large drain is the output LED circuit.)
3. Go to step #1.
That's the operation of your circuit in very simple energy terms. The most important thing to make the analogy even more accurate is that some of the water gets spilled when you are filling the bucket, and the bucket itself is leaky, and when you empty the bucket some of the water misses the drains. That is to account for the losses in the circuit.
You believe that extra water materializes out of nowhere, so the bench testing has to be done to see if your belief is true or not.
The fact that the circuit has properties of resonance and feedback means nothing. The circuit is not tuned to the self-resonant frequency of the transformer. As a general statement, experiments based around the self-resonant frequency of coils are not any more interesting than regular LC tank circuits because they are both essentially the same thing.
That's it Lawrence, I will not push this issue any further. I am simply hoping that in a reasonable amount of time we get the results of the testing that we all want to see. Good luck to everyone willing to do the testing!
MileHigh
@all
Is there a way to check the diode that is inside that transistor to see if it is still functional. I have noticed on some transistors that at certain pulse frequencies the internal diode can "reverse" its action letting juice feed backwards through the collector/emitter. As if the diode itself was a switch. Since this circuit has so few components, the transistor and its diode may play a more important role then is obvious at this stage. On the other hand if that transistor diode is by any chance shorted out, what would the effect be. A shorting out could occur right after it was built and no one would know about it if it was not checked occasionally to ensure no changes occur during testings.
wattsup
The proposed future tests on FLEET prototypes
1. Two oscilloscopes with the multiple and mean functions.
2. The display should show the Instantaneous Voltage Curve, the Instantaneous Current (voltage across a 0.1, 1, 10 or 100 ohm resistor).
3. The multiply function should be applied on the Instantaneous Voltage and Current before the mean function is applied to their product.
4. There should be three displayed pictures: Input screen shot, Output screen shot and a side-by-side comparison.
5. One or more pictures showing the components of the prototype, the exact measurement points with the necessary labels and explanations.
6. Optionally, a video showing the full sequence from turning on the power (connecting the battery) to the settling down of the screen shots. If possible, show the effect of rearranging the wires, changing the holes on the breadboard, changing Input Power or other actions that may change the pseudo resonance condition.
7. Try to produce and work with prototypes with COP greater than 100 and mean output power greater than 20 watts. The prototypes with a seven inch diameter air toroid and an actual capacitor and a variable resistor on the secondary circuit seemed to do a better job than the one-inch toroid used in Prototype A.
Have I missed anything???
Lawrence
Sounds reasonable Lawrence.
As always, the more detailed information that can be provided about the circuit and how the testing was carried out, the better.
.99
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.01.23, 16:10:52
@all
Is there a way to check the diode that is inside that transistor to see if it is still functional. I have noticed on some transistors that at certain pulse frequencies the internal diode can "reverse" its action letting juice feed backwards through the collector/emitter. As if the diode itself was a switch. Since this circuit has so few components, the transistor and its diode may play a more important role then is obvious at this stage. On the other hand if that transistor diode is by any chance shorted out, what would the effect be. A shorting out could occur right after it was built and no one would know about it if it was not checked occasionally to ensure no changes occur during testings.
wattsup
The only diode I know of in a bipolar junction transistor is the base-emitter junction. If this is open or shorted, the transistor won't work at all. It will be obvious, I would think. MOSFETs can degrade due to small oxide holes (punchthroughs) due to overvoltage on the gate, but regular bipolar junction transistors are pretty much a go/no-go device in my experience.
Humbugger
wattsup may be referring to the MOSFET body diode (actually a transistor), but a MOSFET is not being used in the case for the LT JT.
.99
Have you seen MOSFETs with shorted body diodes that still performed the switching function? I haven't. As I mentioned, the MOSFET gate oxide punchthough is the only mode of degradation I know of in both groups (MOSFET and BJT) that could let the device keep functioning but with degraded performance.
That's what I thought wattsup's concern was...shorted BE juntion "diode" in a BJT going undetected. Not going to happen!.
I am referring to.............
Yep...that's the one! If it is open or shorted, the transistor dies and will not work at all. O0
@wattsup
QuoteIs there a way to check the diode that is inside that transistor to see if it is still functional. I have noticed on some transistors that at certain pulse frequencies the internal diode can "reverse" its action letting juice feed backwards through the collector/emitter. As if the diode itself was a switch. Since this circuit has so few components, the transistor and its diode may play a more important role then is obvious at this stage. On the other hand if that transistor diode is by any chance shorted out, what would the effect be. A shorting out could occur right after it was built and no one would know about it if it was not checked occasionally to ensure no changes occur during testings.
Good question and you seem to be one of the few people here actually asking the right questions versus the many people throwing about opinion as facts. Yes the 2N2222 is in fact the best negative resistance transistor I have found to date and I have used it for years (reverse polarity) in more circuits than I could mention. Unlike a zener diode which is a complete joke in regards to efficiency, the 2N2222 when near the reverse bias threshhold of 9v will conduct while in reverse polarity and when the bias is properly tuned can produce spontaneous oscillations in the Mhz. You can also gang the transistors in series to produce a higher threshhold which will produce the same high frequency oscillations based on the singular 9v theshhold, that is 9v,18v,27v etc... . I was under the impression this was common knowledge, hmmm
Regards
AC
AC: Do they work equally well when the base-emitter junction "diode" is destroyed shorted? Do your neg-resistence circuits short the base-emitter together? You've got me curious now.
Don't you agree that, in Lawrence's JT-type blocking oscillator here (which is what we're talking about) a transistor with a short or open B-E junction will not function in the circuit at all?
Humbugger
I'm aware of this type of "open-base negative resistance oscillator"
http://www.cappels.org/dproj/simplest_LED_flasher/Simplest_LED_Flasher_Circuit.html (http://www.cappels.org/dproj/simplest_LED_flasher/Simplest_LED_Flasher_Circuit.html)
But the Lawrence JT here is not operating anywhere near that mode, is it?
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.23, 16:16:25
The proposed future tests on FLEET prototypes
1. Two oscilloscopes with the multiple and mean functions.
2. The display should show the Instantaneous Voltage Curve, the Instantaneous Current (voltage across a 0.1, 1, 10 or 100 ohm resistor).
3. The multiply function should be applied on the Instantaneous Voltage and Current before the mean function is applied to their product.
4. There should be three displayed pictures: Input screen shot, Output screen shot and a side-by-side comparison.
5. One or more pictures showing the components of the prototype, the exact measurement points with the necessary labels and explanations.
6. Optionally, a video showing the full sequence from turning on the power (connecting the battery) to the settling down of the screen shots. If possible, show the effect of rearranging the wires, changing the holes on the breadboard, changing Input Power or other actions that may change the pseudo resonance condition.
7. Try to produce and work with prototypes with COP greater than 100 and mean output power greater than 20 watts. The prototypes with a seven inch diameter air toroid and an actual capacitor and a variable resistor on the secondary circuit seemed to do a better job than the one-inch toroid used in Prototype A.
Have I missed anything???
Lawrence
Good set of instructions, Lawrence. I did take some photos and video of the set-up with the 3032 scope last Friday, if I can get them off my little camera (can't find the needed cable...)
This would make all measurements much easier, getting the signals large and out of worrisome noise:
QuoteTry to produce and work with prototypes with [FLEET Index] greater than 100 and mean output power greater than 20 watts.
Wow! have you ever seen one that good?
QuoteThe prototypes with a seven inch diameter air toroid and an actual capacitor and a variable resistor on the secondary circuit seemed to do a better job than the one-inch toroid used in Prototype A.[/b]
Can you please indicate where the capacitor and variable resistor go in the output circuit? I assume the LED is kept in?
In one test, i found that using a red LED (throughput at lower voltage) instead of a white one gave a higher comparative Index...
@MileHigh -- you wrote:
QuoteSo the discharge of this stored energy has nothing to do with the power supply voltage. Naturally the power supply voltage affects the absolute amount of energy that can be stored in the ferrite core but that's all that it can do.
The point I was making, I thought I was clear, is that John and I don't understand how the output LED can be so bright when the peak CURRENT flowing through the output circuit is so low, less than about 150 MICRO-amps (if I believe the voltage drop across the 100 ohm resistor). I wasn't arguing that the low voltage of the power supply was the issue directly.
But all this is less important IMO than boosting the output current and power -- anything near 1 watt output power would make measurements easy. And very fun, I might add.
I have purchased a small dual-channel DSO to help me with measurements at home... Should get here in about a week.
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.24, 03:18:56
[snip]
I'm aware of this type of "open-base negative resistance oscillator"
http://www.cappels.org/dproj/simplest_LED_flasher/Simplest_LED_Flasher_Circuit.html (http://www.cappels.org/dproj/simplest_LED_flasher/Simplest_LED_Flasher_Circuit.html)
But the Lawrence JT here is not operating anywhere near that mode, is it?
I would say not -- for one thing, the frequency of the LED-flasher you referenced is roughly 2 Hz, whereas the Tseung-DUT oscillates at about 20K Hz to 750 KHz (on devices we've tested so far).
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
@humbugger
QuoteDon't you agree that, in Lawrence's JT-type blocking oscillator here (which is what we're talking about) a transistor with a short or open B-E junction will not function in the circuit at all?
I believe wattsup was speaking of the 2N2222 C-E, as far as the B-E is concerned a short should stop any action however an open base is another matter which gets more complicated. We should understand that the only requirement for the B-E to turn the transistor on is a potential difference which leads to a small current through the B-E however there is no stipulation as to how this current evolves or where it comes from, we have assumed there is only one way to do it based on popular opinion.
QuoteI'm aware of this type of "open-base negative resistance oscillator"
http://www.cappels.org/dproj/simplest_LED_flasher/Simplest_LED_Flasher_Circuit.html
But the Lawrence JT here is not operating anywhere near that mode, is it?
Yes, I built and tested all those circuits many years ago and use similar concepts in many of my circuits which really confuse many people who have seen my circuit diagrams as to the trained eye they make no sense whatsoever. I have transistors backwards/open base as oscillators in series with a choke and parallel capacitance acting as buck converters, I have "y" configurations dropping voltage in one leg as voltage is raised in another and the inductance of the dropping voltage inducing the rising voltage. We are limited only by our creativity and our ability to evolve a technology to suit our needs, to take that next step nobody has considered. As well I like this technology because it's a SOB, it's hard and it's unpredictable because the bias is never he same. It's like balancing on top of a beach ball on top of another beach ball and when this bias on a razors edge hits that sweet spot the current drops like a rock and efficiency peaks.
Edit: Sorry I did not answer your last question, yes if the reverse polarity C-E bias is correct the oscillations can run into the Mhz which depending on the time frame of any measurement could be considered as noise.
Regards
AC
While working on the Tseung-device and measurement technique improvements, I'm also trying to follow the work on another Joule-Thief-circuit analog, this one called the "Joule Ringer". Now from a Darlington pair to a Darlington trio -- I found this fascinating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDxSxM_8zlQ
First screen shot shows the two circuits Lidmotor has made -- top, JouleRinger with some of the output fed BACK INTO the input-circuit capacitor. He doesn't say how long it runs, however. Cool. Need a schematic! I'd like to build one, take detailed 3032 measurements on this type of device... Lots of builders for the JouleRinger, but haven't seen any high-power DSO measurements on one of these.
Second screen shot shows close-up of a clever Darlington trio. So sensitive, that just TOUCHING his finger to the input wires causes the LED to glow! Wow! (Is there some trick?)
QuoteFirst screen shot shows two circuits Lidmotor has made -- top, JouleRinger with some of the output fed BACK INTO the input-circuit capacitor.
What do you think he's seeking by feeding part of the output back into the input-capacitor? O0 ... Better get on his case, MileHigh! ;)
Dear PhysicsProf:
The Joule Ringer has many experimenters working simultaneously and sharing their findings. The development is likely to be much faster than FLEET.
However, I think you should look at the big overview picture as shown. Once you accept that both FLEET and Joule Ringer have energy coming from the surrounding (what you refer to as unrecognized energy and I call Lead-out/Bring-in energy), you will realize that many devices with Output Power greater than Input Power is possible.
The extra energy comes from the outside.
I believe the development of both devices will eventually lead to the Steven Mark type TPU as seen on youtube. Then the commercial applications will snowball quickly.
http://www.clip4e.com/play_free_energy_and_steven_mark_tpu_demonstration.htm
When you have your new good oscilloscope, you will have much more fun. Lead-out Energy theory will be an accepted science and many textbooks will need to be re-written. You will be one of the pioneers. Welcome to the Group of Early Believers.
True COP > 1 comparison
The following diagram uses the rough Area Comparison method. The Input Power Curve is placed side-by-side with the Output Power Curve. The reference zero (M) line is aligned. The Output Power Curve is stretched 200% to account for the 10mVV scale as compared with the 5mVV on the Input side.
Without doing the actual area under the graph method or the exact integration method, it is obvious that the Area under the Graph at the Output side is much larger than that on the Input side.
Thus we can safely say with absolute confidence that:
According to the waveforms captured by the Tektronic Oscilloscope by PhysicsProf on Jan 22, 2011, the Coefficient of Performance (Output Power/Input Power) on Prototype A is greater than 1.
Poynt99, can I use COP > 1 now???
Lawrence,
Wait for 3 things:
1) Accurate numbers produced by taking the mean average of the wave form
2) Replication of the results by others
3) COP measurements from others using other valid methods
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.24, 18:44:21
True COP > 1 comparison
The following diagram uses the rough Area Comparison method. The Input Power Curve is placed side-by-side with the Output Power Curve. The reference zero (M) line is aligned. The Output Power Curve is stretched 200% to account for the 10mVV scale as compared with the 5mVV on the Input side.
Without doing the actual area under the graph method or the exact integration method, it is obvious that the Area under the Graph at the Output side is much larger than that on the Input side.
Thus we can safely say with absolute confidence that:
According to the waveforms captured by the Tektronic Oscilloscope by PhysicsProf on Jan 22, 2011, the Coefficient of Performance (Output Power/Input Power) on Prototype A is greater than 1.
Poynt99, can I use COP > 1 now???
I agree with you Lawrence. I think the proof is unequivocal. And surely Professor has given us the equivalent of a 'replication'.
I'd like to be the first to congratulate you Lawrence. VERY WELL DONE INDEED.
Rosemary
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.24, 19:33:50
Lawrence,
Wait for 3 things:
1) Accurate numbers produced by taking the mean average of the wave form
2) Replication of the results by others
3) COP measurements from others using other valid methods
.99
We have shown that the DUT is intriguing -- and I agree that kudos are due to Lawrence for that. At the same time, I agree with .99 that the three steps he indicates are needed. I would add that I think it is crucial to have a few of the FLEET devices for testing that have a larger output, above 100 mW if possible, to make the tests easier and still more definitive.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.24, 19:50:40
I agree with you Lawrence. I think the proof is unequivocal. And surely Professor has given us the equivalent of a 'replication'.
I'd like to be the first to congratulate you Lawrence. VERY WELL DONE INDEED.
Rosemary
The waveforms are drowning in noise when in fact you know ahead of time that they should be smooth curves. When the LED diode in the secondary pick-up loop (the "output LED") is reverse biased there is no current flow and the power trace should show zero. Instead you see all of this horrible random noise. Therefore the data is not even remotely unequivocal. With all due respects to PhysicsProf this was just a first run at his testing.
Lawrence and Rosemary, you have to be real here and look at the data in an unbiased fashion. The data is no good, it's only a first attempt. It's doesn't even remotely resemble what it should look like under proper conditions.
If the noise problem can't be overcome because of the very low power levels, it may be necessary to look at other strategies. In my opinion the analog power measurement strategy on the supply side, and the thermal power measurement on the output side would be an attractive option if it proves to be too difficult for the DSO to make measurements in this case.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.24, 22:33:27
We have shown that the DUT is intriguing -- and I agree that kudos are due to Lawrence for that. At the same time, I agree with .99 that the three steps he indicates are needed. I would add that I think it is crucial to have a few of the FLEET devices for testing that have a larger output, above 100 mW if possible, to make the tests easier and still more definitive.
Hello Professor,
I have also just lost a post - and - just out of interest - it's not the first time.
I get it that the values are small. But I was rather hoping that it could - nonetheless - be unequivocal. This because a lot of the tests on these and other forums are at very low values. I would have thought it's enough to - at its least - start the questions going.
In any event. I have some data sheets that I'm hoping to send to you. They're too big for the email and I'll have to find out how this is done. It also gives a low wattage output from the supply - but that's the sum of voltages that are certainly not attributable to 'noise' levels. I need you to evaluate this fact though - in advance - and, obviousy, if you're up for it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.24, 22:33:27
I would add that I think it is crucial to have a few of the FLEET devices for testing that have a larger output, above 100 mW if possible, to make the tests easier and still more definitive.
