We have discussed the critically-important matter of painstaking measurements before; it is worth it's own thread here as reliable measurements are a principal goal with me and many others. And I have some particular questions based on recent observations.
Let's start with quotes from a related thread: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=764.msg12282;topicseen#msg --
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.21, 05:30:37
A few days ago, I was able to spend some time with the Tektronix 3032 and several variations on the basic JT circuit. Measuring Pout, Pin and n as discussed above, I might summarize n values to show the spread in values obtained and recorded:
n = .81, .52,.59, .63, .52, .35, .45, .80, .13, .77, .61, .79, .88, .62, .94, .99, .92, 1.0, .69, 1.06
So yes, there were some "interesting values", though I would say the last value is still consistent with unity (given the +-3% errors as previously stated, 2 sigma).
In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken, and the importance of simulations AS A WAY OF CHECKING THE MEASUREMENT METHOD, for example where the probes are attached. Also, if there is an input of power in the circuit somewhere (and somehow) -- just how will this show up? as an increase in current at some point, or an increase in voltage along a path? I think the latter, from observations, but all this has to be checked -- and then re-checked.
I believe simulations will help in this effort of re-checking.
This issue is so important that I propose to come back to this tomorrow on another thread I'll start -- "Measuring Pin, Pout, n -- Simulations etc."
To which .99 kindly replied:
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.21, 12:37:25
Sounds like a very good plan Professor. O0 I'll help out where I can.
One thing I will suggest, is that you try the RC filter/two-DVM method for obtaining a Pin figure. I will draw up an amendment to the schematic to show exactly how to do it. This will not only provide you with another method to obtain Pin, but a way of checking your scope Pin measurements. If you do not have two DMM's (digital multi-meters), you can buy them quite cheaply. As a bonus to this method, not only is it inexpensive, accurate, and accessible (not requiring a scope channel), it allows more freedom as to where and how the Pout can be measured, because there is no longer a common ground between the two measurements, i.e. the scope grounds always limit this flexibility. The Pin measurement is essentially "floating" wrt the scope ground.
.99
I do have two DMM's and look forward to your alternative method, .99 -- very much in fact.
Meanwhile, I would like to understand results I obtained with the Tek 3032 last Friday, as attached along with the schematic for the straightforward transistor-resonator circuit (TRC). The TRC circuit discussed here is shown on the right; a standard JT circuit is shown on the left for comparison. There is one change -- a 1N4148 diode has been added at point 5 before (in series with) the LED. Here are details of the circuit (on the right):
1.46V AA battery (measured by DMM)
CSR1 = 1.1 ohms
Rb = 979 ohms
MPS2222A transistor
Capacitor (C2) = 151 pF (note: corrected to pF; measured)
Diode at point 5 = 1N4148
LED = red diode
Ferrite toroid (2 cm OD, 0.9 cm ID, 1.1 cm tall) was would bifilar with eight windings of 23 gauge enameled copper wire. Here are measured values for the two windings, using an MCP meter BR2822:
L1 (between Points 5 and 7); L2 between point 5 and capacitor C2 (feedback loop).
L1 at 120 Hz: R=0.0336 ohms, Z = 0.0614 ohms, L = 68.0 uH, C = 0.
L1 at 1 KHz: R=0.0359 ohms, Z = 0.4257 ohms, L = 67.4 uH, C = 376 uF.
L1 at 10 KHz: R=0.0631 ohms, Z = 4.27 ohms, L = 66.9 uH, C = 3.8 uF.
L2 at 120 Hz: R=0.0322 ohms, Z = 0.0699 ohms, L = 82.0 uH, C = 0.
L2 at 1 KHz: R=0.0351 ohms, Z = 0.5124 ohms, L = 81.3 uH, C = 311 uF.
L2 at 10 KHz: R=0.0666 ohms, Z = 5.08 ohms, L = 80.8 uH, C = 3.14 uF.
I invite (and would much appreciate) .99 and/or Humbugger and/or others to do a SIMULATION of this circuit, to see whether one can:
1. Replicate the observed Power In (Pin) and Power Out (Pout) waveforms, even approximately.
I used:
Mean Pin = Mean (V1*V2), given that I2 = V2 to a close approximation since CSR1 = 1.1 ohms. (which I measured afterwards; for future runs, I will look for a CSR1 closer to 1.0 ohms)
Mean Pout = Mean (V3*V2), where V3 is measured between points 5 and 3 on the labeled schematic attached.
2. Pin appears basically as "negative" because of the way V2 is measured -- I will however set the +y axis downward and refer to this as "positive power", hoping this will not be too confusing. Pout is more interesting in that it shows both "positive" and "negative" power excursions, repeatedly.
3. Spikes in the data are also seen and should be replicated in the simulation.
4. Note that I acquired Mean power values over a number of cycles, to improve the accuracy, so details in the waveform are not easily seen. But important features are seen and should be reproduced by a successful Simulation.
5. MEAN Pout comes out to be a very small value, 367 micro-V*V = 0.367 mVV, owing to the fact that the power curve Pout goes both positive and negative. Clearly, the voltage and current in this part of the circuit are frequently of OPPOSITE PHASE (OP, previously called OOP).
We can calculate efficiency n:
n = Pin/Pout = 0.367/21.57 = 0.017 = 1.7%.
Viewing the Tek taking Mean values for Pout, I see that Pout is fluctuating around ZERO, and when I hit the stop button, the value came out to 0.367 mVV (very small compared to input power) -- but it could have been zero or even of opposite sign from the input power if I had hit the stop button at a different instant.
Trouble is, the LED was glowing very brightly and I flat don't believe this result of n = 1.7%.
I would like to see what a decent simulation says about the efficiency n, and if the method used is correct (which we discussed rather thoroughly before, Mean Power instead of RMS Power, etc.) Clearly the RMS output power is much greater than the Mean output power, which latter is close to zero, and I am left wondering about the method we have developed.
There seems to be something wrong, and I hope the simulation and discussion will elucidate what is going on and how to get an accurate assessment of n for this straightforward circuit.
Quote4. Note that I acquired Mean power values over a number of cycles, to improve the accuracy, so details in the waveform are not easily seen. But important features are seen and should be reproduced by a successful Simulation.
Professor, I believe the above approach is counterintuitive. On the one hand it's self evident that larger data samples improve the mean, on the other, the scope could be introducing larger error, at a faster rate, when the time base is made wider, and the resolution reduced. We are dealing here with sharp pulses and quantization error plays a big part.
Here's what I suggest.
Zoom in the time base to see only one period of the pulse, maybe two. Then freeze the scope shot and write down the average number. Then unfreeze the scope and repeat, manually writing down the values and averaging. Don't let the scope do all the "fun" work for you! :)
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.21, 20:59:28
Professor, I believe the above approach is counterintuitive. On the one hand it's self evident that larger data samples improve the mean, on the other, the scope could be introducing larger error, at a faster rate, when the time base is made wider, and the resolution reduced. We are dealing here with sharp pulses and quantization error plays a big part.
Here's what I suggest.
Zoom in the time base to see only one period of the pulse, maybe two. Then freeze the scope shot and write down the average number. Then unfreeze the scope and repeat, manually writing down the values and averaging. Don't let the scope do all the "fun" work for you! :)
EM
Sure -- IF you could actually freeze the time base at EXACTLY one or two cycles... IF you can actually do this, pls tell me how!
Also, this will NOT solve the "problem" noted above, since the frequently-out-of-phase pattern of Pout will still "cancel out" to about zero for the MEAN value of output power... with the LED glowing very brightly all the while!
PS -- a successful simulation will also reproduce the frequency of the waveform oscillation, about 1.8 MHz -- that's MEGAhertz.
I'm challenging the ability of a simulation to do this AND give the correct Pin and (especially) Pout waveforms.
If it does work, I want to be able to run the simulation myself (for sure) and learn with it.
I look at this as a type of experiment now to test the abilities of simulation packages... a challenge, if you will.
Profesor, are you having trouble zooming in on only one cycle of the waveform because of scope limitations? or is it a trigger problem, where the waveform jumps around?
Play with the trigger level, I'm sure those spikes will trigger it just fine. If it's a scope limitations, meaning not enough time base resolution, then oh well, you're out of luck.
EM
P.S. When I played with these circuits in the past I tried to filter and then I measured Voltage and Amperage. I never trust digital scopes with their quantization errors especially when it comes to spikey waveforms.
Most important thing to keep in mind with spikey waveforms is that they have a very high frequency content, (proportional to the voltage rate of change, or dV/dt) and most oscilloscopes, will have a limited bandwidth, so only part of the signal energy gets through.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.21, 22:29:55
Profesor, are you having trouble zooming in on only one cycle of the waveform because of scope limitations? or is it a trigger problem, where the waveform jumps around?
Play with the trigger level, I'm sure those spikes will trigger it just fine. If it's a scope limitations, meaning not enough time base resolution, then oh well, you're out of luck.
EM
P.S. When I played with these circuits in the past I tried to filter and then I measured Voltage and Amperage. I never trust digital scopes with their quantization errors especially when it comes to spikey waveforms.
Most important thing to keep in mind with spikey waveforms is that they have a very high frequency content, (proportional to the voltage rate of change, or dV/dt) and most oscilloscopes, will have a limited bandwidth, so only part of the signal energy gets through.
@EMD:
Look, the Tek 3032 is a 300 MHz device and I'm not having any trouble getting down to one cycle, approximately. I've done this, just did not capture the waveform to show (could do this next trip to the University) because I was looking mainly at evaluating the MEAN power, which suggests that one use a goodly number of cycles to avoid "boundary" issues, say for 1.4 cycles (where one cannot get exactly one cycle so will have trouble getting accuracy).
Why don't you trust this scope for "spikey" waveforms, for calculating mean Pin and Pout?
Again, are you seeing the problem that Mean Pout ~ zero and yet the LED is glowing brightly?
very good, so you can zoom in, I was confused my appologies.
I always advocate close up analysis of a waveform then massive averaging over many waveforms and use of averaging functions on a scope.
EM
P.S.
QuoteWhy don't you trust this scope for "spikey" waveforms, for calculating mean Pin and Pout?
I don't trust digital scopes in general when it comes to spikey waveforms like I explained earlier, and specificaly in the pictures you posted, because I don't see enough SAMPLE POINTS in that sharp transition, and lots of error is introduced by this.
QuoteAgain, are you seeing the problem that Mean Pout ~ zero and yet the LED is glowing brightly?
yes, noise is swamping out the current signal through the 1 ohm resistor, what a poor setup to measure Pin/Pout. !
@EMdevices
QuoteP.S. When I played with these circuits in the past I tried to filter and then I measured Voltage and Amperage. I never trust digital scopes with their quantization errors especially when it comes to spikey waveforms.
I would agree, I have been down this road before and I learned a valuable lesson. I once spent 4 hours setting up a pretty simple CFD model in Solidworks CAD then another 30 minutes setting up the solidworks flow simulator then the CFD solver ran 3 hours crunching numbers. In the end it did not tell me anymore than I had learned with a simple fan and a piece of yarn on the end of a stick, lol. All these gadgets and "fluff" as I call it are fine but they should never replace common sense.
In most cases simply filtering the input and output is a far better solution than $20,000 oscilloscopes and complex simulators.
Regards
AC
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.21, 23:39:49
very good, so you can zoom in, I was confused my appologies. [snip]
yes, noise is swamping out the current signal through the 1 ohm resistor, what a poor setup to measure Pin/Pout. !
At 300 MHz sampling, I rather doubt your notion that the current signal is being "swamped out", but a demonstration by you would be instructive... Please use a 300 MHz DSO (or faster).
I would truly like to know -- what setup you would propose?
The current set-up developed/evolved over some weeks as discussed primarily in these two threads which you may wish to read to catch up:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=717.125 (the LTJT circuit)
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=710.0 (average or RMS?)
In particular this post was helpful (its accompanying schematic was provided here, see my first post (left schematic) )
--
QuoteHowever, it is possible to calculate that output without inserting a third measuring transistor between the ground and the emitter. In fact, we should remove CSR2 and have the LED directly connect to the ground, then the new Pototal can be found by integrate [V3*V2] over time, and this time the Pototal includes the output energy spent on both the LED and the transistor. Moreover, this time the current is estimated by V2 on one single CSR1, so value errors in CSR1 won't be a factor anymore, the calculated n would be EXACT!!!
Thus, I would say yes for the sake of simplicity! Here is the proposed method:
1. take CSR2 out and connect the LED directly to the ground (or just leave as is and don't measure V4, measure V2 instead if you were using two scopes).
2. measure V1, V2, V3 as before.
3. calculate Pitotal by MEAN [V1*V2], which gives the time average input power.
4. calculate Pototal by MEAN [V3*V2] over time, similar to finding the Pitotal.
5. then n = Pototal/Pitotal, which is EXACT as the error in the value of CSR1 is balanced out in the way n is calculated. O0
This seems to be as simple as it can be. Also, it only leaves tiny energy leaks out of consideration, namely the leaks in the 1k resistor and the coils.
cheers,
lanenal
Read the rest of the thread for further applications.
So you will see the method for measuring Pin/Pout was presented earlier after considerable thought.
Nevertheless, the goal of this thread is to determine a valid and reliable way to evaluate Pin, Pout and n -- and I have raised specific questions -- and to determine whether or not a simulation can adequately describe this simple circuit -- and so, I am open for USEFUL input and suggestions.
Rigor without rancor. O0 Thank you.
Professor,
One factor that is not well known in the ranks of DSO users, is something called "record length". All digital storage scopes have a limited record length, and many offer this as selectable.
Your model, the TDS3032 has a record length of 10k. That means the scope can only display 10,000 samples (memory locations), regardless of how high your sample rate is (2.5Gs for that model). The scope uses those displayed samples in its calculations. So what EM is saying, is that as you widen your time base to see many cycles, there are less samples "applied" to each cycle.
In my experience however, as long as you display many samples, the "error" (i.e. missed samples) gets averaged out, and the measurement is accurate. If you however can produce one, or just over one cycle on the display, you can try using the "cycle mean" measurement rather than the mean measurement we have been using.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.22, 02:29:19
Professor,
One factor that is not well known in the ranks of DSO users, is something called "record length". All digital storage scopes have a limited record length, and many offer this as selectable.
Your model, the TDS3032 has a record length of 10k. That means the scope can only display 10,000 samples (memory locations), regardless of how high your sample rate is (2.5Gs for that model). The scope uses those displayed samples in its calculations. So what EM is saying, is that as you widen your time base to see many cycles, there are less samples "applied" to each cycle.
In my experience however, as long as you display many samples, the "error" (i.e. missed samples) gets averaged out, and the measurement is accurate. If you however can produce one, or just over one cycle on the display, you can try using the "cycle mean" measurement rather than the mean measurement we have been using.
.99
I agree. I will be glad to record "cycle mean" on my next trip but I have already zoomed in on the signals, and the cycle mean was also observed to be close to zero, for Power Out as defined above.
I hope someone will address the true concerns I have raised here, in particular, that the Mean Power Out is giving approximately ZERO (whether over one cycle or a number of cycles) and this is clearly in disagreement with the reality that the LED is brightly lit. And the request for a simulation of the circuit.
Professor,
Here is how to make the Pi measurement using the RC/DMM method. Pout is made with the scope as before.
.99
I scrutinized the circuit and picture some more and I can't believe you are using CSR1 for both input and output power measurement.
Think about it, that waveform indicates current for both input (when transistor is on) and output (when transistor is off)
To answer the RMS question, a random waveform has mean of zero, but a finite RMS value.
Tomorrow I'll say more from the office computer.
EM
@.99 -- thanks, I'll study it.
@Emd -- You may wish to finally read the thread I referred to (gave you the URL even) where this circuit evolved... also, pls tell us where you would put the current-measuring CSR's (if you insist on plural). You may have a better idea (would be glad to hear it!), but I suspect it will look a lot like the one on the LEFT in my first post on this thread....