Having an output power of 100 mW plus would solve the concern you raise, MH. And in any case, I would like to prove/check that the device is scalable -- that is, that the output power can be raised significantly from the first test with a sophisticated oscilloscope. That's what I will be working on now, getting to higher output power, and understanding what raises the output power. (I would also like to try the JouleRinger ;)
@Rosemary -- sure, I'll take a look at what you send. At the same time, I REALLY like to take data for myself, even when I'm learning how best to do this... I'm an experimentalist.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.24, 23:08:52
@Rosemary -- sure, I'll take a look at what you send. At the same time, I REALLY like to take data for myself, even when I'm learning how best to do this... I'm an experimentalist.
I've already committed myself to sending you the apparatus. I just want it first for a public demo. I feel I owe this much - both to the university and to our academics. But I really want your input. It'll be the American 'arm' of this 'validation' exercise. Intrigued to see where it will go.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.24, 19:50:40
I agree with you Lawrence. I think the proof is unequivocal. And surely Professor has given us the equivalent of a 'replication'.
I'd like to be the first to congratulate you Lawrence. VERY WELL DONE INDEED.
Rosemary
Seriously, Rosemarie. If the Input/Output were close sinusoidal, i would have to agree with you but look at the junk noise - it bears no resemblance, not even close. How can any 'educated' researcher reach such a conclusion? Seemed like people want to believe what they want to believe. The 'proof' is far from conclusive at this stage.
ChrisC
@ltseung888
I don't think those two waveforms are proof otherwise I myself and many others have done that much and more many many times in many builds. Unfortunately it does not mean OU and I know I was jumping up in the air the first time I saw it on my scope. I had 12 volts in and spikes of 400 volts, but it means nothing, unfortunately. I also did it with micro amps.
The easiest way to prove OU is to take two capacitors, one as feed, one as output tank. Take two identical capacitors and try it. Should be at least 1000uf to keep it running for a decent amount of time. Enough for it to cycle through many times until it stops. Then measure the voltage of each. Bingo. This will tell you if you are OU or not at very low cost.
Otherwise, on the output led put in parallel a germanium diode pointing to a capacitor and see how much energy you can make while lighting the led. Then check voltage on both caps. This is quick and easy.
Now you have to please explain to me one thing in what you sent the Prof. The question is why on an OU device are you putting an LED in front of the coil and a second one on the output. Usually an OU device will have a source (ok battery), device (ok toroid/transistor), but then why put that a load before the toroid. If the Toroid/Transistor is the OU device, why would you want to waste battery power by lighting that led. You can save that power right away. If you decide to do the cap/cap method, I would remove that first led and even the second led and just let the device run with some well sized capacitors. This will tell you right away if there is anything special in this DUT.
wattsup
Wattsup:
Just to review a concept that I stated before. You can't necessarily use capacitors. They are not a "one size fits all" solution. When a device is some sort of a source of power, how much power gets transferred into the load depends on the nature of the power source and the nature of the load. You simply can't substitute the load for a capacitor in every case and expect to get good results. The load has to be tailored to the nature of the power source. In many cases a capacitor looks like a short circuit and more often than not the power source does not want to drive a short circuit.
MileHigh
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=602.0
I could post the Excel spreadsheet of efficiency data over 4 different voltages 1.5 V, 3.0 V , 4.5 V and 6.0 V or typically representing one to four zinc-carbon cells. This from actual bench tests of the replicated circuit (touted by L Tseung as his "invention")
No one would like or believe the numbers as they show disappointing efficiency.
So I won't as it may affect illusions.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.24, 23:15:48
I've already committed myself to sending you the apparatus. I just want it first for a public demo. I feel I owe this much - both to the university and to our academics. But I really want your input. It'll be the American 'arm' of this 'validation' exercise. Intrigued to see where it will go.
Rosemary
Alright -- I'd be happy to test it also.
I wrote about the need for "scalability" -- the ability to scale the output power up. One example -- the captret is kind of interesting, I've been reading out it today, but it has VERY low power output and probably the explanation for self-charging capacitors (at low low power levels) is quite prosaic. In any case, unless this output power CAN BE scaled UP significantly, the capret is absolutely hopeless as a power source.
We'll see whether the Tseung device can be scaled up from Prototype A (test results above, 18 January). Lawrence says this is possible, and I have seen higher readings so I'm encouraged.
Here is a perfect example where knowing the scope and its limits is important for critical measurements. Not your fault Professor, but please take careful note of the following:
Close examination of the picture will reveal that the CH2 blue current trace falls mostly below the zero mark, clearly showing about a -4mV offset in the scope. The signal acquisition is in error and will therefore produce erroneous results for the multiplication.
In all Tek scopes there is a Signal Path Compensation (SPC) which needs to be run prior to critical measurements because of this inherent "problem" in the scope channels. The offset is quite significant relative to the signal peak to peak level, and therefore will grossly skew the current measurement. It is wise to allow the scope to stabilize for 20 to 40 minutes, then run the SPC. This is mainly to compensate for DC offsets in the signal path so that 0=0. Info about how to run the SPC can be found in the TDS3032 manual on pages 1-4 and 3-77. keep in mind that the SPC should be run any time the ambient temperature varies more than 10ºC. I would try to take your input and output measurements within a few minutes of each other to ensure drift is not a significant factor.
Sorry Professor, but these measurements are not useful at all. Please for future measurements, run the SPC calibration prior to taking any critical measurements. And also of great importance; use the MEAN computation on the instantaneous power wave form.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.25, 03:00:11
Here is a perfect example where knowing the scope and its limits is important for critical measurements. Not your fault Professor, but please take careful note of the following:
Close examination of the picture will reveal that the CH2 blue current trace falls mostly below the zero mark, clearly showing about a -4mV offset in the scope. The signal acquisition is in error and will therefore produce erroneous results for the multiplication.
In all Tek scopes there is a Signal Path Compensation (SPC) which needs to be run prior to critical measurements because of this inherent "problem" in the scope channels. The offset is quite significant relative to the signal peak to peak level, and therefore will grossly skew the current measurement. It is wise to allow the scope to stabilize for 20 to 40 minutes, then run the SPC. This is mainly to compensate for DC offsets in the signal path so that 0=0. Info about how to run the SPC can be found in the TDS3032 manual on pages 1-4 and 3-77. keep in mind that the SPC should be run any time the ambient temperature varies more than 10ºC. I would try to take your input and output measurements within a few minutes of each other to ensure drift is not a significant factor.
Sorry Professor, but these measurements are not useful at all. Please for future measurements, run the SPC calibration prior to taking any critical measurements. And also of great importance; use the MEAN computation on the instantaneous power wave form.
.99
In decades of taking data, my colleagues and I have often found that an instrument has shown a measurement bias such as this -4mV offset that you mention.
Certainly it is better to compensate for such offsets before data is taken -- and I will do this next time, .99 -- thank you for this poynter. And we'll use the mean computation on the instantaneous power waveform.
AT the same time, my experience is that usually we can make the correction off-line, especially if the raw data are saved. This is more difficult in this case, and probably not worth the effort to do in detail since we will be taking measurements again.
But to say " but these measurements are not useful at all" seems a bit overstated to me...
Let me ask, .99, does not this -4mV offset make the channel 2 blue trace conservative as a measure of the current in the output and input resistors? And recognizing this correction, can we not say that our measurements are conservative?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.25, 03:17:27
But to say " but these measurements are not useful at all" seems a bit overstated to me... Let me ask, .99, does not this -4mV offset make the channel 2 blue trace conservative as a measure of the current in the output and input resistors? And recognizing this correction, can we not say that our measurements are conservative?
Actually, no.
As an example, for the input power measurement, you end up with a net negative power coming from the battery, that means power going INTO the battery.
However, we do not realize this by looking at your RMS computation on the power trace, because by taking the RMS computation of a wave form, the result is always a positive number!!! Again, this is why you must take the average, not RMS. If you take the average of your power trace shown in the picture, it will be a NEGATIVE number!!! You can also realize it by looking at the red trace, it's almost all below the zero mark.
.99
This is getting interesting.
I have a question
What is the noise ?
It looks like pn junction noise
@MH
The present load is an LED.
What is an LED? It is a diode that consumes x to light b. A feed cap with dioded capacitor output (capdcap) is still a good enough analogy and will not effect the working of the DUT. It all depends on your choice of the cap value. A pf won't do.
The Prof showed frequency rises as feed voltage drops. That would be perfect for a capdcap.
Usually, you would think the voltage (LED brightness) would go down as the feed voltage drops, but in this case the Prof says the brightness was rather linear. This can be captured in a capdcap.
If you can find as feed cap at 24000uf 2 vdc capacitor (maybe 24 x 1000uf) and as output cap a 24000uf 6 vdc, both capacitors should have the same drop in that if both capacitors are loaded to 2vdc and then apply a 1 volt led on both at the same time, both should die off at the same time. Using the 6 vdc range for the output cap is just to provide the output with a higher captation potential while lowering any back effect while it gets filled.
My usual testing is with LEDs that light up at 4.5 volts and my cap tank is a huge 88uf 1200vdc. I get spikes in there up to 800 volts.
The major point is standardizing how you look at things which is very personal indeed. I always have my huge load cap there ready for testing. Anything out of the ordinary between my pulsing method and the output will be seen and noticed because I am always using the same output method. Working with a capdcap with your devices will still give you a quick means comparable in performance. You only measure the always stabilized cap voltages. No need for a scope.
Here is an example.
Feed cap is a 250kuf 2v loaded to 1.5x volts.
Run device,
Identical output cap goes from its internally floating .024 volts to 2.625 volts.
And the feed cap still has .456 volts in it.
Question 1: Is that OU or not?
Question 2: Can capacitors lie?
OK Forget Question 2. Ahh too late.
Anyways, I am looking for a way that does not involve so much technically biased measuring instruments. A method that is quickly repeatable and non-intrusive for low voltage DUTs. Once you have done 3-4 runs with totals for an average, then you are in a position to add a scope probe and see how that probe effects a next set of tests.
Also, if it can save 140 miles round trip per test intervals, this may be a good option.
wattsup
The scope shots
Let us forget the small Tseung FLEET Comparison Index Prototype A used by the PhysicsProf for a moment.
Let us focus on the better one obtained on July 14, 2010 in Hong Kong.
By comparing the two graphs, can we conclude that the RHS graph has much more area than that on the LHS? I believe it is irrelevant to talk about average, mean or rms once we have the Instantaneous Power Curves. The correct scientific value is in fact the integration or the area enclosed by the curve.
Let me ask the question – if we have similar screen shots from dozens of prototypes done by independent verifiers such as PhysicsProf at various Universities, will any one accept these scope shots as evidence of COP > 1 ???
Wattsup:
This circuit has diodes in it which are nonlinear. So the lower the supply voltage the more proportional energy will be burned off in the diodes and the higher the supply voltage the less proportional energy will be burned off in the diodes. Therefore the if you are trying to investigate the energy audit trail for the circuit you want to use a constant supply voltage.
The output load for this circuit is basically a resistor in series with a diode, and it is being driven by an AC voltage so current only flows when the diode is forward biased. Again, this is a nonlinear load. If you replace the resistor with a capacitor then you are not accounting for the power that is being transferred to the diode (the LED). The lower the capacitor voltage the more power is burned off in the diode and less power is being put into the capacitor. The higher the capacitor voltage the less power is being burned off in the diode and more power is being put into the capacitor. Also, the higher the capacitor voltage gets, then the current only flows when the secondary winding is higher in potential than the capacitor voltage plus the forward drop of the diode. In other words as the capacitor starts to get charged it starts to choke off the current flow and limit the conduction angle for the AC waveform. It's a complete mess and simply will not work in this particular case. You are trying to measure the energy being dissipated in a diode and a resistor over a certain period of time and swapping a capacitor into this circuit simply will not work.
QuoteFeed cap is a 250kuf 2v loaded to 1.5x volts.
Run device,
Identical output cap goes from its internally floating .024 volts to 2.625 volts.
And the feed cap still has .456 volts in it.
Question 1: Is that OU or not?
Question 2: Can capacitors lie?
OK Forget Question 2. Ahh too late.
My first guess is that your two caps are not identical in value and one of them may be outside of the tolerance specification. Have you measured their capacitance values?
If you think you have OU then there is a logical next step to your testing. Put a resistor on your output cap that just got charged to 2.625 volts and burn off energy until it is down to 1.5 volts. Now swap caps around so the output cap becomes the feed cap and run the test again. If you think you have OU you should be able to do this indefinitely. You also can't forget the self-charging effect that can happen with supercaps and electrolytic caps but based on your reported voltages I'll cautiously assume that the resistor burn-off will be much larger than any potential self-charging effects.
MileHigh
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.25, 08:13:23
The scope shots
Let us forget the small Tseung FLEET Comparison Index Prototype A used by the PhysicsProf for a moment.
Let us focus on the better one obtained on July 14, 2010 in Hong Kong.
By comparing the two graphs, can we conclude that the RHS graph has much more area than that on the LHS? I believe it is irrelevant to talk about average, mean or rms once we have the Instantaneous Power Curves. The correct scientific value is in fact the integration or the area enclosed by the curve.
Let me ask the question – if we have similar screen shots from dozens of prototypes done by independent verifiers such as PhysicsProf at various Universities, will any one accept these scope shots as evidence of COP > 1 ???
Lawrence,
That data capture is also not acceptable. There is a huge amount of ringing on the output power waveform implying negative power, and negative power doesn't even make sense in this case. The output waveform time base is also way too slow, so you are seeing subsampling aliasing effects when the scope tries to map the high-frequency waveform into the limited number of pixels on the display screen. You simply don't have enough data to make any area estimations.
You have to compare the average power in and compare it to the average power out and the July 14, 2010 graph is totally unacceptable for this.
MileHigh
@ltseung888
Again, such waveform comparisons have been shown on forums for years by all of us but it does not mean OU.
@MH
The LED also has its minimum voltage under which all energy is lost before the LED will light up. A germanium diode has only a .2 volts level, which is probably even less then the LED so even less chance of wasted energy for proper accounting of final energy transfers going on inside that toroid.
The first LED is receiving straight DC from the battery at its gradually decreasing voltage level. The second LED is getting pulsed DC with voltages that could be as high as 100 volts easy and the frequencies shown by the Prof. The second LED is basically acting like an RMS or means leveller so you see visually the light is still lit because anything above 50-52 cycles in our eyes will be like constant illumination. That output if 100 volts is way above the battery voltage and even higher above the 0.2 volts of the germanium diode and this should all pass through into the dcap side.
Look I am not saying a precise measurement with a scope is not desirable but it seems this will never be the case with low voltage DUTs. Getting to know how to use a capdcap by first doing preliminary testing to see the real dynamics of this is both low cost and in my view proof enough to show preliminary results without relying on scopes.
The only fail safe method is to treat such devices as joules-in versus joules-out and this can only be done with the right caps. I am sure if anyone in China is reading this, they are already working on it. lol
wattsup
Wattsup:
Just a few final comments and then I'm done. I assume that by the "first LED" you mean the one across the transistor. It's actually being pulsed when the transistor switches off, but the bulk of the pulse energy actually goes into the secondary winding. At least that's what it looks like from my perspective. One more time, I admit that to be sure I would have to check it on the bench.
If you were to change the secondary winding for a large capacitor and a germanium diode, then there is a good chance that when current starts to flow in the circuit for the first time, that most of the power will be dissipated in the resistance of the wire windings of the secondary winding itself. That's because you have an EMF source pushing current through the resistance of the windings and the germanium diode. When you first start the capacitor looks like a pure short circuit. So you end up with a big chunk of the energy being dissipated in the wire windings themselves at the start of the testing, and not going into the capacitor. There are just too many pitfalls for using a set of source and load capacitors for this particular circuit.
MileHigh
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.25, 08:13:23
The scope shots
By comparing the two graphs, can we conclude that the RHS graph has much more area than that on the LHS?
It would be incorrect and unscientific to make any conclusions based on a visual comparison of those wave forms. High voltage spikes does not automatically indicate a large average power or energy.
Quote
I believe it is irrelevant to talk about average, mean or rms once we have the Instantaneous Power Curves. The correct scientific value is in fact the integration or the area enclosed by the curve.
You noted previously that you accepted the fact that the average and integral ratios would be the same, and taking the integral is an unnecessary step. Now you disagree? Rose has even confirmed what I said, and admitted that I was correct about this.
So to summarize again:
1) calibrate the scope channel prior to measurements.
2) obtain the instantaneous power using the multiply function in the scope to multiply channel 1 voltage by channel 2 current.
3) use the "mean" or "average" function in the scope on that instantaneous power trace to obtain the running average power.