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.22, 04:04:56
I scrutinized the circuit and picture some more and I can't believe you are using CSR1 for both input and output power measurement.
Think about it, that waveform indicates current for both input (when transistor is on) and output (when transistor is off)
EM
EM,
You are probably going in the direction of having a CSR for each component you want to know the power in. Yes, if you look back through those threads, I have already proposed that. However, I did do a simulation using the method where CSR1 is the only CSR, and although the power output calc was not exactly the same, it was
low by about 3% or so, compared to the separate CSR method. See attached.
It does seem to work, but it won't hurt to revisit this issue.
.99
PhysicsProf,
I don't think that simulating this "groundloop special" circuit is that easy.
The problem lies in the toroid, as my sim db does not contain a suitable component for it.
I made an attempt to simulate, by using an "iron core xformer", as your toroid, but it gives me no possibility to enter your measured inductance etc.
Separate inductors (for which the inductance can be entered) does not perform the coupling needed.
The sim won't run in this configuration, but that could be due to my inexperience with sim's
Learning a lot lately, thanks to all,
regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2011.03.22, 12:44:00
PhysicsProf,
I don't think that simulating this "groundloop special" circuit is that easy.
The problem lies in the toroid, as my sim db does not contain a suitable component for it.
I made an attempt to simulate, by using an "iron core xformer", as your toroid, but it gives me no possibility to enter your measured inductance etc.
Separate inductors (for which the inductance can be entered) does not perform the coupling needed.
The sim won't run in this configuration, but that could be due to my inexperience with sim's
Learning a lot lately, thanks to all,
regards Itsu
I'm learning a lot also... it's great.
Interesting that the sim won't run in that configuration, due to coupled inductors. Thanks for taking a shot at it. I'm hoping .99 or Humbugger or someone will take a stab at it also.
I note that your probe connections differ from mine (see my first post), but clearly that won't solve the problem if the sim won't allow you to enter the parameters for the coupled inductors -- which are what make this circuit interesting! IMO.
Thanks, ITSU. I'm following your work on youtube.
Okay, wow things are getting interesting here.
@PhysicsProf
First of all, thanks for posting your data. This will help me as I try to confirm or disconfirm the Wikipedia JT oscillation formula.
PhysicsProf I know EMDevices from a few years back on overunity.com, and he is excellent in both his theoretical and practical abilities. I hope he has the time to help us out with this.
@all
Quote
Also, this will NOT solve the "problem" noted above, since the frequently-out-of-phase pattern of Pout will still "cancel out" to about zero for the MEAN value of output power... with the LED glowing very brightly all the while!
-PhysicsProf
Hahahaha... so either
1) The measurement methodology is wrong
2) There's something going on, energetically speaking, that we don't realize or ascertain
My money is on #1, but you never know, there's always that outside chance we could be in a #2 situation. Perhaps we should talk to lanenal since he helped develop the power measurement protocol. There are almost always multiple ways to do a correct scientific measurement... so perhaps there is a second power measurement protocol which can confirm/disconfirm these results... I know poynt has suggested an additional method, so this would be worthwhile.
The one part I worry though is that using a low-pass filter might destroy some of the high frequency harmonics (spikes/transients) which contribute to the AUC, but perhaps I am wrong about the significance of these waveform spikes.
@feynman
Destroy some of the spikes, huh? Using a low-pass filter made of physical parts will average the waveform, spikes and all in a very accurate way. Why no objection to using scope math to get an average value? Does that not "destroy" the spikes?
Destroy and Average are different things, Feynman. The professor is looking for the net DC equivalent average power values; that involves averaging when an irregular waveform is the subject. You can average using an 8-bit scope with sampling errors or you can average using a resistor and capacitor with zero sampling errors.
Either method when done right will take full accounting of all "spikes". The scope method takes very extreme care to make sure the sampling is done right while the RC method does not. I would think you would know that much.
Humbugger
P.S. Did you take that half hour of yours to whip up the Ainslie hardware and put an end to the ridiculous speculations yet? ;D
And did you ever get any scope-shots from Rosie that were useful in studying the actual waveforms of the 1.5MHz oscillations? Nope. She never took any by her own accounting. Just massively undersampled slow sweep traces showing the burst envelopes...completely useless for doing scope math based on sampling.
P99,
I like that circuit with a resistor in each leg, however this can be done with only one resistor as well, just not how the professor is attempting to.
That's why I keep repeating, we need to zoom in and analyze a single cycle and do the V*I integration manualy, and then average results from many cycle runs. We just can't use a scope's averaging function here because:
1) The voltage signal at the battery playes a role in both the INPUT and OUTPUT power.
2) The single resistor also conducts both the INPUT and the OUTPUT current.
so when the MATH function is used to multiply the resistor voltage times the LED voltage to calculate the Output power, in effect we are mixing "apples and oranges", in other words a spike in the resistor voltage due to the current flowing through the emitter of the transistor is not current flowing through the LED and will produce erroneous results. I hope this is clear to everyone who understands how the currents flow in the oscillator circuit.
So this is what I would do, I would replace the LED with a resistor, that way we know the V and I relationship, and we don't have to monitor the battery voltage for the output power. Also I would use P99's RC filter schematic and the battery for Input power. If this approach is adopted, then we can use a scope and try to average over many cycles, etc.., but as educated folks, I still advise to zoom in on the waveform and perform manual integration of the V*I waveform.
EM
P.S. I know it's a pain, but this is what I mean by integration of the very sharp spike waveform, which I have expanded in the x-axis here as an example. This is just a typical waveform and the almost linear left side can be integrated with a larger time interval, perhaps 7 * delta t.
I've also been thinking of how to do this best with the least distrubance to the circuit as is, meaning keep the LED, since that is what Lawrence first proposed, so I would suggest just another CSR connected to the LED leg. I know this was suggested before, I'm just making suggestions here.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.22, 17:45:32
P99,
I like that circuit with a resistor in each leg, however this can be done with only one resistor as well, just not how the professor is attempting to.
That's why I keep repeating, we need to zoom in and analyze a single cycle and do the V*I integration manualy, and then average results from many cycle runs. We just can't use a scope's averaging function here because:
1) The voltage signal at the battery playes a role in both the INPUT and OUTPUT power.
2) The single resistor also conducts both the INPUT and the OUTPUT current.
so when the MATH function is used to multiply the resistor voltage times the LED voltage to calculate the Output power, in effect we are mixing "apples and oranges", in other words a spike in the resistor voltage due to the current flowing through the emitter of the transistor is not current flowing through the LED and will produce erroneous results. I hope this is clear to everyone who understands how the currents flow in the oscillator circuit.
So this is what I would do, I would replace the LED with a resistor, that way we know the V and I relationship, and we don't have to monitor the battery voltage for the output power. Also I would use P99's RC filter schematic and the battery for Input power. If this approach is adopted, then we can use a scope and try to average over many cycles, etc.., but as educated folks, I still advise to zoom in on the waveform and perform manual integration of the V*I waveform.
EM
P.S. I know it's a pain, but this is what I mean by integration of the very sharp spike waveform, which I have expanded in the x-axis here as an example. This is just a typical waveform and the almost linear left side can be integrated with a larger time interval, perhaps 7 * delta t.
I've also been thinking of how to do this best with the least disturbance to the circuit as is, meaning keep the LED, since that is what Lawrence first proposed, so I would suggest just another CSR connected to the LED leg. I know this was suggested before, I'm just making suggestions here.
Agreed.
There seems to be some difficulty in confining
the mathematical analysis to the specific timings
of the Input and the Output portions of one complete
cycle. Keeping the waveforms separated for
calculation.
When input and output are time division "multiplexed"
perhaps manual calculations are a necessity.
Input from the source is available for both half cycles.
Output from the coil is added to input from the source
during the "Output" half cycle to power the "load."
Unless carefully separated and accounted for the
output power can be elusive.
Try this schematic Professor.
PS If you chose to use the scope averaging functions instead of integrating by hand, use the MEAN, not the RMS, and make sure the scope is sampling at it's highest rate for best resolution and accuracy.
@EMDevices:
QuoteTry this schematic Professor.
Umm... The circuit you propose is not the circuit I am testing and for which I have given data (and schematic) in post #1 of this thread. So I'm attaching again the schematic of the circuit under consideration in this thread, and I respectfully ask you to show where to connect the scope leads to get output power (all of it) -- and then how to calculate n based on how you've connected the scope leads.
I do not say this antagonistically, just asking that you apply your method to the circuit under consideration in this thread. Thanks.
PS -- .99's scheme of using a Cap in series with a 10K resistor makes sense -- basically using the cap to do an integration, in order to evaluate the current. His schematic also reflects another (simple JT) circuit, but the jist of his schematic is of course the current measurement.
There can only be ONE current flow finally in the circuit -- One electron goes in, one comes out -- correct me if I'm wrong.
However, what we're trying to determine is whether there is a boost in voltage along the way, not just at the battery (a KNOWN) but perhaps also in the inductors & transistor circuit, somehow. That is the question.
ok, then try this circuit. (I still like the previous one though because it has less components.)
Note: I flipped the Diode. This is how it should be to conduct the kickback from the coil.
EMD and Dumped: I have done manual integrations of power waveforms numerous times, over a single cycle-- my logbooks are replete with these. And I have presented results of hand-integrations from other circuits -- particularly from the L. Tseung circuit, which is quite different (!) from the one under consideration here.
Integration is easier when the waveform-section is either triangular or rectangular, of course.
Attached is the output power waveform for this circuit, which I have called "boost resonator" or "transistor resonator" to distinguish the circuit from the JT or JT-LT circuits -- call this one BR.
The question is, how do we evaluate the output power when the waveform has a significant AC component? as is the case I presented in post #1 of this thread.
Here, let's zoom in on one cycle (out of a few) and I'll ask you guys (especially EMD and Dumped) to do the manual integration, I'll do the same and present my result later -- see attached. (Got to get back and finish my taxes! :( )
The zero line is clearly delineated (by the "M arrow") and the scale is 200 mVV per division. The horizontal division is 1.0 microsecond.
NO NEED TO LECTURE ME ON DOING THE ZOOM WITH THE SCOPE RUNNING or expanding the scales -- I'LL DO THAT next time I'm up at the University (a LONG drive). I know this is crude, given the pixelation, that's not the point -- --
The question is, again:
How do we evaluate the output power when the power waveform has a significant AC component and the current and voltage are not in phase?
(BTW, the input power does NOT have a large AC component, relative to the DC component...)
Pls let me know what you get, and I'll give my result also, later.
PS -- I see that you have another schematic, EMD -- thanks -- I'll get back to you later on this, after we finish the simple exercise delineated above which should help us in communicating (I hope!).
I tried your idea of reversing the LED -- interesting -- it glows brightly EITHER direction! That was a good idea... I can hardly wait to get back up to the Tek 3032 at the University to look at the waveforms, zoomed in for detail, for the two cases...
me:
QuotePS -- I see that you have another schematic, EMD -- thanks -- I'll get back to you later on this, after we finish the simple exercise delineated above which should help us in communicating (I hope!).
I tried your idea of reversing the LED -- interesting -- it glows brightly EITHER direction! That was a good idea... I can hardly wait to get back up to the Tek 3032 at the University to look at the waveforms, zoomed in for detail, for the two cases...
So I added another LED diode parallel to the first, but in the opposite polarity -- and they BOTH light up! the LED in the direction you show appears to be somewhat brighter (both red LED's).
Good idea, EMD...
QuoteThe question is, again:
How do we evaluate the output power when the power waveform has a significant AC component and the current and voltage are not in phase?
I would say the basic fundamental equation for average powerflow doesn't "care" what the phase relation is between the voltage or current, it all works out just fine.
P_avg = (1/T) * integral of [ v(t) * i(t) ] over one cycle, where 'T' is the period.
But if you want to use a scope to average, like I sense most of you want to, then you must implement another CSR resistor, like I show in my previous two schematics, then you can get away with just using the scope MEAN function, because now you have decoupled the two energy flows (or rather the output signal is well defined now). Most importantly though, use DC coupling for the probes.
P_in = MEAN [ V1 * V2 ] / 1ohm
P_out = MEAN [ V3 * V4 ] / 1ohm
so then efficiency can be calculated as:
n = MEAN[ V1 * V2 ] / MEAN[ V3 * V4]
Do you want me and Dumped to integrate that red signal in your picture? I'm sorry, I think I failed in my explanation so far. You see we do not have enough resolution in that spike, the answer would not be accurate if we did integrate. I do understand that you have to go back to the university, so when you do get there and can take another zoomed in shot then I'll be more than happy to integrate. I hope I didn't insinuate that you do not know how to integrate.
EM
I replicated physicsProf his "transistor resonator" as close as possible, now using a MPS2222a, 128Pf as C, the rest similar.
I used the by poynt99 proposed RC/DMM method for measuring the input, and trying to use the scope across a 1 Ohm output resistor for measuring the output
The input can be measured ok, but still i cannot accurately measure the current through the 1 ohm output resistor using the scopes MEAN setting (its all over the place).
Using the FFT function on the scope, i notice fairly strong signals around the 40MHz range, so possible much energy is going out as RF.
See here a short video of the above experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wG-p7TrXe0
Regards Itsu
@humbugger
Quote
Destroy some of the spikes, huh? Using a low-pass filter made of physical parts will average the waveform, spikes and all in a very accurate way. Why no objection to using scope math to get an average value? Does that not "destroy" the spikes?
-humbugger
You're correct. If the scope MEAN is doing any sort of MA (I mean, it is an average, so this is obvious) then I suppose my objection, if a valid one, should apply to both methods.
The sampling rate is crucial and it would have to be twice the highest frequency harmonic , no? Aka. the Nyquist rate to avoid aliasing?
Quote
Destroy and Average are different things, Feynman. The professor is looking for the net DC equivalent average power values; that involves averaging when an irregular waveform is the subject. You can average using an 8-bit scope with sampling errors or you can average using a resistor and capacitor with zero sampling errors.
If the analog RC network has theoretical zero sampling errors and effectively infinite Nyquist rate , then I withdraw my objections to the
bandpass lowpass method.
Quote
P.S. Did you take that half hour of yours to whip up the Ainslie hardware and put an end to the ridiculous speculations yet? Grin
Unfortunately, not yet. I've been busy with my day job, as well as a promising device I learned about today with a potential COP=8. I only have limited time/resources, so I have to focus my areas of research carefully. I make my objections known to Rosemary (including my request for the raw data spreadsheets), so we'll see what happens. I like to keep an open mind. Hopefully, more data will be forthcoming when she finds somewhere to upload the information (spreadsheets, images, video if it's available).
The other device , possible COP=8
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10518.0;attach=51653;image)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.0
Quote
And did you ever get any scope-shots from Rosie that were useful in studying the actual waveforms of the 1.5MHz oscillations? Nope. She never took any by her own accounting. Just massively undersampled slow sweep traces showing the burst envelopes...completely useless for doing scope math based on sampling.
Well that's unfortunate if there were no scope-shots of the 1.5Mhz oscillation. I haven't checked the thread much since after I made it clear we need to be scientifically rigorous in potential open-source OU devices. I was hoping it would sort itself out without intervention or having to bench it out.
I was planning on waiting a couple of days to see where the thread went, saw what kind of photos and data ended up coming out , and so forth. So I'm still reserving judgment. I haven't seen the scope traces, but maybe that's because I haven't checked the thread. Hopefully I'll have a few minutes tomorrow to do a look over new information on her circuit.
But this unrelated COP=8 thing looks promising. I'll probably start a thread for it.
Cheers,
Feynman
Nice job Itsu. I'm not sure why your Pout measurement is not working out though.
Have you tried building and testing the standard JT circuit? maybe have a go at that first, as we have a pretty good foundation of test results already.