4) compare the average input and output power values.
Anything short of this procedure will produce erroneous results. Please don't attempt to make quantitative assessments based on a visual comparison of spiky wave forms, it's unscientific and prone to gross errors.
.99
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.24, 19:50:40
I agree with you Lawrence. I think the proof is unequivocal. And surely Professor has given us the equivalent of a 'replication'.
I'd like to be the first to congratulate you Lawrence. VERY WELL DONE INDEED.
Rosemary
I think the discussion and the flaws that have been pointed out since the above proclamation of "success" and "unequivocal proof" should give all readers some insights:
1) Presenters of claims of OU devices are typically very biased and all too eager to take the first shakey ill-founded hint of OU and proclaim it to be
unequivocal proof. This should put some of Rosemary's previous claims of "absolutely knowing for sure" that her device has COP>17 in the proper context. What she and others like Lawrence rely on as being unequivocal evidence has inevitably been found to be grossly flawed in fact.
2) The quality of the tools used to make measurements does not ensure quality measurements. Many seem to believe that if they have a modern Tektronix DSO on the bench, their results and conclusions are somehow inherently unequivocal. This thread shows the terrible flaws in this thinking. It is the test methodolgy and the knowledge of how to use the features of the equipment and how to use probes correctly, etc. that determine the validity and accuracy of the results.
3) Were these folks operating in an environment without critical thinkers and people who know how to make proper measurements, you can see how easily an erroneous conclusion could be solidified into "granite fact" and take on its own momentum, becoming another episode in the mythology of "successful OU devices".
I still don't understand why the testers are ignoring suggestions such as using simple RC integrators on these tests (or at least as a parallel path). In any case, we should all be grateful for those here who spend at least some of their time on critical thinking, instead of jumping to the first conclusion that agrees with their bias, no matter how thin the "evidence". It's what makes OUR different from many "cultist" forums.
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!
Poynt99, I believe we can easy get the mean, the average, the mean cycle or the rms values of the Instantaneous Power Value easily once we have the raw Instantaneous Power Curve. It is easy to list all these values for comparison and learning purposes.
In research involving unexpected phenomenon (electron motion energy entering the system), we have to be open-minded and accept ALL explanations that do not violate the Laws of Physics. Do the necessary experiments to eliminate some of them until the best one survived.
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.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.25, 15:44:36
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!
Poynt99, I believe we can easy get the mean, the average, the mean cycle or the rms values of the Instantaneous Power Value easily once we have the raw Instantaneous Power Curve. It is easy to list all these values for comparison and learning purposes.
In research involving unexpected phenomenon (electron motion energy entering the system), we have to be open-minded and accept ALL explanations that do not violate the Laws of Physics. Do the necessary experiments to eliminate some of them until the best one survived.
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.
I agree with you Lawrence - but with some caveats. I do not think that you can apply an RMS voltage value to your load. The RMS value as I understand it is V^2/r. If R keeps changing as it does at high frequencies, then you can't get the true value unless you also know what R has changed to. But you can measure the work done. Check the temperature rise and the amount of power in lighting diodes. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I'm not sure why you're using a 1 Ohm resistor to establish current from the battery. Isn't that unnecessarily high? I would have thought 0.25 Ohm or thereby would have been preferable. I agree that your instantaneous product of volts x amps will give you the net output from the battery. And I also agree with the value shown - assuming, as Poynty has pointed out - that your scope/probes and what have you are up for the job. I wonder if you can't perhaps tune it better to show a net negative voltage? We've managed this but it takes time to find those values. Then I suspect your argument will be conclusive.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is beginning to test my patience Lawrence.
I have clearly outlined what must be done to obtain a proper measurement using an oscilloscope. There is no argument that can refute this method.
A MEAN or INTEGRAL computation of the instantaneous power are the only two processes that are valid for obtaining the real power or energy content in the input and output circuitry. In cases where the traces are clearly periodic, the integral computation is unnecessary, and clearly the JT operates in a periodic manner.
It's time to be scientific and refrain from ambiguity. Perform the tests as I described please, and let's then look at the results.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.25, 13:45:36
So to summarize again:
1) calibrate the scope channel prior to measurements.
2) obtain the instantaneous power using the multiply function in the scope to multiply channel 1 voltage by channel 2 current.
3) use the "mean" or "average" function in the scope on that instantaneous power trace to obtain the running average power.
4) compare the average input and output power values.
.99
I am happy to do this when I get back up to the university. I do think that data-taking is much more useful than petty personalized attacks. To the science rather than to the person (ad hominem) please.
Meanwhile, I will try to boost the output power of the DUT as I indicated. I'm planning to try an air-core as Lawrence suggested, today.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.25, 16:42:06
I am happy to do this when I get back up to the university. I do think that data-taking is much more useful than petty personalized attacks. To the science rather than to the person (ad hominem) please.
Meanwhile, I will try to boost the output power of the DUT as I indicated. I'm planning to try an air-core as Lawrence suggested, today.
I am not attacking anyone with my statements. I am being firm because Lawrence and yourself seem to be attempting to re-direct the focus from where it should precisely lay, and that is on the correct procedure for obtaining the measurements.
You can eyeball the waveforms all you wish, but you can not derive a true quantitative value of power from that observation....that's why we are using test equipment. The goal is to use this equipment properly, and thus far I have pointed out a few flaws that require correction before things are proper.
So I would strongly suggest that until someone comes forth with measurements made as I outlined, they be reserved in their "subjective" assessments. The only thing that matters are properly obtained numbers. Of course I am referring only to oscilloscope measurements in these discussions.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.25, 03:00:11
Here is a perfect example where knowing the scope and its limits is important for critical measurements. Not your fault Professor, but please take careful note of the following:
Close examination of the picture will reveal that the CH2 blue current trace falls mostly below the zero mark, clearly showing about a -4mV offset in the scope. The signal acquisition is in error and will therefore produce erroneous results for the multiplication.
In all Tek scopes there is a Signal Path Compensation (SPC) which needs to be run prior to critical measurements because of this inherent "problem" in the scope channels. The offset is quite significant relative to the signal peak to peak level, and therefore will grossly skew the current measurement. It is wise to allow the scope to stabilize for 20 to 40 minutes, then run the SPC. This is mainly to compensate for DC offsets in the signal path so that 0=0. Info about how to run the SPC can be found in the TDS3032 manual on pages 1-4 and 3-77. keep in mind that the SPC should be run any time the ambient temperature varies more than 10ºC. I would try to take your input and output measurements within a few minutes of each other to ensure drift is not a significant factor.
Sorry Professor, but these measurements are not useful at all. Please for future measurements, run the SPC calibration prior to taking any critical measurements. And also of great importance; use the MEAN computation on the instantaneous power wave form.
.99
It's a pity that we should trash the data, besides, it seems like alot of work to get the scope to be perfect. I have a suggestion.
If P(t) = I(t) * V(t) and V(t) is offset by example, -4mV
then, P(t) = I(t)V(t) - 4mV*I(t)
All we have to do is take that -4mV * I(t) out and we will get the correct P(t). We can create a separate power waveform of 4mV * I(t) and add that to P(t). The math seems ok.
Glad to get back to data-taking, even if it is with my colleague's BitScope lap-top oscilloscope (home-town, not at the University).
I decided to look at the phase relationship between the input voltage and the output voltage in the Tseung circuit. Straightforward and simple, right? the scope says otherwise, and I still don't understand the 2nd result. Conditions as follows, using Lawrence's Prototype A which he sent me. All voltages and currents are RMS. The only change between the two runs was the resistance of the output-circuit resistor, which was in series with the output LED. Incidentally, we found that the resistance of the output LED was approx. 200 ohms (from the voltage drop and current).
Output R Input V (AA battery) Input V across 1ohm Output V Output current (using 100ohm OR 1ohm) Frequency of oscillation
100 ohm 1.48 V 0.119 A 3.35 V 9.7 mA 69 KHz
1 ohm 1.48 V 0.112 A 2.96 V 26 mA 61.5 KHz
These voltages/currents are shown as a way to make comparisons with a "small" change in the circuit (output resistor).
Note that with the change in output R, the major change was in the output current while the input V and input current did not change much, and the output V changed by about 10% while the output current went UP by a factor of about THREE. Strange... We've noticed this before while trying to "tune" the Tseung device. Who can explain this??
Notice that the frequency of oscillation dropped with the drop in output R from 100 to 1 ohm.
Conclude: The most sensitive indicator of change in the circuit is the output current, along with the frequency.
But even more striking is the change in phase relationship between the input oscillation (measured across the input resistor, always 1 ohm in this test) and the output oscillation (measured across the output resistor, 100 ohm {left} or 1 ohm {right} ) -- which we see in the attached. I have juxtaposed the signals from the input resistor (yellow trace) and output resistor (green).
We see that the voltage spike in the output circuit (see left traces) begins when the current across the input resistor drops rapidly. This is what I expect from the inductive coupling in the toroid. On the right, we see the traces for the case where I replaced the 100 ohm output resistor with a 1 ohm output resistor.
Strangely, the output current rise appears now to LAG SIGNIFICANTLY behind the current-drop in the input R. I don't understand how this change in output R could have such a large effect in the phase relationship; and I'm wondering about our scope here. But it seemed to check out... could not find a problem in the scope. Would still like to re-test with a different scope.
Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone?
Again, I find that this is a most educational circuit, and intriguing. (Thank you, Lawrence, for sending the prototype to study.)
Data are important, are they not? The above data show the changes that can occur in this "simple circuit" with change in a resistor, changes that need I think to be understood at some level. With the surprises and the re-checking, I did not get to the air-core transformer today.
This afternoon I did one other test that is interesting. I put a 1000 Kohm resistor in parallel with the 1000 Kohm R already in place, leading to the base of the transistor. I measured the resistance of the pair at 495 ohms. Here are the changes observed:
Output R Input V (AA battery) Input V across 1ohm Output V Output current (using 1ohm R) Frequency of oscillation
1 ohm 1.48 V 0.112 A 2.96 V 26 mA 61.5 KHz
1 ohm 1.48 V 0.142 A 2.93 V 32 mA 47 KHz
Quote
We see that the voltage spike in the output circuit (see left traces) begins when the current across the input resistor drops rapidly. This is what I expect from the inductive coupling in the toroid. On the right, we see the traces for the case where I replaced the 100 ohm output resistor with a 1 ohm output resistor.
Strangely, the output current rise appears now to LAG SIGNIFICANTLY behind the current-drop in the input R. I don't understand how this change in output R could have such a large effect in the phase relationship; and I'm wondering about our scope here. But it seemed to check out... could not find a problem in the scope. Would still like to re-test with a different scope.
Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone?
Could it be that the reactance of the leakage inductance of the transformer is negligible compared to 100 ohms but significant when compared to 1 ohm? Current lags voltage as the inductive reactance becomes more dominant. Anyone else?
Your explanation seems quite reasonable, humbugger. It has been a few years since I taught E&M at the university level...
@Lawrence, you speak of a prototype with higher output, here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9952;topicseen#msg9952
Would you be willing to do as I have done four posts earlier, to show the waveforms for your device by taking the voltage across the input resistor and the output resistor SIMULTANEOUSLY, and showing the two traces on the same scope-shot. I am very curious about the phase relationship between the input and output voltages in your device -- also the frequency at which it runs. And any "hints" you have as to why your device may perform better than Prototype A would be appreciated.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.26, 05:16:32
Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone? [/b]
Prof,
I will agree with Humbugger that leakage inductance can cause some phase shift. Another cause can be the use and loading of the third winding. Without it, the phase shift should reflect that of a common transformer. With it, and variation of load upon that third winding, you are introducing some effects related to a three phase system. The phasor sum may appear to be upwards of 30 degrees.
More common examples of the process is the VFT (variable frequency transformer) and the phase shifting transformer.
You will hear that the phase difference is always 180 or zero. In reality, this is not always accurate.
You should be able to replace that resistor with a rheostat and control the phase shift displayed on the scope.
This may also explain your factor of three.
I think I have a possible explanation, it took a lot of thinking. I don't think it has anything to do with leakage inductance.
In the left case example where the resistor is 100 ohms, this higher load resistance will result in the core discharging it's energy quickly through the high resistance and everything stays in phase. So the excitation of the core when the L2 is energized by the transistor switching on causes standard transformer action on the secondary winding. When the core is energizing, the secondary winding is at a negative potential and current is not flowing in the secondary winding. The excitation of L2 by the transistor and the increasing magnetic flux are in phase as shown by the negative potential on the secondary winding being perfectly lined up with the increasing current going through L2. Then when the transistor switches off, you see discharge of the magnetic flux energy in the core through the secondary winding consisting of the 100-ohm resistor and the output LED. A small amount of energy is also discharged through the the input LED. This decreasing magnetic flux in the core causes the positive potential on the secondary winding and current flows through the secondary winding and everything is in phase. So in this case the setup is acting like a transformer where L2 pumps energy into L3 in phase.
In the right case example where the resistor is 1 ohm, things change. The root cause is fairly simple, now that the load on the secondary winding is just an LED and a 1-ohm resistor, this does not put the same type of load on the core when it wants to discharge it's stored magnetic energy. In this case it's a very light load and it will take much longer for the magnetic energy stored in the core to discharge through the very low resistance. The net result of this is the setup changes from looking like a transformer, and starts to look like a lossy inductor. So like in any inductor, you have a situation where the current (or energy stored in the magnetic core) lags the voltage excitation by 90 degrees.
In the 100-ohm case, when the transistor switches on, the magnetic energy in the core is at a minimum because it just finished the discharge cycle. In the 1-ohm case, when the transistor switches on, the magnetic energy in the core is shifted by 90 degrees and it's at a maximum. The magnetic energy in the core actually starts it's discharge cycle when the transistor first switches on. So this 90 degree phase shift is telling you that the setup is now acting like a lossy inductor.
I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.
MileHigh
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.26, 08:08:46
@Lawrence, you speak of a prototype with higher output, here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9952;topicseen#msg9952
Would you be willing to do as I have done four posts earlier, to show the waveforms for your device by taking the voltage across the input resistor and the output resistor SIMULTANEOUSLY, and showing the two traces on the same scope-shot.
I am very curious about the phase relationship between the input and output voltages in your device -- also the frequency at which it runs. And any "hints" you have as to why your device may perform better than Prototype A would be appreciated.
Dear PhysicsProf,
Please go to my bench for the explanations:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9289#msg9289
I have not completed the explanations and have not started on analyzing your particular results yet. Thus that thread is locked. After I have presented my thoughts fully, I shall welcome comments. Please send me email if you have important thoughts to share in the meantime.
Lawrence
Alright, thank you -- and I will watch your bench thread for further information also.
With regard to the JouleRinger, Xee2 at EnergeticForum noted yesterday:
Quote
Read through the Joule ringer thread and you will see that there is no "how to". LaserSaber said he would post a video showing how to make one, but that has not happened yet. Many of us have gotten a few minutes of run time, but he is the only one able to get 20 to 40 minutes that I recall and he can only do it with one type of transformer.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7051-joule-ringer-12.html#post127766
Lawrence,
What core model (part number) did you use for the prototype A you sent the professor?
Also, what is the part number of the LEDs?
Thanks, .99
Poynt99,
When I bought my leds and toroids, I experimented with different ones from the Electronic Market Place in Shenzhen. There were many hundreds of small stalls selling components. I did not have the particular part numbers but I had their business cards so that I could purchase from them again.
I googled the Internet and examined similar products. Here is what I found for LEDs:
The one that most similar to my LEDs is 93906 5MM White LED.
American Science & Surplus:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm/subsection/15/category/147
93906 5MM WHITE LED'S*** $1.95 EACH
For toroids, I found the following:
http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206
The two photos most similar to the one I used are shown below. (My guess is the T106-26 but that is only a guess. PhysicsProf has three of them. He may be able to help to identify the exact model.)
Hope that helps.
Lawrence
Hm....
Seems like the 1 Ohm is in phase, the 100 Ohm is 180 degree out of phase.
When the yellow current rises, it induces a voltage accross the the secondary. This voltage soon meets the LED forward bias and start a current through the LED. Induction soon fades out and LED stop forward bias flow in the secondary. A bit after that the transistor shut off as indicated by the fall of yellow curve. This induces a reverse voltage in the secondary. Since the LED blocks current flowing backward, everything starts again on the next cycle.
180 degree out of phase is a bit challenging.
Comparison of Mindsets
Poynt99 was right in saying that he, PhysicsProf and Lawrence had different purposes and mindsets. The following is what I believe are the key differences.