.99
@ Feynman
I checked it out over there. Man, you are really on it. Lots done in just a couple of days as far as getting the build details pinned down and sources and communications and all. Of course I think it's another crackpot worthless idea that will never work, but you know me C.C
Anyway, it can't be any crazier than Rosie's thing and it looks like a fun build and not horribly expensive to try out so I'll keep an eye on your progress there. Never know...one of these crazy gizmos might actually work someday!
Humbugger
P.S. Why couldn't you just wind some thin steel "tape" or "ribbon" over the secondary?
P.P.S. It's low pass not bandpass O0
Quote from: humbugger on 2011.03.23, 03:02:57
@ Feynman
I checked it out over there. Man, you are really on it. [snip]
Anyway, it can't be any crazier than Rosie's thing and it looks like a fun build and not horribly expensive to try out so I'll keep an eye on your progress there. Never know...one of these crazy gizmos might actually work someday!
Humbugger
Well, I certainly agree with Humbugger here -- keep up the good work Feynman, and pls let us know how it turns out (over here). I'm liking your attitude here also, Humbugger, hope you've had a good day.
Feynman, You asked David and he responded:
QuoteOh lastly, is it okay if I publish your responses on overunity.com and/or
make a PDF? It might save you some headache because if this actually works
you are going to be getting the same questions over and over. :)
By all means push out all the info to everywhere under the sun and beyond.
That is great and corresponds with my "open source" philosophy as well. I'm going to go out on a limb here -- if your replication gets to COP>3 and if it can be independently&reliably measured, I've got $300 to make it worthwhile for you, no strings attached, just a gift. $500 if you trust me to do the measuring (in either case, I need to be convinced by the data before the gift is offered, of course). Wish I could offer more, but I would like to encourage you. Also, I would encourage you to go after the prizes here and at OU, which together approach $20K... :o
@Itsu --
I agree with .99 that you have done good work also, and thank you for replicating and doing this advancement of the study of this circuit AND of .99's suggestion for measuring Pin.
From you video, I get
Pin = 1.6 V (battery) * 0.016 A (V across the 1ohm resistor) = 25.6 mW -- which is in good agreement with what one would expect, cf 22 mW from my first post for this (or similar) circuit, for Pin calculated by the Tek 3032.
Good point about the high freq. also, which could result in RF losses.
@EmD -- OK, I have to agree with you as I tried the "hand integration" for this curve that the spike is tough -- I really need to zoom in and get the detailed data for this rather strange (IMO) waveform. Less strange though now that I see via the added LED with opposite polarity -- lights up along with the one I have been using. (As I described in my last post.) I immediately took a look at the Pout waveform using my ATTEN DSO and sure enough, now the Pout is mostly positive, so I have learned something valuable based on your suggestion and thank you for this.
Next, you wrote:
QuoteP_in = MEAN [ V1 * V2 ] / 1ohm
P_out = MEAN [ V3 * V4 ] / 1ohm
so then efficiency can be calculated as:
n = MEAN[ V1 * V2 ] / MEAN[ V3 * V4]
But Iout goes through the measuring resistor CSR1 also, so that power lost in CSR1 should be considered as part of Pout, right? would you please augment your equation to include this? Also, should one not add a CSR3 from the emitter-to-ground so as to get the power generated there? as part of Pout, you see.
Likewise, the power drop in CSR1 for Iin should be taken into account when calculating Pin.
I'd really like to see the math you come up with these "small" (but perhaps important) corrections. In other words, the measuring resistors should not themselves skew the evaluation of n. They are not needed for the circuit, and the power drops in the CSR's should be accounted for properly.
BTW,This is why we went to one resistor before, since it's resistance divides out when one take Pout/Pin (using the same resistor for both), but I see that your method also has merit -- and I very much like the idea of taking alternative-measurements (like the one you have proposed).
A good day!
PS - @Itsu, would you pls check -- if you add a second LED, polarity reversed (and no diode of course), will both light up as my pair did?
It might be a function of the toroid details, I suspect...
But if you get both LED's to light up as I did, would you check out the Pout then, using your DSO?
QuoteBut Iout goes through the measuring resistor CSR1 also, so that power lost in CSR1 should be considered as part of Pout, right? would you please augment your equation to include this? Also, should one not add a CSR3 from the emitter-to-ground so as to get the power generated there? as part of Pout, you see.
Yes, in the boost configuration circuit Iout also passes through CSR1, and that's ok because the battery is also supplying power during the boost phase so this is Pin.
Also correct we are ignoring the small dissipations in the CSR1 resistor.
We can leave off the CSR3, because CSR1 accounts for the input current passing through the battery, our source of energy input.
EM
PS power dissipation in the CSR resistors is orders of magnitude smaller then what comes out of the battery or what flows into the LED.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.23, 04:49:49
Yes, in the boost configuration circuit Iout also passes through CSR1, and that's ok because the battery is also supplying power during the boost phase so this is Pin.
Also correct we are ignoring the small dissipations in the CSR1 resistor.
We can leave off the CSR3, because CSR1 accounts for the input current passing through the battery, our source of energy input.
EM
PS power dissipation in the CSR resistors is orders of magnitude smaller then what comes out of the battery or what flows into the LED.
Ah -- how do you know that power dissipation in the CSR's is " orders of magnitude smaller then what comes out of the battery or what flows into the LED"?
.99 has promised measurements using a JT circuit to give values through CSR1 and CSR2 (and CSR3). I'm still hoping for .99's measurements here!
Here's why for these ball park values. ( I = 1 mA , Vb = 1V , R = 1 ohm)
Pr = I^2 R = 1e-6
While,
Pb = V * I = 1e-3
Got it?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.23, 06:35:09
Here's why for these ball park values. ( I = 1 mA , Vb = 1V , R = 1 ohm)
Pr = I^2 R = 1e-6
While,
Pb = V * I = 1e-3
Got it?
Not done yet -- pls calculate for V3 and V4, that is, involving the output voltage and current (typical). Pout is the more difficult to measure...
Really, I'd rather see experimental values.
poynt99,
yes, i build a JT recently with good results, n=98.5%, see the "Possible breakthrough with the JouleThief (JT) circuit" thread, reply #24.
PhysicsProf,
i put in a second (polarity reversed) led (diode 1n4148 removed), and confirm both are lid.
The polarity reversed one is much brighter then the non-polarity reversed one.
But i understand from your opening post in this thread that you ARE using a 1n4148 diode on point 5 right?:
1.46V AA battery (measured by DMM)
CSR1 = 1.1 ohms
Rb = 979 ohms
MPS2222A transistor
Capacitor (C2) = 151 pF (note: corrected to pF; measured)
Diode at point 5 = 1N4148 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<!
LED = red diode
So you have removed that in the mean time?
I redid the power measurements in the above situation (no 1n4148 diode, 2 x led).
Pin (RC/DMM method) 1.487 x 0.0426 = 0.0633462 W (63mW)
Po (scope on emitter / across 1 Ohm) 0.09 (mean) x 0.009 (mean) = 0.00081 W (0.81 mW).
N = 0.81/63x100% = 1.28%
See the attachments for the circuit used, and the power results.
Itsu -- thank you for verifying that both LED's are lit, and yes of course, I did remove the diode in order to have both polarities of LED's to light up.
You're right that the JT circuit has given the best results so far -- that is true for me also. Yet this circuit continues to intrigue and challenge...
I do recall the progress you made with the JT circuit (post 24 in the other thread), the one for which you achieved n of nearly unity. Have you tried the RC method for determining Pin for that circuit? that result could be compared with your earlier result (and perhaps posted on both threads, for continuity).
@PhysicsProf
Thank you PhysicsProf, that is a generous offer. I will be more than happy to send you a device for independent testing -- if I ever get one working lol .
Luckily, I have a job that affords me the ability to fund some degree of research. Hopefully, this continues. I bought two Nanoperm cores today... an M-416 and M-412 with relative magnetic permeability of u/u0 = 17,000 (very high, 2x - 100x higher than ferrite) , with moderate resistivity in the range of 1x10^-6 Ohm x Meters. This is for a Gabriel device replication and for general experimentation.
(http://www.magnetec.de/images/greenenergy2.jpg)
http://www.magnetec.de/eng/universal-kerne1.htm (http://www.magnetec.de/eng/universal-kerne1.htm)
I'm also going to snag a couple of conventional ferrite toroidal cores (low resistivity, high permeability) ,as well as a couple of Micrometals powdered iron toroidal cores (moderate permeability, high resistivity). This way I can do power experiments / replications with toroids with varying properties.
If all else fails, I'll make a giant 100amp Joule Thief with an IGBT and 60W bulb , haha.
@Itsu
Comments:Well done on the earlier 98.5% efficiency result.
Quotei put in a second (polarity reversed) led (diode 1n4148 removed), and confirm both are lid.
The polarity reversed one is much brighter then the non-polarity reversed one.
-Itsu
So this is sort of like an LED-rectifier, huh? Both of the LEDs light up with one brighter than the other? Doesn't that mean they've got to be 'seeing' an AC signal?
Quote
I redid the power measurements in the above situation (no 1n4148 diode, 2 x led).
Pin (RC/DMM method) 1.487 x 0.0426 = 0.0633462 W (63mW)
Po (scope on emitter / across 1 Ohm) 0.09 (mean) x 0.009 (mean) = 0.00081 W (0.81 mW).
N = 0.81/63x100% = 1.28%
-Itsu
Okay... interesting. I keep hearing what Bolt / overunity.com told me, "a carefully tuned Joule Thief can get COP>1." How I have no idea, but now there are two people with COP>1 results, so the condition (whether a measurement error or true COP>1) has been replicated.
Itsu, I have a few ideas...
1) Can you conduct several more COP trials with the exact same circuit? It's always good science to do multiple trials , and publish all the values. Then you can calculate mean, median, std_dev, etc.
2) Can you try powering off the circuit (remove the battery), then connect it back up and test the COP several times? Call these "Power Cycle Trials" or something.
3) Can you try different AA batteries for power, and measure the output COP vs battery voltage?
4) Can you try removing the scope probe and the scope ground, and see if the input power is the same? Maybe try the above tests #1 - #3 with the scope disconnected, so you can make sure your input power is in the correct range?
I mean , either
(A) There is something wrong with the measurement protocol (RC/DMM method for input, scope on emitter for output) or
(B) JT circuits are actually overunity under certain conditions which remain to be determined, perhaps related to voltage/current phase , or perhaps to something else .
Caveats:Could current be entering the circuit via a ground loop on the scope? Like I suggested in #4, Itsu, Can you see if your input power consumption changes if you remove the scope from the circuit? One thing to remember is that removing the scope might change the Out-of-phase condition (OOP), if some sort of phasing issue is the source of the extra power. So you'll probably have to do multiple trials for all these tests.
Other questions:Electrical Engineers: Is there a way I can do input/power measurements with just DMMs + 1 channel scope? I have a variety of RC components, several DMMs, and one single-channel Tektronix analog scope. I can calculate AUC of a periodic signal by taking a photograph, and integrating the pixels. My scope has a grid that is backlit.
(http://www.kevindemarco.com/old_website/img/mylab/oscope.jpg)
My oscilloscope; Tektronix 465 with one probe
Cheers,
Feynman
Itsu,
It appears to me that for your Pout measurement, you are taking the mean of the voltage and current, then multiplying these together to obtain your power. This is not correct.
You must have an oscilloscope that performs MATH functions to the traces, such that you can produce an instantaneous power trace by multiplying the voltage by the current traces. THEN you apply a mean function to that product.
.99
@.99, as I recall, Itsu explained earlier that he was using this rough way of estimating and fully realizes this is not an accurate method of determining n (multiplying Vrms*Irms, etc.)
And note that he added the RC method you recommended for determining Pin.
NOW if we could just get an RC method like that for Pout -- that would be great! ;)
I have actually been thinking about some kind of capacitor to effectively integrate the output power, along with a cap for the input power... Not sure if that would work.
I'm learning, but feel like my graduate work in E&M did not prepare me very well for circuit analysis like this! ^-^
As for myself, I'm snowed under right now working on taxes. Ugh... looks like I'll be pretty much out for a day or perhaps a few days from the forum.
I would like to ask .99 -- I have replies from Itsu and a PM from Humbugger that their Sim packages really can't handle the coupled-inductor component of this circuit, as presented in Post #1 of this thread. So I'm stuck, with regard to any simulation -- unless I can ask:
1. can your Sim package handle the coupled-inductor component of this circuit?
2. If so, would you be willing to take a crack at it, produce some (even preliminary) results from it?
I sure would appreciate it.
I realize you are very busy... no rush, really, as I'm tied up with tax forms at this time myself. But if you could take a crack at this circuit, as you did with the standard JT circuit, it would be much appreciated... Indeed, is there some sort of tutorial for using a simulation package? I'm an experimentalist and fairly content with testing the devices at my electronics bench; but a decent simulation would sure be helpful.
TTFN (Ta-Ta for Now)
Professor,
Yes, I will try my hand at simulating that version. I'm confident it will work.
Regarding Itsu's test; I have no problem with his input power measurement. The issue is with the Pout measurement. I am not certain if Itsu is aware, but the averaging can not be performed before the multiplication when looking at the output power. It is not even worth doing to get a rough idea, as we explored when the RMS values were also an issue of contention a while back. This is no different actually.
If I misunderstood what he was doing or saying, then I apologize in advance.
Unfortunately, there is no way to use this averaging method for determining output power. I will be presenting a method in the near future that will allow for an easy and accurate Pout measurement. ;)
.99
Hi Poynt99,
i indeed used the average (mean) V and i to calculate the power (mean) as this seems to me the logical thing to do having no DSO with a MATH function.
(my DSO has a math function, but only as a wave form, no values :( ).
But i stand corrected, and will reread your post about this as obviously i did not fully grasped it.
PhysicsProf,
I will retest my JT setup with the MPS2222a transistor to be more "in line" with your setup, and see if i can get similar results as with the bc547.
But i obviously have a "problem" in getting the correct Pout values, so have to wait for a "rock solid" Pout measurement method.
Feynman,
thanks for your comments, indeed, on the emitter i have a 2.38Mhz rf signal, see IMG_2144.jpg above.
Concerning the mentioned COP>1, my result (1.28%) can hardly considered to be that, so i think you overlooked the . (period).
But thanks for the ideas, i will continue to experiment with these both circuits.
Regards Itsu.
(Taking a break to reply briefly: )
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.24, 05:21:45
Professor,
Yes, I will try my hand at simulating that version. I'm confident it will work.
[snip] I will be presenting a method in the near future that will allow for an easy and accurate Pout measurement. ;)
.99
Great news! I look forward, .99, to both the simulation and your proposed method for " an easy and accurate Pout measurement" ! O0
@Feynman: The n ~ 1.06 result was obtained with the reverse-JT circuit described in post #1 of this thread, with one addition: a 221 pF capacitor ACROSS (parallel to) inductor L1 (call the cap C1 that goes with L1, and C2 that goes with L2). See circuit schematic in Post #1. (Yes, just one LED in the circuit at the time; as noted above, adding a second LED with reversed polarity will allow current to flow both ways and should allow for larger Pout). C2 was 151 pF .
Again, the measurements were made with the Tek 3032, Mean Pin and Mean Pout evaluated by the scope MATH function, as described earlier.
I was just experimenting with the circuit, but it makes some sense, perhaps... A simulator would be nice for this, but I've used the following to calculate the resonance frequencies of the two TANK CIRCUITS set up with the L1-C1 pair, and the L2-C2 pair, using:
http://chemandy.com/calculators/tank-resonance-calculator.htm
Results of the tank-circuit calculations:
L2 = 81 uH (OK, approximate at this high frequency; measured at 10KHz; see post #1)
C2 = 151 pF
Resonant f = 1.44 MHz.
Observed self-resonant frequency of this reverse-JT oscillator: 1.75 MHz (data given in post #1; f = 1/Period)
So that is close and suggests that the the L2-C2 tank-circuit may dominate the freq that the whole circuit settles into... Oh, yes, I would like to know how the circuit "chooses" its self-resonant frequency.