Lawrence: He worked on 'kinetic energy of gases in motion' at University when he was around 20 years old. His first successful prototype on using energy from still air was in 2002 and he brought a prototype to Aeronautical University of Beijing. On Dec 2004, he worked out the mathematics of the pulse-pushed pendulum together with Mr. Lee Cheung Kin. They met Wang ShenHe and took the Wang prototype apart and explained its operation according to the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory. The first COP > 1 prototype was done in Hong Kong with Mr. Tong Po Chi and demonstrated at the Inno Tech Design Expo 2009. The first successful FLEET prototype was completed on July 13, 2010. Dozens of FLEET prototypes have been produced including an over 280 index value by a Student, Felix, at Hong Kong University on Oct 9, 2010.
With that background, Lawrence is totally convinced of his Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory. That is ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY to him. He believes that it is a God Granted Truth and is prepared to defend it with all his mind and intellect.
As for sending the prototypes for testing and confirmation, he treats that as a mere formality. The COP > 1 result cannot be wrong.
PhysicsProf: PhysicsProf came from the traditional academic background. His initial reaction to the Tseung FLEET prototype was – another impossible perpetual motion machine claim that violates the Law of Conservation of Energy.
After more reading of the material from Lawrence and persuasion from his non-technical friends, he was willing to test a Tseung FLEET prototype. Unfortunately, he is retired and has to drive 140 miles round trip to his University to use the good oscilloscope.
He tried to be unbiased and fair. He earnestly disclosed his findings. He admitted that he was new in this field of alternative energy. He learned much in about 1 month. His hard work and the scope shots were dismissed as an experimental error. Obviously he was upset. His initial tests provided results that seemed to support the Tseung findings and he was willing to spend his savings on a ATTEN Oscilloscope to do further experiments.
He is used to be treated with respect by his students and colleagues. He was furious at the treatment at overunity.com and decided to join OUR. I hope that he can remain as an important contributor.
Poynt99: I believe Poynt99 wants to uphold a high standard for his forum. Any claim of COP > 1 less than 100% proven will not be allowed. He also believes that he is an expert in using the Oscilloscopes. His words cannot be wrong (he did admit jumping the gun once).
To his credit, he is willing to accept prototypes from Lawrence and also willing to build one himself. He is probably the only one in this OUR forum with two good oscilloscopes at his disposal. He has strong views on how things should be done properly. This is good and bad at the same time. It is good because others can have something definite to follow. It is bad because he is up against someone like Lawrence who has produced dozens of working prototypes and spent months tuning them.
It will be a clash of scientific minds and should be fun for everybody. Let us hope the "fight" will be in the "scientific ring" and avoid the degrading personal insults as we have seen in other forums.
Enjoy the show and Let us Learn together to benefit the Human Race. Amen.
Lawrence:
I suggest that you send what you consider a working device with COP >1 to Poynt99. That way there is no room for ambiguity. I really hope that can happen. Poynt has indicated that it would take only a few days to make the measurements. His knowledge and skills are unparalleled based on my observations and discussions with him over the past two years.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.27, 20:08:56
Lawrence:
I suggest that you send what you consider a working device with COP >1 to Poynt99. That way there is no room for ambiguity. I really hope that can happen. Poynt has indicated that it would take only a few days to make the measurements. His knowledge and skills are unparalleled based on my observations and discussions with him over the past two years.
MileHigh
I am trying to convince a friend in Hong Kong to send one of the high performance FLEET prototypes. The minimum performance I suggested was TRUE COP > 100 and measured Output Power greater than 20 watts. That will be one of his better prototypes.
So far, he has not indicated yes or no. If he says yes, things will be easy. If he says no, I may have to build one in USA. The task will be harder because I do not have any oscilloscopes to use for tuning.
I am also working with the vice president of a subsidiary of Tektronics who has expressed interest to support our efforts to benefit the World. If that works out, I can supply the data from the best prototype in my possession. That prototype easily has COP > 100 and has measured Output Power greater than 20 Watts. At the same time, I can build a similar prototype in a few days. The shipping may shift the high performance conditions but the chance of it dropping to below 1 is low.
I believe poynt99 is ready to build a FLEET prototype himself. He has all the part numbers and schematics which he drew up initially. Even if I fail to produce a prototype in USA, he may be able to come up with something.
The actual value is not too important in the first test. The waveforms are important. If poynt99 obtains the screen shots himself, he will not dismiss it as experimental error. That will give us solid ground to carry on additional discussions.
I do not mind waiting a few more days before going into the "ring" and have fun. It would then be fair game. Poynt99, PhysicsProf and myself all have working prototypes and DSOs. The World will learn much from such powerful interactions.
Lawrence
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.26, 20:03:22
Poynt99,
When I bought my leds and toroids, I experimented with different ones from the Electronic Market Place in Shenzhen. There were many hundreds of small stalls selling components. I did not have the particular part numbers but I had their business cards so that I could purchase from them again.
I googled the Internet and examined similar products. Here is what I found for LEDs:
The one that most similar to my LEDs is 93906 5MM White LED.
American Science & Surplus:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm/subsection/15/category/147
93906 5MM WHITE LED'S*** $1.95 EACH
For toroids, I found the following:
http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206
The two photos most similar to the one I used are shown below. (My guess is the T106-26 but that is only a guess. PhysicsProf has three of them. He may be able to help to identify the exact model.)
Hope that helps.
Lawrence
Thank you for the information Lawrence.
A couple questions:
1) How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
2) Did you buy and use the
Iron Powder Cores for power conversion at that site? Positive that the core is Iron Powder?
3) Have you or the professor measured the collector voltage? What is the peak to peak voltage?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.27, 22:18:54
Thank you for the information Lawrence.
A couple questions:
1) How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
2) Did you buy and use the Iron Powder Cores for power conversion at that site? Positive that the core is Iron Powder?
3) Have you or the professor measured the collector voltage? What is the peak to peak voltage?
.99
Some answers:
1) How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
The first experiment we did was to use a 1.5 AA battery to light it and show that it will not light. We had to use two and the two would have to be in a certain direction. Then we showed that we could light it easily with the Joule Thief Circuit.
2) Did you buy and use the Iron Powder Cores?
I am not 100% sure on that point. I did ask for toroids to do power conversion at that shop. I also asked for the cheapest. The price I paid for was US$1 for 7. I got 20 in the initial round. My friend then got 50 when the prototypes were successful.
3) Initially, I used only the Joule Thief basic. The peak to peak I found was 2.5 volts which was large enough to recharge another AA battery. Once I had success with the secondary circuit, I ignored the JT basic part. In the overview diagram, I refer to that as zone Z. I focused on zone Y.
Lawrence
Edit: I did try to use the Joule Thief basic to demonstrate COP > 1. That effort was NOT successful.
Making the best of the scientific discussions
Many good threads turned sour. Many got so huge that learning from them became impossible. Many got hijacked into talking about something else. Many got into personal insults and heated non-scientific exchanges.
I now propose an improved format to make our scientific discussions more productive and truly benefit the World.
The improvements are as follows:
1. A topic is clearly identified. A brief description will be presented first.
2. A small number of "fighters" are invited into the "ring". The number should be between two to five. These fighters are responsible for thoroughly discussing the topic. The eyes of the World will be on them. They must vow to focus on the topic and avoid all personal insults or deliberate diversions.
3. These fighters will fight in a moderated thread. Only they and a moderator (referee) are allowed to post. That will help to keep the fight focused. The moderator cannot be a fighter in this ring.
4. So that all others can voice their opinions, there will be an associated thread allowing all to post.
5. After a certain time to be determined by the moderator, the fight will stop and the thread locked. If necessary, a new fight can start on the same or similar topic.
We can start with a trial fight. We can invite members to become fighters or moderator. The first topic can be as follows:
If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units. If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.
If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.
Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine. It does not violate any Laws of Physics.
Now I would like to invite forum members to become fighters and moderator. Once we have these volunteers, we shall set up the threads for them and for the on-lookers. The above topic will be thoroughly examined and discussed in depth to the benefit of the World. They can PM me for this trial fight.
*** This particular post will appear in the ltseung888 bench and in a number of threads in this OUR forum.
From the Joule Ringer Thread in Overunity.com (Reply 182)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg272131#msg272131
Quote from: Mk1 on 2011.01.24, 21:21:30
@itseung888
Ok now it seems you managed to get others to see the potential of the Joule thief
Good work ! But now we need to address the real issue here .
You showed poor judgment in changing the name of the JT to your fleet shit , this doesn't give you the right to steal work from others and get the credit for it .
I personally think you did a good job , because no one would have done what you have done , lets clarify that you did not invent the fleet because it was already there and called the Joule thief , thousands of people put there efforts together for a common goal , and that goal was not to provide you with retirement money , we are in this mess because of people taking advantage of others , to prove you are not one of those , stop calling the JT something else then a JOULE THIEF .
I must say i feel cheated by the fact that you try to steal the JT from the people that conceived it , i personally put 2 years of my time in this project , and that was a gift to the world not to you , you are part of the world and deserve access to it but not to take it as your own , you may think you did great by proving what most of us know , the only problem in doing that is that you removed our anonymity , now we will be a target , more work for everyone fighting all the trolls , our relative peace in conducting our experiment may be a thing of the past .
Now you know why others did not pursue the cop verification , but since you are simple man you did not catch that , i tried to tell you !
All and all , thank for helping the JT cause .
Dear Mk1,
You gave a reason for the Joule Thief and Joule Ringer people not pursing the COP verification. I accept that.
However, I hold a totally different view. I believe that we should conclusively demonstrate that COP can be greater than 1 to benefit the World. We should invite the established academic establishment (e.g. PhysicsProf) to verify and confirm that. The resulting publicity will provide much more support and funding to this kind of research.
Poynt99 is probably the only one in the OUR forum with two good oscilloscopes at his disposal. I thought that I was deprived when I had two oscilloscopes in my bedroom in Hong Kong. The working space was less than 50 square feet. Now I realized that it was a luxury compared with the researchers in USA. Many of the outspoken forum members do not even have
one oscilloscope and they claim to have years of experience!
If you traced the history of FLEET (from the Pulsed DC transformer with Embedded Magnets Thread) in the overunity.com forum, you will find that the term was coined even before I used the Joule Thief as the oscillating power source. The original oscillating power source was the cheap signal generator from China!
You can use a different term such as LT-JT instead of FLEET. The LT-JT is different from the standard JT with a secondary because the COP must be tuned to be greater than 1 to be qualified as FLEET. As PhysicsProf have confirmed – not every JT with a secondary can have COP greater than 1. He lowered the input power and the COP dropped to below 1.
Sorry that I blew away your collective cover and anonymity. Ask Stefan to watch out for the trolls and kick them out. I regret that I did not do that. Now I enjoy my moderator privilege at my OUR bench.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
Lawrence,
I really don't understand Mark's problem. He seems to think that just because he put two years of his time learning about and tweaking the JT design, that he somehow has control over who else can take a JT and make something slightly different from it. I had this to say to the very same post here (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg272146#msg272146):
QuoteWith all due respect Mk1, there is nothing new, novel, or unique about LT's (or whomever) version of the JT. The same goes for the JT itself. The blocking oscillator (BO) was "invented" before you were probably even born, so reality is that no one of recent times has any claim to the concept actually. Sure, there have been 100's of variations (LT's) and improvements over the years, but fundamentally the circuit is the same.
You spent two years tweaking, learning, and improving on the basic JT and that's great. No one is ever going to be able to take that away from you. However, how can anyone lay claim to what is and always has been fundamentally a BO, designed many many years ago?
What precisely did Lawrence 'steal'? The addition of a secondary? That's actually quite basic for all that know transformer theory. The truth is, the device could be made more efficient without that secondary, and the output taken from the 'primary'. One only need dig into some modern buck/boost converter designs in order to learn about the best circuit configurations.
ION has been designing and working with BO circuits for about 50 years, and he has indicated that LT's design exhibits an efficiency of only about 75% or so, maximum. There are more advanced techniques (and better components) which were developed over the last 10 to 20 years that can allow for efficiencies as high as 95%.
.99
Folks need to remember that the Joule Thief is simply a Blocking Oscillator repackaged in a small form-factor, and given a catchy new name. Mark really needs to get over himself, imho.
I also don't understand this concern about anonymity. ???
.99
Poynt99,
I do not understand MK1's concern also. But let us focus on our own research. I believe you plan to build a FLEET this weekend.
I would recommend the following steps:
1. Build the basic Joule Thief circuit first. Take a two oscilloscope shot of the battery side (Input). The instantaneous Voltage value is that across the battery. The Instantaneous Current is that across the one ohm resistor.
2. The Output Voltage can be across the collector. Put a one ohm resistor behind the LED and treat that as the Output Instantaneous Current.
3. Examine the waveforms and compare the Input and Output power curve.
4. Now do the secondary coil winding and perform the two oscilloscope experiment as discussed in this thread.
5. You may display both the mean and the rms Power value. (The reason for rms was given at the ltseung888 bench).
You can use the breadboard with long wire leads. When you move the hole positions or just move the wires, you will see changes in the Output Power Waveform as shown in the TK video. With the two oscilloscopes capturing the Input and Output Power simultaneously, we do not need to worry about reproducing the configuration exactly (as in the case of having only one oscilloscope).
Try to get the best COP value. As soon as you are satisfied, take pictures and screen shots. You may not be able to reproduce the exact result again.
Focus on the Instantaneous Current Curves for both Input and Output. Do they have both positive and negative component? Can they possibly be experimental errors? Repeat until you are absolutely sure that you have not committed any experimental error.
Even if your first attempt does not show COP > 1, it does not matter. Show the waveforms. We can learn much from them. We can then do additional tuning to get your prototype to achieve COP > 1.
Thank you in advance. The World will benefit from your efforts. Amen.
Lawrence
Lawrence
Why not standardize on a piece of copperless epoxy printed circuit board maybe 2" x 2" with a drill pattern that everyone can share, so that all lead length, spacing and stray capacitance etc remains approximately identical from unit to unit. This would be a low cost way of insuring some stability in the build. Component connections could be made with 22 Ga. copper bus wire.
Of course an actual copper trace pc board would be better, but I'm suggesting something any home experimenter can produce cheaply and for test purposes.
Also it would be wise to include a power supply bypass capacitor option as the battery impedance will affect frequency of operation. Typical battery internal resistance is 120 milliohms for a fresh MN1500 Duracell, but I've seen up to one Ohm on MN1500 Duracell batteries that still had a terminal voltage over 1.5 volts.
Perhaps the "feedback" effect you are seeing is the voltage dip from pulse to pulse due to battery impedance.
By the way, I will be testing the FLEET type device in my thermal bridge within the next few days, so an exact build specification would be helpful.
If you are not familiar with thermal bridge analysis go here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=702.msg10146;topicseen#msg10146
What is needed:
1. exact core material and a data sheet for same showing the important data (initial permeability etc.)
2. exact wire type to wind the core, number of turns and wind method (bifilar, trifilar, layer etc. (solid or stranded, plating, guage # of strands, Litz?)
3. beta of 2N2222 transistor used in "successful" build, and manufacturer if possible (all transistors are not created equally, though they may have the same number)
4. exact battery type and part # used in "successful" build. Initial terminal voltage and loaded voltage would be helpful.
5. measured inductance, and if possible leakage inductance of completed core assembly
6. interwinding capacitance of core assembly
7. part numbers for LED's and type of resistors used.
8. tuning procedure (expected frequency, waveshape, supply drain, current ramp shape, note of discontinuous modes and their repetition rates.)
9. exact build layout to the millimeter.
All of the above would be helpful in arriving at standard build.
Thank you for your time in advance.
I think 5. and 6. are probably asking too much for Lawrence. If not, the leakage inductance would be good, too. Personally, I'd settle for number of turns and whether they are wound trifilar (probably not) or bifilar with the third winding on top or on bottom or singly wound. In addition to your other points, of course.
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.01.29, 16:46:39
I think 5. and 6. are probably asking too much for Lawrence. If not, the leakage inductance would be good, too. Personally, I'd settle for number of turns and whether they are wound trifilar (probably not) or bifilar with the third winding on top or on bottom or singly wound. In addition to your other points, of course.
Humbugger
Yes, thanks for the input....I'll edit the post. I thought number of turns was already given but I'll include that. Leakage inductance is asking for an awful lot but is a good point.
I have always recommended that a complete build, parts list and scope shots and other measurement data be bundled into a pdf with revision numbers. This would be a far less confusing way to disseminate build information, as opposed to hunting and pecking all over the internet at threads that get buried. The document could be on the first page of the claim, and additional versions added there.
Of course those of us that work in the real world already know this. Can you imagine any product being built using the forum hunt and peck method, with no control documentation?
Right on, ION
I learned early in my career that DOCUMENTATION and really nothing else, is the useful output work product of a good design engineer. Not prototypes, not notes, not dissertations, not even manufacturing instructions.