Next, with the added cap over L1, that gave the rather anomalous 1.06 result for n:
L1 = 67 uH (again, approximate at this high frequency; measured at 10KHz; see post #1)
C1= 221 pF
Resonant f for this tank circuit = 1.31 MHz.
Now, when both tank circuits are tuned to the same freq, AND two LED's are present in the output circuit (having reversed polarities), we should, I think, realize a maximum "push" of the current through the LED's. (sorry, little time right now to explain my reasoning -- but briefly, the L1-C1 tank circuit acts as 'infinite' resistance at its resonant f, forcing current to go through the LED's.)
Leaving C2 the same, one finds that C1 ~ 182 pF will bring the L1-C1 tank circuit to 1.44 MHz, the same as the L2-C2 tank circuit. By the equations. In practice, I will add a variable cap to the circuit and see if I can tune things in... whew... ^-^
I have some time today (I'm at home burnt out from 3 busy weeks at work) so I am going to try this simulation. Hopefully I'll be posting some results in the next hour or so.
.99
I like forward to your results, .99.
I'm heading up to the University for testing of the reverse-JT with two LED's (in parallel, opposite polarities) in the output. Just a short time today, but hope to have results to post either late tonight or tomorrow am.
The simulation ran first time out of the box. O0
Below are the schematic and wave forms.
Other than a lower duty cycle, I think I've faithfully reproduced your wave forms professor.
You will note that the computed MEAN power of the csr1 voltage times the collector voltage is -7mW. The power is negative because the csr1 voltage is measured backwards. So actually, this indicates a sourced power of 7mW to the transistor part of the circuit. You will also note in the next wave form shot, that the actual power in both the diode and LED are nearly zero watts, a mere 14uW to be exact.
This is a good example of when this method does not work as a power measurement. Making the assumption that there is significant current in the LED may be incorrect, even though it may be illuminating.
Your Pout measurement should have come out to a higher negative value, according to my simulation. Perhaps the undersampling is having a marked effect here? At any rate, there should be very little power in the diode/LED oriented A-K as per your diagram, because the positive voltage off the collector does not seem to go much more than +1.5V. The fact that the LED does light is still interesting though. The reversed LED should light quite well however, as the negative voltage off the collector is over -6V in my sim. It appears to be about -5V in your scope measurement.
The battery power (-20.5mW) is in line with what you measured.
As a side note, it would appear that this configuration is a poor one if the goal is to transfer power to the LED, as there is about 12mW of power wasted just in the base resistor R1.
Cheers,
.99
Itsu,
If your scope has the ability to export it's raw data, then we can probably perform your Pout measurement that way. Let me know if you are interested in trying this.
.99
Thanks for doing the SIM, .99...
I saw your schematic after I had left for the university, and to compare with yesterday's data especially, I ask if you could make a few changes:
a) 2 Kohm resistor to the base R1.
(you're right: "As a side note, it would appear that this configuration is a poor one if the goal is to transfer power to the LED, as there is about 12mW of power wasted just in the base resistor R1."-- that was with 1Kohm. What will it be with 2kOhms? and is there any way to remove this resistor once the circuit is oscillating?? I haven't found a way...) This is the sort of thing that I think is great about a good simulation -- tells you where the power is being wasted and allows you to "tweak" the circuit to make improvements in efficiency.
b) Remove the 1N4148 diode and put in TWO red Led's, in parallel, with opposing polarities.
c) Voltage? Both light up brightly for Vin of about 1.45 V (AA battery) -- is this the voltage you used? Also, please repeat for 1Volt in, and 2Volts input.
d) Remove CSR-sim off the LED (I'm not sure what you mean by this actually; clarify?) and do all measurements across CSR1 (to compare with the method I used yesterday, method suggested by Laneal).
Now, I had a big puzzle when I started up yesterday, with the configuration described above -- and with AA battery for input. n was coming out consistently > 140%... I show the data below -- took me just a little while to spot there was a BIG problem... can anyone see the clues that there is a problem in the measuring?
Took me a little longer to locate the root cause of the problem (which affected the measurements!). For fun, and education.
Then I'll get back later with "real data" -- with the problem removed.
Was your problem the sign (+/-) of the power curve?
Here you are Professor, values as shown on diagram.
The Rsim1,2 on the diagram are attached to the power indication pin, and they can not be left open-circuited. I have attached a 1 Giga-Ohm resistor.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.26, 17:31:00
can anyone see the clues that there is a problem in the measuring?
Ah...something fun. I think I know what the problem is, but let me tune my answer for higher correctness probability.
The scope does not appear to be triggered in both cases.
It also appears that you have no battery voltage, which would explain why it isn't oscillating.
.99
Poynt99,
i will check if my scope can export raw data, thanks for the offer.
PhysicsProf,
your Pin measurements does not look good to me, as like Poynt99 already said, there is no battery voltage + csr1 (which is minus).
So at least i would expect to see on the V2 channel something like 1.xx V.
Could it be that the channel was on AC?
Regards Itsu
Oh boy...
could it be that the prof have the channel 1 ground probe in the wrong hole on the breadboard...
EDIT: Eh... I'm just realized i'm wrong. Sorry. :-\
Multiple frequencies. The frequency of oscillation of one coil is entrained to another coil around the same core.
One frequency of oscillation is not normally large enough (relative to other coils on the same core) to act as a governing frequency.
Think 'Van der Pol'
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.03.27, 02:10:58
Multiple frequencies. The frequency of oscillation of one coil is entrained to another coil around the same core.
One frequency of oscillation is not normally large enough (relative to other coils on the same core) to act as a governing frequency.
Think 'Van der Pol'
WaveWatcher O0 Thank you for a precious piece of knowledge.
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.26, 18:48:43
Was your problem the sign (+/-) of the power curve?
Yes! if you mean the (+/-) sign of the INPUT power curve... This should be basically of one sign (-) for this circuit, whereas the Pout waveform should show both + and - (at this voltage especially). Good observation Feynman.
It is not necessarily a pleasant task, to take a hoped-for result (larger n in this case) and try to find out "what is or might be wrong"... but that is what honest researchers will do (IMO).
There are further clues -- e.g., the RMS voltage IN (channel 1 for the left curve) should be close the voltage of the battery, 1.45 V -- as essentially stated by .99. That was crucial.
But the probes were hooked up in the correct locations.
How I found and fixed the root of the problem -- tomorrow...
Checked that both channels were DC-coupled; they were.
I located the problem when I switched probes, testing to see whether I would get the same result with probes switched. Did not.
Found that one of the probes had a loose connection from pin to clip -- needed to be tightened.
This is a problem, I decided, when someone else uses the DSO between sessions when I get to use the Tek3032 -- and something I will have to be very careful about.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.26, 20:04:07
Here you are Professor, values as shown on diagram.
The Rsim1,2 on the diagram are attached to the power indication pin, and they can not be left open-circuited. I have attached a 1 Giga-Ohm resistor.
.99
Thanks, .99. Now, after a short time the power asymptotically approaches certain values, which makes sense -- useful graph.
We see that the D3 LED burns 21 mW while the D2 LED burns zero -- and that I question because BOTH LED's are burning quite brightly at this voltage. Can you explain the zero power consumption in the D2LED when it is lit, nearly as brightly as the D3 LED?
But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):
n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.
Another question --
can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)?? This would be very useful to compare with data.
Now the data, with probe connector fixed and everything testing out properly -- see attached data for input voltages of 1.0, 1.46 (battery) and 2.0 volts.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.28, 01:50:45
[snip]
But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):
n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.
Another question -- can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)?? This would be very useful to compare with data (attached).
So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run)
Vin Pin Pout n
1.0 3.2 1.7 53%
1.46 32.9 19.7 60% <-- repeated for numerous cycles, same n found
1.46 30 21 70% <-- .99's SIM for comparison with above... appears fairly consistent to me
2.0 105.2 86.9 83%
1.46 10.5 1.1 10.5% <-- with ONLY the D2 LED as labeled in .99's sim circuit; clearly the power out is NOT ZERO for this LED by itself...