If you cannot hand over a document package that, without any other communication or handholding, allows QA to inspect and qualify the incoming parts and Manufacturing to build and test the machine, you have not done a good job.
Even in simple metal fab drawings, too many designers try to tell the manufacturer HOW to make the part rather than WHAT THE PART MUST BE WHEN IT ARRIVES AT INCOMING INSPECTION. I always used to get on my drafters if they started putting notes on drawings telling the fab shop what to do rather than what to end up with.
Hole A: Drill using sharp 5/8" carbide tip bit. Ream using such and such deburring tool to 11/16" Diameter. Polish using 400 grit garnet paper.
rather than the correct way:
Hole A: 11/16" DIA, NO BURRS, INSIDE SURFACE FINISH 20 uINCH RMS
This gives the vendor total leeway to do the job any way his tools allow it in the most economical way.
How the hell would incoming inspection or sub-assembly inspection be able to tell if the instructions had been followed or not? What the engineer wants to provide are INSPECTION DRAWINGS; NO DIRECTIONS.
The build sequence, if important, is communicated by partitioning the assembly drawings into appropriate, inspectable chunks, not by writing copious notes on a gigantic drawing showing the entire finished product. 90% of the assembly will be buried beyond QA inspection in the latter case.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I've always been amazed how many engineers, designers and drafters don't seem to understand these concepts.
Humbugger
The difference between early prototyping and getting product ready for market.
I suppose that I should remain as a theoretical physicist and let someone else better than me to do the product development.
God gives different people different tasks. I can see deeper than most. For example:
1. I see two tuning forks in sympathetic vibration. I can then see 3,4 ....20 tuning forks in sympathetic vibration. I can ask and answer the question of where the energy may come from.
2. I see a swinging pendulum toy. Mr. Lee Cheung Kin told me that he suspected that the pulse-pushed pendulum might lead-out/bring-in gravitational energy. I can see the possibility. I can work out the mathematics. I can do the work of a theoretical physicist of confirming that two parts of horizontal energy can lead-out one part of gravitational energy.
3. When other people such as Mr. Peter Chan and team worked on the pendulum and the replication of the Bessler Wheel, I can see the magnetic pendulum. I can ask my grand daughter, Ms. Forever Yuen, to do the magnetic pendulum experiment. That confirmed that magnetic energy can be led-out.
4. I can see that the pulse-pushed action can be turned into pulse-rotation for a much more efficient operation. I can see that many claimed OU devices such as Newman, Bedini, Wang, etc. are not hoaxes. I can work with Mr. Tong Po Chi to develop the Tong Wheel that demonstrated overunity in 2009 at the Inno Tech Design Expo 2009 in Hong Kong.
5. I can see that flux change can replace actual motion. FLEET was then developed. A less than US$3 prototype can conclusively demonstrate COP > 1. The first successful demonstration was presented on July 13, 2010. The naysayers, insulters etc. at overunity.com tried to drown it and overwhelmed the thread (Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets).
6. I can see that PhysicsProf is doing a good and unbiased job in evaluating Prototype A. I can also see that there is much objection. Some researchers such as MK1 accused me of stealing his ideas. Some other researchers dismissed the hard work of PhysicsProf as Experimental Error.
God does not give me the capability of doing experiments to the high standard required. For example:
1. I could not build the prototype that demonstrated energy from still air. The team recommended by Mr. Peter Chan did it.
2. The improvement to the pendulum toy was done by Mr. Sun and team in Shenzhen. I asked and paid for 1 prototype and they built more than a dozen different ones.
3. Forever Yuen was the one who did the simple magnetic pendulum experiment, I just gave the guidelines. (I could not tie the small magnet properly.)
4. Without Mr. Tong Po Chi, the Tong wheel would never see the light.
5. I did some actual experiments on FLEET including buying of equipment, soldering and testing. But it took me three tries to get the basic Joule Thief to work! The Hong Kong University Student, Felix, beat my best attempt in his first built!
6. I cannot even build a proper prototype in USA. It is true that I do not have two oscilloscopes at my disposal. But there is a more subtle reason – all the good prototypes in Hong Kong were completed with the help of Dr. Raymond Ting, Mr. Aaron Quant and my student helpers.
Thus asking for a proper "Build Specification" from me is like asking an average housewife to cook a banquet for 100 guests. Let the professional cooks do it. (I am sure that Poynt99 can do a much better job.)
Amen.
Edit: Standard Build??? I cannot even cook two roast chickens to taste the same. I panicked so much when we had guests – the chickens had to be redone in the microwave oven by my daughter!
:)
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.30, 01:03:29
Thus asking for a proper "Build Specification" from me is like asking an average housewife to cook a banquet for 100 guests. Let the professional cooks do it. (I am sure that Poynt99 can do a much better job.)
Amen.
Edit: Standard Build??? I cannot even cook two roast chickens to taste the same. I panicked so much when we had guests – the chickens had to be redone in the microwave oven by my daughter!
:)
Lawrence, you are really a pretty funny guy. And a goodhearted guy, too. You just have to stop eating that microwaved chicken and everything will be just fine! ;D
Component Package Sent
I have now sent two component packages for FLEET building.
One is sent to poynt99. The recommendation is for him to use longer leads on a breadboard. The purpose is NOT to reproduce an identical FLEET. He has two oscilloscopes and he can watch the two Instantaneous Power Wave Forms. He can display both mean and rms values. He should play around with different holes on the breadboard; change the wire lengths or number of secondary turns. The moment he is satisfied with a possible TRUE COP > 1 value, he would take pictures and scope shots.
The purpose is NOT to produce the highest COP. Any value greater than 1 is acceptable. This early run should show the Instantaneous Input Voltage, Input Current and Input Power waveforms on one oscilloscope. And the Instantaneous Output Voltage, Output Current and Output Power waveforms on another oscilloscope.
The other one will be sent to the internationally well-known Physics Society in Beijing. Thank you to PhysicsProf and many others who contributed. They decided to test and build the FLEET prototypes and may publish the results in their website and journals. Poynt99 has the contact information but we would like to keep that low-key at this point.
The Physics Society will additionally receive a working FLEET which I shall try to tune in the next few days without two oscilloscopes. The goal is modest – COP > 5 to ensure the results are well above the noise level.
When the results from poynt99 and the Physics Society come in, you will find that our dear PhysicsProf did a wonderful job. He did not commit any experimental errors. I sincerely apologize on behalf of the OUR forum members that we did not show the respect that he deserved.
Thank You Lawrence.
Looking forward to the parts arriving.
.99
As an alternative to building the device on a breadboard, my intention was to build it up with connecting wires similar to the device the professor now has in his possession.
Is this not acceptable?
.99
Prototype for the Physics Society in Beijing
Without the two oscilloscopes, tuning is painful. I finally gave up after the prototype showed a COPpp (Tseung FLEET Comparison Index) of 4.7. I could not even get it to 5!
That particular prototype was produced on Oct 15 in Hong Kong. At the time, I experimented with length of wire rather than number of turns. The Joule Thief side used three feet. The transformer side used five feet. The ATTEN DSO was used.
The reading taken on Oct 15, 2011 was as follows: Frequency = 32Hz
Input Channel 1 Vpp = 240 mV
Vrms = 160 mV
Channel 2 Vpp = 32 mV
Vrms = 8 mV
Thus Input Power pp = 0.00768 watts
Power rms= 0.00128 watts
Output Channel 1 Vpp = 6.72 V
Vrms = 2.48 V
Channel 2 Vpp = 698 mV
Vrms= 184 mV
Thus Output Power pp = 4.69056/10 = 0.469056 watts
Power rms = 0.45632/10 = 0.045632 watts
*** The dividing by 10 is because a 10 ohm resistor was used.
The Tseung FLEET Comparison Index pp = 61
rms = 36
Today, Jan 31, 2011, I tried to use the UNI-T scope to get another confirmation. The frequency dropped to 11KHz. I tried to do some tuning by wigging the wire connections. The best result I got was Tseung FLEET Comparison Index pp = 4.7.
I am hoping and enclosing my prayer that the Prototype will show COP > 1 in Beijing. This is the reality of playing with pseudo resonance systems. It is still an art – not science yet.
May God guide us and fill our hearts with sincerity. Amen
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.31, 19:42:47
As an alternative to building the device on a breadboard, my intention was to build it up with connecting wires similar to the device the professor now has in his possession.
Is this not acceptable?
.99
I want you to see for youself the changes in waveform when you change the holes on the breadboard. Or just pressing the wires closer. Or spreading them apart. Or simply place your hand close to it. If your prototype happens to be close to resonance condition, (high COP), you will be amazed at the changes. Have Fun.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.31, 20:42:25
Prototype for the Physics Society in Beijing
Without the two oscilloscopes, tuning is painful. I finally gave up after the prototype showed a COPpp (Tseung FLEET Comparison Index) of 4.7. I could not even get it to 5!
That particular prototype was produced on Oct 15 in Hong Kong. At the time, I experimented with length of wire rather than number of turns. The Joule Thief side used three feet. The transformer side used five feet. The ATTEN DSO was used.
The reading taken on Oct 15, 2011 was as follows: Frequency = 32Hz
Input Channel 1 Vpp = 240 mV
Vrms = 160 mV
Channel 2 Vpp = 32 mV
Vrms = 8 mV
Thus Input Power pp = 0.00768 watts
Power rms= 0.00128 watts
Lawrence, is that input battery voltage of 240mV correct? Why is it so low, when a 1.5V battery was presumably used?
As far as I know, the JT won't even work with a battery voltage that low, i.e. 240mV.
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.31, 20:49:27
I want you to see for youself the changes in waveform when you change the holes on the breadboard. Or just pressing the wires closer. Or spreading them apart. Or simply place your hand close to it. If your prototype happens to be close to resonance condition, (high COP), you will be amazed at the changes. Have Fun.
You don't have to try very hard to convince me that these changes will affect the wave forms; I have no doubt they will. O0
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.31, 22:50:08
Lawrence, is that input battery voltage of 240mV correct? Why is it so low, when a 1.5V battery was presumably used?
As far as I know, the JT won't even work with a battery voltage that low, i.e. 240mV.
.99
That is the strange thing about pseudo resonance circuits. A totally dead battery could light up the LEDs. When the COP is high enough, the corpse climbs out from the grave! ;) ;)
Note that the voltage was measured when the circuit was pulsing. If we disconnect the circuit, the DC voltage will immediately climb up to the steady value (usually much higher). That is why you must have the actual results and apparatus in front of you.
Please do not ever accuse someone working on resonance circuits as lying or making experimental errors again. Examine the screen shots and related data carefully and objectively.I have seen more strange and more "non-textbook" things. One example is the Output on an early Tong Wheel shot up to over 1,000 volts and burnt the electronics. One part of the wood turned black. The supply voltage was a 12 volt battery. The so called experts examined the circuit and proclaimed that it was NOT possible.
I shall try to dig out the actual configuration used on that day. We may have used a DC power supply. Unfortunately, I am not in Hong Kong and cannot get to the archive now. But we shall have the prototype in the hands of the capable physicists in Beijing. They can do much with the prototype. I know their mindset – go deeper than any Westerner. They were trained by their Tiger Moms. O0
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.01, 00:24:57
That is the strange thing about pseudo resonance circuits. A totally dead battery could light up the LEDs. When the COP is high enough, the corpse climbs out from the grave! ;) ;)
Note that the voltage was measured when the circuit was pulsing. If we disconnect the circuit, the DC voltage will immediately climb up to the steady value (usually much higher). That is why you must have the actual results and apparatus in front of you.
Please do not ever accuse someone working on resonance circuits as lying or making experimental errors again. Examine the screen shots and related data carefully and objectively.
I was not trying to accuse anyone of lying. :o It seems incredible however that you could get a JT to oscillate with only a 0.24V supply. Even a totally dead battery never goes to that low of a voltage.
So when disconnected the battery would climb back up over 1.2V or so?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.01, 00:34:16
I was not trying to accuse anyone of lying. :o It seems incredible however that you could get a JT to oscillate with only a 0.24V supply. Even a totally dead battery never goes to that low of a voltage.
So when disconnected the battery would climb back up over 1.2V or so?
.99
A picture is worth a thousand words. The Input battery was totally dead even by Joule Thief standards. It lighted a JT circuit for over a week until the JT LED went out. It could not light a JT but it lighted a FLEET!
Edit:
Should I emphasize that a FLEET or a LT-JT is NOT a normal JT?
I was thinking about volunteering as the moderator for the "fight" but I can see that the arguments and backing evidence from LT are well beyond my comprehension level, so I'm giving up any idea of moderating "the fight". I'm one of those Westerners, I guess. C.C
Humbugger
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.02.01, 04:07:09
I was thinking about volunteering as the moderator for the "fight" but I can see that the arguments and backing evidence from LT are well beyond my comprehension level, so I'm giving up any idea of moderating "the fight". I'm one of those Westerners, I guess. C.C
Humbugger
You are wise indeed. Until this is proven, it remains a delusion and there is only correct answer: 'It must be true because Tseung has proven it!". It's a waste of time until the Learned people find otherwise, and I didn't mean Lawrence or the professor.
TK has already shown how silly some measurements can be.
cheers
chrisC
I was thinking of volunteering until I realized I was already a moderator and becoming a duo-moderator nulls you out to zero in boolean.
Besides, I am disqualified because of a vested interest in the "Save The Furry Ferrites Foundation"
If FLEET works, then skip the arguments and scale it up to a more useful power level.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.02.01, 14:54:38
If FLEET works, then skip the arguments and scale it up to a more useful power level.
It appears some folks are confused as to what this debate is about.
What it is
not about, is whether the LTJT is actually OU or not, the debate is about measurement, and which computation (RMS or MEAN) is correct and valid for computing REAL power in a circuit, for comparison sake, or otherwise.
So, it is actually a general debate that applies to
all power measurements made with an oscilloscope.
.99
Examining the graph on reply 399 again
While we wait for the packages to arrive Poynt99 and the Physics Society of Beijing, I would like to examine the graph on reply 399 again.
The graph was obtained by PhysicsProf after he drove 140 miles to his esteemed university as on reply 350. Some dismissed it as an experimental error. I hold a different opinion.
I used the program Paint to show the area enclosed by the graph with the zero X axis. That should be the result of a correct and proper integration.
Let us first focus on the Input Instantaneous Power Curve on the LHS. Most of the area is on the Lower or Negative side. Since negative power is meaningless, we have to interpret it in a more sensible way. The Input Voltage is measured across the terminals of the battery. That value should be positive with some fluctuations. However, the Input Current can flow in the positive or the negative direction. DC current cannot do that. AC current can. The waveform is not sinusoidal but the concept of flowing in both directions is acceptable.
With Pulsing electromagnetic circuits, we always talk about the back EMF providing power. The curve shows this assumption.
Another puzzling fact is that there appears to have area above and below the X axis simultaneously. Normal sinusoidal waves cannot do that.
One possible explanation is that the circuit is a very fast pulsing circuit. The Pulsing Rate is faster than the oscilloscope sampling rate. Thus some values were sampled on the positive pulses and some values were sampled on the negative pulses.
How would the mean and the rms algorithm in the oscilloscope handle such a situation?
Any ideas?
We are starting to walk on unfamiliar grounds. Any hypothesis that does not violate the Laws of Physics will be regarded as possible. Please refrain from abusive languages in your comments. Be as scientific as possible.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.02, 01:03:29
Examining the graph on reply 399 again
Let us first focus on the Input Instantaneous Power Curve on the LHS. Most of the area is on the Lower or Negative side. Since negative power is meaningless, we have to interpret it in a more sensible way.
I have offered a sensible and logical explanation for the net negative power at the input side with this post #413 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9850#msg9850). The voltage wave form across the 1 Ohm CSR is an amplitude of only about 4mVpp, yet there is a DC offset in the scope channel of an amplitude of about -4mV :o. This negative offset is the cause for the resulting net negative power trace, because a negative x a positive = a negative. A Signal Path Compensation routine run on the scope prior to taking the measurement would, to a large degree, alleviate this problem.
Quote
With Pulsing electromagnetic circuits, we always talk about the back EMF providing power. The curve shows this assumption.
I believe it is clear that the offset in the scope is the cause for the net negative power trace as described above.
Quote
Another puzzling fact is that there appears to have area above and below the X axis simultaneously.
As I have shown here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=704.msg10179#msg10179), whenever a reactive element (capacitor or inductor) is present in a circuit, the current and voltage are very likely to become separated by a phase difference, and it is this phase difference that accounts for part of the power trace to deviate below zero watts.
Quote
Normal sinusoidal waves cannot do that.
Could you clarify this point please?
Quote
One possible explanation is that the circuit is a very fast pulsing circuit. The Pulsing Rate is faster than the oscilloscope sampling rate. Thus some values were sampled on the positive pulses and some values were sampled on the negative pulses.
The sampling rate of this oscilloscope is many magnitudes higher than the pulse rate of the circuit. Scope sampling is not perfect no matter how much faster it is than the signal being sampled, but this sampling "error" does average itself out over time and can largely be ignored in most cases.
Again, the cause for the net negative power for the input was caused by a relatively large negative offset (compared to the signal amplitude being measured) in the scope channel. SPC runs are a must for low level measurements such as these.
Quote
How would the mean and the rms algorithm in the oscilloscope handle such a situation?
The scope will do a satisfactory job at computing the RMS and MEAN values of these wave forms.
.99
The same thing happened with a high performance prototype
@poynt99,
If you look at the waveform on reply 425, you will see the same basic form. The Input Current (last curve on the top LHS) also fluctuated between positive and negative values.
When you see one single set of scope shots, you may attribute that to an error. But when you see a dozen or a hundred, you know that it cannot be an error.
I deliberately bring this up for you to watch out. You will find a similar waveform when you build your own FLEET.
We can continue this debate after you obtained the same waveform on your own oscilloscopes after you eliminated all possible experimental errors.
As I commented before, at this point, we can allow all hypotheses to stand. The next round of evidence will help to clarify and eliminate some of them. Are there any more hypotheses from any one else?
Bringing-up a good point
In Physics, we sometimes fall into the trap. Someone made a logical and sensible explanation on an observation. If that someone has reputation and authority, many others will accept and follow.
Few will actively seek alternative explanations.
This is why physicists failed to answer the simple question for so long. The simple question is – when a tuning fork is struck in the presence of other identical tuning forks, the resulting sound will be louder and lasts longer.
Some authorities wrote in textbooks that it is sympathetic vibrations and is a characteristic of resonance. Physicists followed that doctrine for centuries.
If they had raised the question – does that represent more energy with the louder and longer sound? If so, where does that extra energy come from?
They would not need to wait until Dec 2004 for an old, retired guy with two previous strokes to come up with the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory.
In this forum, please do not blindly accept ANY logical and sensible explanation as final. Pseudo resonance behavior is NOT normal. Amen.
*** I am glad that Poynt99 has softened his words. He is allowing room for other alternative explanations.
Hi All,
Before an actual debate thread is started regarding measurement methods it may be good to review certain terms to lay the ground work for mutual understanding.
Q. What does 'mean' mean when used on a scope?
A. It is the Arithmetical Mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean) of the selected train or cycle. This is often referred to as the Average
Q. What is the Formula for Average Power (Mean Power) in an AC waveform?
A. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/c/1/7c1c446258305f4c3c58251e5122d9ab.png) (Also See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Power_calculations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Power_calculations) )
Q. Is there a formula for calculating the RMS value of a sawtooth wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave) like those shown in some of the screen shots here?
A. Yes, if the period and amplitude are consistent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms)
Q. Is there any solid way to compare power between two stages of a circuit when the waveforms are wildly diverse in amplitude, frequency and envelope?
A. Yes. Certain scopes offer an AREA selection that will return Volt-Seconds of a particular wave form. When applied to the power traces for the two stages an easy comparison can be made that very accurately provides the ratio between the two stages. For an example see page 162 in this manual http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Tektronix/DPO3000_UM.pdf (http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Tektronix/DPO3000_UM.pdf)
Q. Can the ground system of two different scopes inject energy into a DUT?
A. Yes. Consider a situation where two scopes are plugged into different receptacles only a few feet apart. The ground wire for each is routed next to the other two current carrying wires in the wall for those few feet. Current flowing in those other wires will induce current in the ground wire along that path. Now consider that one of the scopes is connected to the input stage at the battery ground and the other is connected to the output stage (isolated by the toroid). We now have created a short circuit between the reference lead at battery negative and the reference lead at the output winding and we are pumping energy into that wire which in turn will drive the output transformer from the output side and store energy in its core. So it is important that short circuits of this sort are allowed for the DUT and that any grounds for connected test equipment are secured as close to each other as possible.
I think it is great to have so many persons assembled in one place to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately I cannot claim that all of my knowledge is accurate and correct, so it is practically guaranteed that I will make mistakes and errors. So when you see them, please feel free to correct them O0
Cheers!
Harvey
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.02, 07:34:51
Hi All,
Before an actual debate thread is started regarding measurement methods it may be good to review certain terms to lay the ground work for mutual understanding.
......
I think it is great to have so many persons assembled in one place to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately I cannot claim that all of my knowledge is accurate and correct, so it is practically guaranteed that I will make mistakes and errors. So when you see them, please feel free to correct them O0
Cheers!
Harvey
@Harvey, welcome to the forum. None of us can claim that our knowledge is absolutely accurate and correct. However, some of us carry more conviction than others. Sometimes, very strong words are used. Or sometimes, someone's hard word was dismissed as experimental error.
With your presence as a moderator, we shall see a higher level of scientific reasoning.
I prefer to wait for poynt99 to receive the components package. He can then build a FLEET and examine the waveforms for himself. Preferably, he can display them in this forum for all to share and examine. Our debate will be much more meaningful with actual "pseudo resonance" waveforms. Such waveforms have not been adequately explained in standard textbooks. (In particular, why do the Output Power Waveforms cover much larger areas than the Input Power Waveforms. Does that mean COP > 1?)
Meanwhile, you can see my points of view at my moderated bench:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=610.0
Best regards,
Lawrence Tseung
Director,
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
Lawrence, Harvey,
May I suggest that we first establish precisely what the issue of the debate is? I see indications that everyone has their own differing ideas about this, even though I feel I have adequately conveyed what the issue is, and there have been no objections to date. First we have to agree on what the debate issue is, and it should be limited as much as possible in terms of breadth of scope.
.99
As an outside observer coming to the discussion fresh with the advantage of seeing all of the preceding posts as a collective whole, it appears to me that the debate relates to which of the following two power measurement techniques should be used.
Method 1: Average Power obtained from the product of RMS current and RMS voltage
Method 2: Average Power obtained from the Mean of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage.
If this is not the issue under debate, please correct me.
Harvey
I am just going to do a quick brute force exploration into the power issues related to the fact that you have a non-linear load, a diode.
Supposing you have a situation where the output is 1 volt at 1 amp for one second, and then 2 volts at 10 amps for another second. This is a non-linear load like a diode.
The instantaneous power for the first second is 1 watt, and for the second second it is 20 watts.
So the average power is (1 joule + 20 joules)/2 seconds = 10.5 watts. (CORRECT)
The mean voltage is (1 + 2)/2 = 1.5 volts.
The mean current is (1 + 10)/2 = 5.5 amps.
The mean voltage times the mean current is (1.5 x 5.5) = 8.25 watts (INCORRECT)
The RMS voltage is sqrt (1 + 4) = 2.236 volts
The RMS current is sqrt (1 + 100) = 10.050 amps
The RMS voltage times the RMS current is (2.236 x 10.050) = 22.5 watts (INCORRECT)
So the conclusion is that you cannot use the mean voltage times the mean current or the RMS voltage times the RMS current for any kind of a non-linear load like you have in the LTJT where L3 drives a load that consists of a diode and two resistors. You have to multiply the instantaneous voltage by the instantaneous current and then take the average of the power waveform.
Therefore the correct way of measuring the output power from the LTJT is for Poynt to use his DSO and measure the instantaneous voltage and current values and then do the associated calculations. The same principle applies to measuring the input power because the LTJT itself is a non-linear load.
MileHigh
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.02, 20:06:18
As an outside observer coming to the discussion fresh with the advantage of seeing all of the preceding posts as a collective whole, it appears to me that the debate relates to which of the following two power measurement techniques should be used.
Method 1: Average Power obtained from the product of RMS current and RMS voltage
Method 2: Average Power obtained from the Mean of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage.
If this is not the issue under debate, please correct me.
Harvey
Harvey,
I believe the issue at hand is even more basic. My understanding of the disagreement is simply regarding
which computation should be used to obtain the REAL power in the circuit*, either:
Method 1: The Power value obtained from the
MEAN of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage.
or
Method 2: The Power value obtained from the
RMS of the product of instantaneous current and instantaneous voltage.
If Lawrence disagrees that this is what the debate is about, then I would ask him to describe what the disagreement is from his perspective.
Thanks,
.99
* I can reference a number of posts that seem to support the notion that this is indeed the disagreement between us.
Let me word the topic of the debate as I understand it
1. We have one or two oscilloscopes. We would like to measure the correct Input Power (or Input Energy) and compare that with the correct Output Power (or Output Energy), is there a theoretically best method?
2. The waveforms for voltage and current can have any arbitrary shape. The waveforms may not even be periodic. (The waveform never repeats itself.)
3. The waveforms may even be pulsing and may even be non-continuous.
4. The waveform can cut the neutral axis. This means that the voltage or the current may be positive or negative.
5. Since the waveforms are NOT sinusoidal, we cannot have the simple phase relationships between voltage and current.
6. Does the concept of Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current still hold?
7. To repeat - is there a theoretically correct method? Is the area integration method the best?
8. If we want an approximate comparison, should we use the mean or the rms computation for the Instantaneous Power?
Please reword the above if you feel that it does not accurately reflect the essence of our debate. Thank you.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.02, 23:48:27
Let me word the topic of the debate as I understand it
1. We have one or two oscilloscopes. We would like to measure the correct Input Power (or Input Energy) and compare that with the correct Output Power (or Output Energy), is there a theoretically best method?
2. The waveforms for voltage and current can have any arbitrary shape. The waveforms may not even be periodic. (The waveform never repeats itself.)
3. The waveforms may even be pulsing and may even be non-continuous.
4. The waveform can cut the neutral axis. This means that the voltage or the current may be positive or negative.
5. Since the waveforms are NOT sinusoidal, we cannot have the simple phase relationships between voltage and current.
6. Does the concept of Instantaneous Power = Instantaneous Voltage x Instantaneous Current still hold?
7. To repeat - is there a theoretically correct method? Is the area integration method the best?
8. If we want an approximate comparison, should we use the mean or the rms computation for the Instantaneous Power?
Please reword the above if you feel that it does not accurately reflect the essence of our debate. Thank you.
Lawrence,
In order to have a debate about an issue, each side partaking in the debate must have a different stance or position. In other words the two (or more) parties are not in agreement about a specific issue.
In the above, you have not identified a specific issue, nor identified a position or stance that you are taking on that issue. What you have done is asked some questions, which seems to indicate that you are uncertain as to what the issue is and therefore you currently have no stance as a result.
There can be no debate I'm afraid until you fulfill these two requirements.
So Lawrence, please do the following if you are serious about having this debate:
1) Identify a specific issue.
2) Describe your stance on the issue that you have identified..99
Thank you both for the clarification.
It would seem that Lawrence's Item 8 and Poynt99's preceding post are in agreement as to the basis of the debate even though they are worded slightly differently.
Recognizing that Instantaneous Power P(t) is the product of Instantaneous Voltage V(t) and Instantaneous Current I(t) we have the formula P(t) = V(t) · I(t)
We then have the basis of the debate: Which is the proper method of determining the Average Power for a series of P(t) samples where the load is purely resistive?
Method 1: PRMS = √((P12 + P22 + P32 . . . Pn2)/ n)
Method 2: PMEAN = (P1 + P2 + P3 . . . Pn) / n
Does this sound correct to both participants in the debate?
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.03, 00:22:15
Thank you both for the clarification.
It would seem that Lawrence's Item 8 and Poynt99's preceding post are in agreement as to the basis of the debate even though they are worded slightly differently.
There are some very important differences.
[I should mention, and I trust we are all in agreement on this, that all measurements being argued here are based on one that is obtained by first acquiring the instantaneous voltage and current wave forms, then multiplying them together to produce the instantaneous power trace. For circuits of this nature, there is no other sure method (using an oscilloscope) to obtain the value of average power in a circuit.]
First, use of the word "approximate" in Item 8 is irrelevant and erroneous. This implies that even though the said computation may not be useful in order to obtain a correct value of power, it is acceptable to use for comparison purposes. This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one. The said computation must produce either a correct or incorrect result, and only the correct result can and should be used for comparison purposes and absolute measurement alike. Why would one go through the trouble of obtaining an incorrect result when the correct result is at hand?
Second, Lawrence seems to be asking whether we should be applying an RMS or a MEAN computation to the instantaneous power trace. This in fact is the fundamental question and disagreement at hand.
But again, Lawrence is only asking questions. He must state an issue then take a stance on that issue, otherwise there is no debate, only questions.
Quote
We then have the basis of the debate: Which is the proper method of determining the Average Power for a series of P(t) samples where the load is purely resistive?
There is no basis for a debate yet. There must be at least two differing points of view, and so far we only have one.
The load is irrelevant. The P(t) method is applicable for all load types.
We may be getting closer...
.99
Do the participants wish to include in the debate the relevancy of load type in the Power computations?
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.03, 01:09:50
Do the participants wish to include in the debate the relevancy of load type in the Power computations?
If you are implying that the load type is relevant, then I would ask you to explain why you believe this is so. Otherwise, my answer is no, because I have already stated that the load type is irrelevant.
.99
If Lawrence's Device has a Pure Carbon Resistor as a Load, the V & Current are IN PHASE, & a Power Dissipation Calculation is a Piece of Cake.
Click on the Link below to verify this. This is really BASIC ELECTRONICS. WHY make it harder than it is?
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kU4BUpN6aQAFWBXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvAzAEZnIDeWZwLXQtMzQxBGhvc3RwdmlkAy5ZcDZoMG9HN3Y1UHVyekdUU2p3TGhHMlIuNS5oVTFLQlRnQURUcDgEbl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDcmVzaXN0b3IgbG9hZCAiaW4gcGhhc2UiIHJlYWN0aXZlBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDREZSNQ--?p=resistor+load+%22in+phase%22+reactive&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-341
.
Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.02.03, 01:36:30
If Lawrence's Device has a Pure Carbon Resistor as a Load, the V & Current are IN PHASE, & a Power Dissipation Calculation is a Piece of Cake.
Click on the Link below to verify this. This is really BASIC ELECTRONICS. WHY make it harder than it is?
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kU4BUpN6aQAFWBXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGFvAzAEZnIDeWZwLXQtMzQxBGhvc3RwdmlkAy5ZcDZoMG9HN3Y1UHVyekdUU2p3TGhHMlIuNS5oVTFLQlRnQURUcDgEbl9ncHMDMARuX3ZwcwMwBG9yaWdpbgNzcnAEcXVlcnkDcmVzaXN0b3IgbG9hZCAiaW4gcGhhc2UiIHJlYWN0aXZlBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDREZSNQ--?p=resistor+load+%22in+phase%22+reactive&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-341
.
It is not that simple in this case. Look at the circuit.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.03, 01:16:21
If you are implying that the load type is relevant, then I would ask you to explain why you believe this is so. Otherwise, my answer is no, because I have already stated that the load type is irrelevant.
.99
As the moderator I think I need to remain neutral. Therefore the question at hand is, do we wish to include the matter of load type relevancy in the debate or exclude it?
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.03, 00:22:15
Method 1: PRMS = √((P12 + P22 + P32 . . . Pn2)/ n)
Method 2: PMEAN = (P1 + P2 + P3 . . . Pn) / n
This issue is clarified earlier by poynt99 . Method 1 is not the correct way and I dont' think this is the issue between Lawrence and Poynt.
Quote
1) Voltage: The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form voltage measurement, and it displays 7.07VRMS
2) Current: The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form current measurement, and it displays 141.4mARMS
3) Power: The scope is set to multiply in real time, the voltage and current wave forms to produce a third wave form trace showing us the instantaneous power. The scope is set to indicate the RMS value of the displayed wave form power computation, and it displays 1.22W
4) The scope is set to indicate the MEAN value of the displayed wave form power computation, and it displays 1.00W
I think the issue here is that mr. Tseung thinking about I*V in general while Poynt99 thinks about REAL power. IV and real power is just a different in phase.
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.03, 01:59:11
As the moderator I think I need to remain neutral. Therefore the question at hand is, do we wish to include the matter of load type relevancy in the debate or exclude it?
I think both Lawrence and I would appreciate knowing about any flaw in the premise. If something is relevant to the debate and it is not being addressed by either Lawrence or I, the moderator should make that known.
I think it is safe to say that you feel it is relevant, otherwise you would not have mentioned it. Neither Lawrence or I have ever mentioned the load type being a factor in these measurements, as best I can recall.
.99
To make the debate meaningful, I shall take the following positions
1. Both the Pulsing by the 2n2222 and the actual load is EXTREMELY important in our measurement of Input and Output Instantaneous Power.
2. For a generalize waveform, the rms value MUST be used.
3. Even if the rms value does not give a perfect, accurate answer, it is useful for comparison purposes.
4. There is a theoretical best – the area integration method. The positive area and the negative area CANNOT be added with the sign. Negative Power is meaningless. Mean value MUST never be used involving such waveforms.
5. The RMS value turns the sign into positive. Square of a negative number will always be positive. Thus for comparison purposes, we can eyeball the Instantaneous Power Curve or use the rms Power Value.
Do we have enough grounds for a proper scientific debate now???
*** Please set up a different thread for the on-lookers. We want them to contribute but not in the main "ring".
This might not be relevant in the debate but is time not a factor? Can't a bartery load up a cap for shot bursts of power then recharge and do it again for the appearance of excess power but over time it all evens out.
Pete
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.03, 02:54:36
To make the debate meaningful, I shall take the following positions
1. Both the Pulsing by the 2n2222 and the actual load is EXTREMELY important in our measurement of Input and Output Instantaneous Power.
2. For a generalize waveform, the rms value MUST be used.
3. Even if the rms value does not give a perfect, accurate answer, it is useful for comparison purposes.
4. There is a theoretical best – the area integration method. The positive area and the negative area CANNOT be added with the sign. Negative Power is meaningless. Mean value MUST never be used involving such waveforms.
5. The RMS value turns the sign into positive. Square of a negative number will always be positive. Thus for comparison purposes, we can eyeball the Instantaneous Power Curve or use the rms Power Value.
Do we have enough grounds for a proper scientific debate now???
No. Not to my satisfaction. Be specific.
Lawrence, simply write down only two things and two things only, please.
1) One single specific issue that you wish to debate. Be specific and choose ONE thing only, not 4.
2) Choose a position or stance about that one specific issue.
.99
Quote from: vonwolf on 2011.02.03, 02:55:11
This might not be relevant in the debate but is time not a factor? Can't a bartery load up a cap for shot bursts of power then recharge and do it again for the appearance of excess power but over time it all evens out.
Pete
Pete,
Appreciate your comment, but the debate we are trying to pursue is in regards to the specifics in power measurement. The issue of whether the device is overunity or not will be resolved once we can measure it using the accepted method as per the outcome of this debate.
.99
Lawrence, Harvey,
Maybe this will help you get started, here is my issue and stance:
1) I wish to debate the following issue: The computation that must be applied to an instantaneous power trace in order to obtain the correct result for average power.
2) My stance on the issue stated in 1), is that a MEAN computation must be applied.
.99
Thanks poynt99
I understand your position, I was just trying to head off the next debate.
Pete
The number of issues can be many, and there are a few others I would like to debate with Lawrence. However, each issue should be dealt with in its own debate, and they all be tackled one at a time. In this way, we can address all of the issues Lawrence mentioned, one at a time.
So what do you say Lawrence, shall we tackle the one I stated above first?
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.03, 02:54:36
To make the debate meaningful, I shall take the following positions
. . .
2. For a generalize waveform, the rms value MUST be used.
. . .
I think we are getting close to establishing the topic and the stance of each participant.
Debate Topic:
"What method of computation should be applied to a Power Waveform Trace to obtain the Average Power of the sample set under consideration?"Poynt99: Is your stance that the MEAN computation
must be used?
Lawrence: Is your stance that the RMS computation
must be used?
If so, then when the facility is made available I will set up the debate thread along with a separate audience thread where the matter can be discussed.
Harvey
Regarding the question, yes. My stance is for MEAN.
I have set up a new "Technical Debates" board here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=118.0), where you are the moderator Harvey.
.99
Ok, the debate thread is setup there along with an audience area for comments on the debate.
May good things come from this interchange of knowledge that everyone can benefit from O0
Good that there will be debate thread.
The confusion lies in that when you look at voltage or current, the power associated with these parameters is proportional to the square of the measurement. That's why you make RMS measurements on AC voltage-alone or current-alone waveforms to "rationalize" them down to DC equivalents. It's a way of giving you a measure of the true power capability inherent in an AC voltage or current waveform. Alternatively, voltage times current is in itself a measurement that is the product of two variables and is therefore inherently "squared."
When it comes to a "power waveform," that is an abstraction derived from two other real-world variables. The power waveform already factors in the "squared" factor associated with the voltage and current waveforms. Therefore it makes no sense at all to "square power" and then take the mean value of that and then calculate the square root. The only thing that you have to do is average out the power over an entire periodic cycle.
When you want to calculate energy over a cycle, you integrate the power waveform over that cycle to get your energy calculation. You do not integrate over the square of the power waveform and then take the square root. Again, that makes no sense.
MileHigh
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.02, 07:34:51
Hi All,
Before an actual debate thread is started regarding measurement methods it may be good to review certain terms to lay the ground work for mutual understanding.
Q. What does 'mean' mean when used on a scope?
A. It is the Arithmetical Mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean) of the selected train or cycle. This is often referred to as the Average
Q. What is the Formula for Average Power (Mean Power) in an AC waveform?
A. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/c/1/7c1c446258305f4c3c58251e5122d9ab.png) (Also See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Power_calculations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power#Power_calculations) )
Q. Is there a formula for calculating the RMS value of a sawtooth wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave) like those shown in some of the screen shots here?
A. Yes, if the period and amplitude are consistent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms)
Q. Is there any solid way to compare power between two stages of a circuit when the waveforms are wildly diverse in amplitude, frequency and envelope?
A. Yes. Certain scopes offer an AREA selection that will return Volt-Seconds of a particular wave form. When applied to the power traces for the two stages an easy comparison can be made that very accurately provides the ratio between the two stages. For an example see page 162 in this manual http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Tektronix/DPO3000_UM.pdf (http://www.tequipment.net/pdf/Tektronix/DPO3000_UM.pdf)
Q. Can the ground system of two different scopes inject energy into a DUT?
A. Yes. Consider a situation where two scopes are plugged into different receptacles only a few feet apart. The ground wire for each is routed next to the other two current carrying wires in the wall for those few feet. Current flowing in those other wires will induce current in the ground wire along that path. Now consider that one of the scopes is connected to the input stage at the battery ground and the other is connected to the output stage (isolated by the toroid). We now have created a short circuit between the reference lead at battery negative and the reference lead at the output winding and we are pumping energy into that wire which in turn will drive the output transformer from the output side and store energy in its core. So it is important that short circuits of this sort are allowed for the DUT and that any grounds for connected test equipment are secured as close to each other as possible.
I think it is great to have so many persons assembled in one place to share their knowledge and experience. Unfortunately I cannot claim that all of my knowledge is accurate and correct, so it is practically guaranteed that I will make mistakes and errors. So when you see them, please feel free to correct them O0
Cheers!
Harvey
Thank you for the helpful links and info Harvey. Your knowledge, creativity, and aptitude for teaching will also be a boon for OUR.
We all slip up from time to time, and I know you'll be there to catch our falls too. O0
Welcome to the forum Harvey, and thanks for taking on the Technical Debates Moderator job.
.99
While we wait for a rebuttal from Lawrence in the debate thread, I am off today, and have already wound my toroid transformer. I'll be posting pictures and preliminary scope shots (1x 100MHz scope at the moment) today/tonight, so stay tuned ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.03, 18:33:49
While we wait for a rebuttal from Lawrence in the debate thread, I am off today, and have already wound my toroid transformer. I'll be posting pictures and preliminary scope shots (1x 100MHz scope at the moment) today/tonight, so stay tuned ;)
.99
Looking forward to that and seeing the
mean value. O0
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.05, 10:32:56
Looking forward to that and seeing the mean value. O0
;D
btw mr. Tseung, I think what you were looking for earlier is (l P1l + l P2l + l P3l . . . l Pnl) / n ;D
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.05, 10:32:56
Looking forward to that and seeing the mean value. O0
Indeed, you will ;)
I suspect we might also be seeing some very different numbers from the professor now. :)
.99
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.02.05, 13:18:40
;D
btw mr. Tseung, I think what you were looking for earlier is (l P1l + l P2l + l P3l . . . l Pnl) / n ;D
Well put. But that was in the past. We continue to move forward.
The results and screen shots from poynt99 will tell us much more. Especially the mean. O0
Lawrence, did you find what you thought were favorable results, at any particular frequency range?
What was the lowest frequency you or some other experimenters have used?
.99
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.05, 15:53:11
Well put. But that was in the past. We continue to move forward.
The results and screen shots from poynt99 will tell us much more. Especially the mean. O0
You are a scary man and can only compares to Rosemary. ;D
If you look at reply 22 in the participant debate thread, from Poynit99:
Quote
What Harvey is trying to convey, is that VRMS * IRMS = PAVE = MEAN[v(t) * i(t)], and he is correct.
We have been using VRMS * IRMS and Vpp * Ipp for our estimation since July 2010 and that was renamed Tseung FLEET Comparison Index under the request of Poynt99.
If VRMS * IRMS = PAVE was the correct equation to use, we accidentally used it for months now. It would be interesting to see the results from Poynt99. I am even more confident in helping him to tune a device with COP > 1!
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.02.06, 01:37:55
If you look at reply 22 in the participant debate thread, from Poynit99:
We have been using VRMS * IRMS and Vpp * Ipp for our estimation since July 2010 and that was renamed Tseung FLEET Comparison Index under the request of Poynt99.
If VRMS * IRMS = PAVE was the correct equation to use, we accidentally used it for months now. It would be interesting to see the results from Poynt99. I am even more confident in helping him to tune a device with COP > 1!
That method is only valid for 0-phase circuits Lawrence. The phase relationship is not accounted for that way, and it will yield incorrect results in cases where there is phase shift between the voltage and current.
Let's stick to the p(t) method, sound good? O0
.99
The prototype with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index is being delivered by Fed Ex to Poynt99.
He should receive it later this afternoon (Feb 9). The latest is tomorrow. The prototype should be tested as shipped. That would give a quick comparison between his oscilloscope and the ATTEN oscilloscope used in Hong Kong.
That prototype should be used for testing and discussion purposes. It has a higher Index value than that sent to Physics Society in Beijing.
Poynt99 should also be receiving a components package via Post Office Mail. He should Keep the prototype as shipped and build another prototype to his liking.
The fun begins.
Lawrence
Sounds good. Will do Lawrence. ;)
.99
Yesterday, I traveled to the University and used the Tektronix 3032 there. (I may use it, not bring it to my home, a distance of about 70 miles away. We drove home through a blizzard last night... but made it safely.)
I decided to post the results, whatever they turned out to be.
Prototype A was sent to me by Lawrence some time ago. I have preserved his soldered-up JT circuit (with transistor) -- except that I cut a wire to the LED here. On the output circuit, I replaced the two resistors (10 and 100 ohms) with a single 1 ohm resistor, keeping his white LED there.
Below are the results, showing the Power waveform for both input and output in Red -- and letting the Tek 3032 do the Mean calculation for many cycles. Also shown are the RMS voltages for the input- and output-circuit voltages and for the 1-ohm resistor leading to each of these circuits, which will be of interest to some.
The Math waveform is channel 1 TIMES channel 2, that is, V*I = P since 1-ohm resistors are used in both input and output (one for input, one for output).
Using the mean Power calculated over many cycles, we can evaluate the COP:
Prototype A, Poutmean = 61.62 mVV Pinmean = 106.2 mVV, so that the COP is Pin/Pout = 0.58
Now, let's take a look at the VRMS and IRMS values also given by the Tek 3032 -- which RMS values have been the subject of debate here at OUR:
Vrmsout * I rmsout = 2.92V * 31.5 mV = 92.0 mVV
Vrmsin * I rmsin = 1.43V * 110 mV = 157.3 mVV
So that the "FLEET Index" as defined in this thread becomes 92.0/157.3 = 0.58 -- which agrees very well with the COP evaluated above by a different method (using the Mean Power values). So I ask you -- is this agreement just a coincidence?
Hmmm... This is an important question. Hope I haven't stumped you guys: :o
QuoteSo that the "FLEET Index" as defined in this thread becomes 92.0/157.3 = 0.58 -- which agrees very well with the COP [of 0.58 also] evaluated above by a different method (using the Mean Power values). So I ask you -- is this agreement just a coincidence?
Hi PhysicsProf,
That is an interesting thing, but what is missing is the average phase angle which could be determined in post by the following:
Mean Power / (Vrms * Irms) = Cos(θ) or θ = InvCos(Mean Power / (Vrms * Irms).
Pavg = Vrms * Irms * Cos (θ) (the formula in my prior post is for purely resistive circuits only where θ = 0)
So for POUTmean = 61.62 mVV (or mW) we get θ = InvCos(0.06162 / (2.92 * 0.0315)) = 47.69°
And for PINmean = 106.2 mVV (or mW) we get θ = InvCos(0.1062 / (1.43 * .110)) = 47.53°
So there is some phase differential between the input and the output by about 0.16°.
If the scope were able to give you this average phase angle, then you would have arrived at the same values as the mean. I would like to point out that these are 'effective' phase angles that allow us to treat the signal as a sinusoid in these calculations. The more complex the waveform, the more difficult it is to process in this way.
But looking at the actual factors involved, we see that Cos(47.69) is 0.673 and Cos(47.53) is 0.675 so the differential of 0.675 / 0.673 is .0029 away from 1 and this falls below your 2 digit rounding. So essentially excluding your phase angle in this case was the same as having a factor of 1.
I think that is why it came so close to being the same thing.
Something I wanted to try, and did not get a chance yet, was to compare Lawrence's index differences to actual average power differences. In other words, if Lawrence was doing the math wrong, he was doing it wrong for both the input and the output so both were inflated or deflated by the same algorithm and that may mean that the ratios held. Just a thought. Also, do you know if his scopes output any data? If he has the raw data then we could have a look at that and see what it shows.
Harvey
It doesn't make sense to me that the phase angle of the primary is different than the phase angle of the secondary although the overal circuit phase angle can change significantly with frequency. In another word, they can change, but both must have the same phase. In this case, it's easy to prove.
Ri/Ai = Ro/Ao ===> Ri/Ro = Ai/Ao
R= real power
i = input
o = output
A = apparent power
Yes, they were eating apples and oranges and try to convinced the world which one taste better. Thank you professor for your trip.
Quote from: Harvey on 2011.02.18, 09:50:37
Hi PhysicsProf,
That is an interesting thing, but what is missing is the average phase angle which could be determined in post by the following:
Mean Power / (Vrms * Irms) = Cos(θ) or θ = InvCos(Mean Power / (Vrms * Irms).
Pavg = Vrms * Irms * Cos (θ) (the formula in my prior post is for purely resistive circuits only where θ = 0)
So for POUTmean = 61.62 mVV (or mW) we get θ = InvCos(0.06162 / (2.92 * 0.0315)) = 47.69°
And for PINmean = 106.2 mVV (or mW) we get θ = InvCos(0.1062 / (1.43 * .110)) = 47.53°
So there is some phase differential between the input and the output by about 0.16°.
If the scope were able to give you this average phase angle, then you would have arrived at the same values as the mean. I would like to point out that these are 'effective' phase angles that allow us to treat the signal as a sinusoid in these calculations. The more complex the waveform, the more difficult it is to process in this way.
But looking at the actual factors involved, we see that Cos(47.69) is 0.673 and Cos(47.53) is 0.675 so the differential of 0.675 / 0.673 is .0029 away from 1 and this falls below your 2 digit rounding. So essentially excluding your phase angle in this case was the same as having a factor of 1.
I think that is why it came so close to being the same thing.
Something I wanted to try, and did not get a chance yet, was to compare Lawrence's index differences to actual average power differences. In other words, if Lawrence was doing the math wrong, he was doing it wrong for both the input and the output so both were inflated or deflated by the same algorithm and that may mean that the ratios held. Just a thought. Also, do you know if his scopes output any data? If he has the raw data then we could have a look at that and see what it shows.
Harvey
Hmmm...
This might be quite plausible as an explanation if we were dealing with single frequency sine waves. How well these phase shift calculations fit in with a waveform rich in harmonics (where the phase angles will be different for each sine component of the composite waveform) is another matter, I would think. I don't have an answer to the Professor's question, but I'm not convinced that these calculations would apply quite so neatly in the case of the waveforms involved here.
Humbugger
Yes sine waves rule and the output power formula only works for the phase relationship between two sine waves of the the same frequency.
Interesting comments by the last three posters ;)
Since we are looking at Voltage and Current from the same source if the frequency of the two were different then we would be having discussions on an entirely different level to be sure - but certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.
It would be cool to see if they could forensically extrapolate the phase angle of the periodic signals under consideration from the supplied data. O0
8)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.09, 19:21:20
Sounds good. Will do Lawrence. ;)
.99
Poynt,
Just curious, did you receive the proto and did you have a chance to review already?
Quote from: teslaalset on 2011.03.10, 13:46:06
Poynt,
Just curious, did you receive the proto and did you have a chance to review already?
See this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=723.0
Lawrence,
From HERE (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281190#msg281190):
QuotePoynt99 and MileHigh totally dismissed my FLEET waveforms also - claiming that those are wrong and worthless. They are NOT qualified and WRONG.
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.11, 13:33:43
Lawrence,
From HERE (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg281190#msg281190):
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?
.99
Please go to:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html
Check reply 111. We shall do an open seminar/workshop similar to Rosemary to get the right people involved. This seminar/workshop will be sponsored by a legitimate group under United Nations.
Some planning will be outlined in that thread. Their experts examined some of the FLEET waveforms.
One comment on the Output Power waveform was – "It is a classic standing wave demonstrating resonance". You and MileHigh dismissed the same waveform as worthless!
Different people can have different opinions. The experts have formal academic qualifications. They represent a credible, international organization.
God sends Angels. But the Devil occasionally turns up. We need to use our judgments. Amen.
Lawrence,
If you've being paying any attention at all to the wave forms both the professor and I have been posting in all the JT threads, you would know without a doubt that you can do MUCH better with yours as well.
Unfortunately, some of the wave forms you presented in that picture are not very useful for determining power, but then, what do I know? C.C
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.12, 00:51:40
Lawrence,
If you've being paying any attention at all to the wave forms both the professor and I have been posting in all the JT threads, you would know without a doubt that you can do MUCH better with yours as well.
Unfortunately, some of the wave forms you presented in that picture are not very useful for determining power, but then, what do I know? C.C
.99
I know that your and PhysicsProf have been working hard in understanding the measurement technique and the interpretation of various waveforms. You two have been focusing on the basic Joule Thief circuits.
For resonance, I now understand that multiple LCR circuits are required. Thus the FLEET is much better in achieving resonance and bringing-in electron motion energy. My waveforms are very useful to the experts. Standing waves are associated with resonance.
Do not feel too bad. I did not appreciate that fact – which had been staring in my face since July 2010. You and Physics Prof did not see the waveforms until 2011. Now you two can work on multiple LCR resonance circuits with confidence. Look for the standing waveform.
I still have not received my FLEET prototype back yet. If it is with you, you may un-solder the "bad joint" and do the two oscilloscope experiment – varying (tuning) the effective resistance and capacitance with "playing" on the bad joint. With patience, you are likely to find the resonance position again – look for standing wave form. DO NOT use mean power!!!
;)
Absolute confirmation of resonance? O0
The Output Power Curve is compared with four classic standing waves.
What is the correct measurement of Output Power?
What is the correct measurement of Output Energy in 1 cycle?
God's Revelation cannot be wrong.
@PhysicsProf and Poynt99,
The COP >> 1. This is much easier to work with than playing with the basic Joule Thief. Go for Multi-LCR resonance circuits.
Lawrence: I have looked at your data -- can you please explain, for the input Voltage-RMS, one finds Vin (RMS) = 0.320 volts. This seems strange -- whenever I measure the Vin (RMS) I get very close to the voltage of the BATTERY (or Power Supply).
I am asking what you input power source was for this test, and why it is that Vin (RMS) is only 0.32 volts.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.04.13, 14:10:52
Lawrence: I have looked at your data -- can you please explain, for the input Voltage-RMS, one finds Vin (RMS) = 0.320 volts. This seems strange -- whenever I measure the Vin (RMS) I get very close to the voltage of the BATTERY (or Power Supply).
I am asking what you input power source was for this test, and why it is that Vin (RMS) is only 0.32 volts.
That particular set of data was using battery. The Vpp is the expected 1.52 from the battery. But note the waveform. There is a significant portion with almost zero voltage. This is a property at or near resonance. It was not a mistake.
You have not seen it because you have not played with resonance circuit much yet. I never managed to get the basic Joule Thief to demonstrate COP > 1. I have got FLEET to achieve COP > 1 many times. Multiple LCR circuits are the key.
It may a good time for you to start playing with resonance circuits. The Output Power Curve is definitely a standing wave. That is a sign of resonance.
Lawrence
Lawrence:
You must recognize the vast difference between your waveforms and the waveforms you get when the Joule Thief is operating the way it is supposed to operate and the measurements are made properly.
If you worked at a bench with an electronics technician you could explore resonance in depth. You could make the measurements and draw the proper conclusions. We see resonance all the time in out daily lives and it doesn't demonstrate over unity. On the bench you could play with some resonant electrical or mechanical circuits and come to the same conclusion. Radios have used resonant circuits since the 1920s and if there was something anomalous going on it would have been discovered a long time ago.
There is beauty in the process of learning and understanding the truth.
MileHigh
If we can measure the natual frequency of the LCR circuit and compare it with the frequency it operates under. Could be in the sub-harmonic.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.04.14, 02:33:42
Lawrence:
You must recognize the vast difference between your waveforms and the waveforms you get when the Joule Thief is operating the way it is supposed to operate and the measurements are made properly.
If you worked at a bench with an electronics technician you could explore resonance in depth. You could make the measurements and draw the proper conclusions. We see resonance all the time in out daily lives and it doesn't demonstrate over unity. On the bench you could play with some resonant electrical or mechanical circuits and come to the same conclusion. Radios have used resonant circuits since the 1920s and if there was something anomalous going on it would have been discovered a long time ago.
There is beauty in the process of learning and understanding the truth.
MileHigh
Dear MileHigh,
The truth is now very clear:
1. Kinetic Energy of Air Molecules can be brought-in via tuning forks in resonance. This can be proven via standard Newtonian Mechanics. Remember our debate?
2. Multiple LCR resonance can be compared with multiple tuning forks. A single LCR circuit by itself will not get into sympathetic vibration and thus cannot bring-in electron motion energy. The basic Joule Thief is NOT a multi-LCR circuit.
3. Please re-examine the waveform again. You and Poynt99 thought that it was worthless at one time. Now the Experts from United Nations confirmed that the Output Power Curve is a standard, classic standing wave. That is a sure sign of resonance.
4. The tuning fork has been around well before the Radio. How many could deduce that the extra energy came from air molecules??? Steven Mark probably found that two simple LCR circuits in resonance with the Toroid could bring-in electron motion energy over 10 year ago. How many people believed him even after they have seen the video?
5. Poynt99 may still have my FLEET. Ask him to unsolder the "bad joint" and play (tune) with it. He has two oscilloscopes to observe the waveform. Tell him NOT to use mean value for Power. That was the most misleading information pumped out in this forum.
The worthless waveforms are reproduced once again for your benefit. Please find its worth this time.
There is beauty in the process of learning and understanding the truth.
I give up in this debate Lawrence. I have simply run out of gas.
Lawrence:
Quote"
That particular set of data was using battery. The Vpp is the expected 1.52 from the battery. But note the waveform. There is a significant portion with almost zero voltage. "
I don't see how that can be, unless there was some kind of dead short across the battery OR a probe not connected properly. I find that the measured battery voltage is close to 1.5V, with fluctuations around that value when a JT-type circuit is running and I routinely achieve resonance conditions. I would like to try other tests when I return from travel.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.14, 03:01:09
5... Tell him NOT to use mean value for Power. That was the most misleading information pumped out in this forum.
Now here,
I have been using mean Power based on your debate with .99 (and my own studies as well) in which it was concluded that mean Power would be the proper approach -- but if not, why not? and what approach would you use instead? I don't think that taking Vrms * Irms will give the correct value for power, for the reasons discussed at length during that debate.
It is so important to take correct measurements! and to agree on how this should be done. Finally, we may have to do some other measurements-- such as using a capacitor to provide the input power and test the voltage on the cap after a period of time of running, to determine the input power.
Thank you Professor.
We await Lawrence's response.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.14, 13:50:42
Thank you Professor.
We await Lawrence's response.
.99
Oh come on, you know the response. Divine revelations cannot be wrong!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.04.14, 13:03:43
Lawrence:
I don't see how that can be, unless there was some kind of dead short across the battery OR a probe not connected properly. I find that the measured battery voltage is close to 1.5V, with fluctuations around that value when a JT-type circuit is running and I routinely achieve resonance conditions. I would like to try other tests when I return from travel.
Now here, I have been using mean Power based on your debate with .99 (and my own studies as well) in which it was concluded that mean Power would be the proper approach -- but if not, why not? and what approach would you use instead?
I don't think that taking Vrms * Irms will give the correct value for power, for the reasons discussed at length during that debate.
It is so important to take correct measurements! and to agree on how this should be done. Finally, we may have to do some other measurements-- such as using a capacitor to provide the input power and test the voltage on the cap after a period of time of running, to determine the input power.
Dear PhysicsProf,
It cannot be a dead short across the battery. We had the same waveforms with three different two oscilloscope setups. We had dozens if not hundreds of working FLEET prototypes. We had the demonstrations at multiple locations including Hong Kong University. The waveforms cannot be wrong.
Please take my advice – forget improving Joule Thief by a few percent here and there. Your time will be much better spent hunting for resonance with FLEET, Joule Ringer and other Multi-LCR resonance circuits. I repeat – Joule Thief is NOT a multi-LCR circuit. It cannot go into sympathetic vibration by itself. It needs at least one or more LCR circuits
When you come back from your travel, focus on finding standing waves in your one oscilloscope. Start working on the FLEET, Joule Ringer or other multi-LCR resonance circuits. Please forget about the useless and misleading debate information. It will be left as historic record on how stupid I was. I stared at the waveforms for months and did not realize the Output Power Waveform was a standing wave!
Please focus on the classic explanation of a standing wave. A classic standing wave is associated with resonance. It can be produced by two identical waves travelling in opposite directions. Or it can be produced by a reflected wave. When we examine a standing wave, the amplitude is from the zero axis to the Node (maximum amplitude) position.
The Instantaneous Output Power Curve is definitely a Standing Wave. Taking the mean of any classic, ideal standing wave will give zero value. That is definitely WRONG in any analysis of standing waves. No scientists will ever say that the huge amplitude observed at resonance is zero.
That debate with Harvey as the moderator was the most stupid thing I did. It was like taking an uncut diamond to a jewel shop to get an evaluation from the saleperson. The salesperson is unlikely to be a top expert. The conclusion was that – the diamond was junk. Poynt99, MileHigh and Harvey are not as qualified as the United Nation Experts (Chinese Nationals with academic qualifications). Once the Experts confirmed that the Output Power Curve is a standing wave, it opened my eyes.
The actual energy must be the positive or the negative area of the standing wave. Using the Mean Power x Time will give you zero energy. How could I be so stupid to send my diamond to some unqualified persons? The Rosemary experience helped me. From now, I shall only trust the academically qualified experts with actual working test equipments. The postings on the Internet are for documentation purposes. I no longer need comments and reviews from untrained, unqualified, self-proclaimed experts.
I trust in Divine Revelations. They are so clear now. They will be clarified by the Experts from United Nations with China leading the pack of at least 54 Countries. I do not need to send prototypes to anyone any more. The standing wave is evidence enough. The next step is for every participant in the seminars/workshops to have one or more working FLEET prototypes – properly tested, photographed, videotaped and verified. They can bring that back to their own countries and improve them to produce products. Amen.
You and Rosemary have the same bunch of academic experts it seems. Invisible and nameless and never heard from by anyone except through the two of you by third-party reference. The epitome of unquestionable credibility.
Humbugger
Poynt, if I were you I'd stop gifting this pinhead with free storage space and bandwidth. He's worse than Rosemary with his insults and abuse of posting privileges. Let him get his own blog site and fill it with his crap. I'd ban the sucker and block him from reading here in a New York minute.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.14, 16:29:35
...It was like taking an uncut diamond to a jewel shop to get an evaluation from the saleperson. The salesperson is unlikely to be a top expert. The conclusion was that – the diamond was junk. Poynt99, MileHigh and Harvey are not as qualified as the United Nation Experts (Chinese Nationals with academic qualifications). Once the Experts confirmed that the Output Power Curve is a standing wave, it opened my eyes. ...
Lawrence,
If you have the ear of the top jewel experts, then why are you having debates with salespeople?
Humbugger asks a fair question: who are these top experts?
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.04.14, 16:37:52
You and Rosemary have the same bunch of academic experts it seems. Invisible and nameless and never heard from by anyone except through the two of you by third-party reference. The epitome of unquestionable credibility.
Humbugger
Poynt, if I were you I'd stop gifting this pinhead with free storage space and bandwidth. He's worse than Rosemary with his insults and abuse of posting privileges. Let him get his own blog site and fill it with his crap. I'd ban the sucker and block him from reading here in a New York minute.
If you guys had only read some of his older stuff on OU.com, you would give him zero attention. He kept talking about his friend who built UFOs and flew them around the world. He would substantiate these claims with badly photoshopped UFO pictures. I think he predicted a UFO landing on Obama's White House lawn sometime after inauguration. By the way, his proposed method of propulsion of these UFOs was via the spinny bottle on a string. He noticed that there is no recoil when you let go of a bottle you have started spinning about yourself on a string, and reasoned that this is a reasonable "bootstrapping" method of propelling oneself through outer space.
Quote from: Rosphere on 2011.04.14, 17:02:34
Lawrence,
If you have the ear of the top jewel experts, then why are you having debates with salespeople?
Humbugger asks a fair question: who are these top experts?
Please goto energetic forum. The names and posts are in Chinese. The Organization is the FREE TRADE Zone in Lake Victoria. The person in charge of High Technology is a Chinese - Mr. Yang. I did not have the top jewel experts before. Now I shall ignore the salespeople. Thank you for the advice.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7798-seminar-workshop-united-nations.html
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.04.14, 18:48:24
Please goto energetic forum. The names and posts are in Chinese. The Organization is the FREE TRADE Zone in Lake Victoria. The person in charge of High Technology is a Chinese - Mr. Yang. I did not have the top jewel experts before. Now I shall ignore the salespeople. Thank you for the advice.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7798-seminar-workshop-united-nations.html
@ ltseung888
Instead of going from each alternative energy web site searching for the answers that best suit your needs and waste time doing one by one looking for what you want. I suggest you go to "ALL" of them at one time and save us all some trouble, and think of the following of inexperienced experimentalist you may convince in what your doing.
I am or have been a member at each and every one of these organizations and
"MANY" members here are also .... so spread the word and lets get this over with ASAP O0
http://www.zpenergy.com/index.php
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php
http://www.hereticalbuilders.com/
http://www.overunity.org.uk/cmps_index.php
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/front/distilling-the-best-science/ ( I'm banned as FuzzyTomCat )
And these I think your a member at already ....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=adaec4909e3d44a898383a4078f9564f;wwwRedirect ( I'm banned as FuzzyTomCat )
http://www.energeticforum.com/
Fuzzy
:)
Seems to me Lawrence that in an indirect way you are saying that those here that have debated with you, and advised you are not qualified to do so?
This despite the fact that they have the appropriate backgrounds to do so? You are rallying to depart from the OUR forum? Why are you here if you are not happy with the technical abilities of those on this site?
I am going to strongly suggest, that if you are interested in staying a member of OUR, that you demonstrate some respect for those advising you here. Recently, you've shown little else but contempt and disrespect for the members here.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.14, 21:08:21
...
I am going to strongly suggest, that if you are interested in staying a member of OUR, that you demonstrate some respect for those advising you here. Recently, you've shown little else but contempt and disrespect for the members here.
.99
Would it not be good to suggest that all members of OUR
when participating in discussion demonstrate some respect
for those with whom they may disagree?
Certain members seem to have been granted extraordinary
privilege to spew their distasteful commentary with little
moderation.
It would indeed be gratifying to see mature, objective exchanges
of opinion without the drama which brings discredit to the forum.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.04.14, 21:50:16
Would it not be good to suggest that all members of OUR
when participating in discussion demonstrate some respect
for those with whom they may disagree?
Certain members seem to have been granted extraordinary
privilege to spew their distasteful commentary with little
moderation.
It would indeed be gratifying to see mature, objective exchanges
of opinion without the drama which brings discredit to the forum.
Absolutely, and in cases where the offending party is clearly in error and unqualified to properly comment to begin with, AND they insist on being right, then they open the floodgates to receive the same criticisms they impart to others. Rosemary and now Lawrence have demonstrated they are two prime examples of this scenario.
Disagreeing on issues is one thing. Insisting you are right in technical matters when you are clearly very wrong, and having it proved to you as such, is quite another.
.99
I've never treat electricity anything less than longitudinal wave. Having said that, I still agree with the prof on the measurement technique. When one have a perfect standing wave, I consider it at 90 degrees out of phase. The amplitude of course is non zero. I think having two parties working in parallel with different perspective especially scientists from United Nations would accelerate the discovery. Not a bad thing in my opinion.