Data for this run provided in the last attachment below.
Would like to see if the sim can get this result.
Also, would like to see sim results for 1 and 2.0 volts input; note that n is clearly increasing as Vin is increased.
Poynt99,
my scope has no possibility for exporting raw data, only screenshots (.BMP's) :(
PhysicsProf,
Nice results.
Where/how did you measure the Pout? Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?
Looking at the traces, it seems your probe settings are on RMS then use the MATH function to calculate the Mean power, right?
There is some current flowing back via the toroid L2 winding (point 7 in your first post, right drawing), that is not accounted for, what if you connect this BEFORE the CSR2 resistor so you can include this current into Pout (i did it with mixed results).
Regards Itsu
Itsu --
QuotePhysicsProf,
Nice results.
Where/how did you measure the Pout? Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?
Looking at the traces, it seems your probe settings are on RMS then use the MATH function to calculate the Mean power, right?
There is some current flowing back via the toroid L2 winding (point 7 in your first post, right drawing), that is not accounted for, what if you connect this BEFORE the CSR2 resistor so you can include this current into Pout (i did it with mixed results).
Regards Itsu
For your convenience, the schematic used is reposted from my first post, and is the reverse-JT circuit shown on the right with just one measuring CSR called CSR1 (using the nomenclature of .99 and Laneal). Shown on the left is the JT circuit, as developed particularly by Laneal on another thread before, which also has just one measuring CSR. Just one measuring CSR, CSR1, used to determine both input and output current -- same for both circuits, as we discussed at length and agreed over weeks on another thread. There are various voltages -- at different points.
Pin is determined using the MEAN of the math PRODUCT, V1*V2, as shown on the diagram. I2=V2 since CSR1 is a ONE OHM resistor.
Pout is determined using the MEAN of the math PRODUCT, V5*V2, as shown on the diagram; that is, the output voltage is measured between points 3 (ground connection) and point 5 (FIVE). Again, I2=V2 since CSR1 is a ONE OHM resistor. One can see from the diagram that measuring V5 between points 3 and 5 includes the current (and power) flowing through point 7.
So we have the power waveform for "INPUT" and "OUTPUT" and then the Tek 3032 calculates the MEAN (for many cycles, or for one cycle is done also, and generally the agreement is good as long as the "signal strength" is high so that the one-cycle calculation is meaningful... See data posted in my last post.)
I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !! (just to clarify that important point)
Great, thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.
Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.
If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.
Regards Itsu.
Quote from: Itsu on 2011.03.28, 19:09:15
Great, thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.
Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.
If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.
Regards Itsu.
Not quite sure what you mean by "what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function" -- the scales for channel 1 and channel 2 are shown at the bottom of the scope traces.... Is that what you mean?
The probes are set to 1X in all the data shown on this forum so far, although I often do a check using 10X on the probes.
.99 of course gave a way to calculate Pin. When I use a power supply rather than a battery, I use a voltmeter (DMM) to get the accurate Vin and I have the current from the PS in mA... That gives a measure for Pin -- I wonder how good that is, as a measure of Pin? Vin * Iin ... I will have to compare with MEAN Pin calculated using the Math V*I function on the scope... Has anyone done this?
For the "mathless scope" as you say, I really don't know how to get Pout... Still hoping that .99 will disclose his proposed method (using a couple of DMM's I presume).
QuoteWhere/how did you measure the Pout? Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?
Itsu, go ahead and use a CSR2 resistor for the LED, that is the correct way of doing the Pout measurement. Apparently my previous explanations fell on deaf ears. In the circuit posted by the Prof, the output current from the kickback circulates only in the right loop, it doesn't pass through the battery and CSR1, also the LED is reversed, which he did correct.
Just trying to help so we don't become the laughing stock
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.29, 05:18:09
Itsu, go ahead and use a CSR2 resistor for the LED, that is the correct way of doing the Pout measurement. Apparently my previous explanations fell on deaf ears. In the circuit posted by the Prof, the output current from the kickback circulates only in the right loop, it doesn't pass through the battery and CSR1, also the LED is reversed, which he did correct.
Just trying to help so we don't become the laughing stock
EM
I have reviewed your posts this early morning, EMD, and find the circuit below from 3-22-11 as your latest -- is this correct? If not, pls provide the update. I would ask .99 (busy as he is), to do the SIM for this circuit so that we can compare with the 2-LED circuit that I tested last time I was at the University (which, unfortunately, is over 125 miles distance from my home round-trip).
Note that .99 explained on or about 22 March 2011 that the one-CSR circuit gave a reading nearly the same as the two-CSR circuit (lower by 3% on calculated n) -- this is reasonable agreement. However, that previous test was done with the "standard" JT, rather than the present circuit which is the subject of this thread (the "reverse JT") -- so it would be good to revisit this issue.
Your comments did not fall on deaf ears, just that one needs to have evidence that your method will give a "better" result -- meaning more accurate. 3% difference is not enough to make us a "laughing stock," as you say. But again, I certainly would like to see tests done. Also, I inserted an LED in the direction you propose in the attached, so your suggestions did not fall on "deaf ears."
I can also compare the 1-CSR and 2-CSR measurements with the Tek 3032 scope, but duties preclude me from traveling to the University anytime soon.
Oh, this reminds me, I would ask you (EMD) to provide the equation for calculating Pout when you have TWO CSR's as you propose -- noting that you have ignored that current which passes through loop L1, have you not? And does CSR1 enter into your calculation for Pout? Seems it should -- since the "output current" also flows through CSR1.
I would really like to see your equation for calculating Pout corresponding with the two-CSR circuit you propose!
Again, well-understood and carefully-performed MEASUREMENTS are the key to establishing (or not) "overunity". Interesting to compare our colleague Feynman's efforts to get reliable measurements on the "Gabriel device" :
Quote
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #124 on: March 26, 2011, 07:36:48 PM »
@all
I spoke to a good friend of mine, and he agrees that there is around 50/50 chance this [Gabriel] device works overunity vs a kilo-watt meter measurement error. So we'll have to test more to see.
The measurement error, if it occurs, i likely because the kil-o-watt meter may be tricked by the inductive reactance of the primary. My friend with the suggestions posted here, he agrees that putting the proper value capacitor , in parallel , across the primary coil inputs will solve the problem (bring the voltage / current phase to zero offset in both heating element resistor and the primary). Then the Kill-O-Watt meter will not be tricked no matter what if we do this.
So next step I think is replications and measurements of the voltage drop and the resistance of the 'toaster' (or whatever other current limiting device is used) in series with the primary. This will let us calculate a proper value for the capacitor c, then we can order one from Digikey and put it across the primary to make sure we are not having measurement error.
Another way to test this (exclude measurement error from inductive reactance) is turn off everything in your house except one circuit breaker, and run the device by itself , and run the device powering loads for a period of time (say 60seconds or 120seconds or whatever).. Then measure the energy consuming on the meter to the power company.
and,
QuoteRe: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #141 on: March 27, 2011, 08:03:56 PM »
Okay, first , wow@the tesla patent. Did this guy leave anything left to invent? No wonder he got so much accomplished, he didn't have a gf breathing down his neck .
Allright, so I like the idea of running the Gabriel device off a cheap 12V inverter from a battery. This makes it really easy to measure the consumed power (just measure the current draw to the inverter). It's WAY easier to measure power on a straight DC signal from a battery than it is to measure a Wall AC signal through a resistive and inductive load, because of Voltage/Current phase issues. So I like the inverter idea.
Hopefully my Nanoperm parts will ship this week. Whether or not this particular device (Gabriel device) works as it appears (we need more tests), Nanoperm is a really promising material for overunity research. It has much higher magnetic permeability than ferrite.
Regardless of what happens here, I will be using the Nanoperm for Boyce TPU replication and possibly for testing EMDevices' magnetic saturation theory he has posted on overunityresearch.com. And anything else I can think of or that seems promising. The goal is open-source solid-state overunity.
Working on an electromagnet and my blog today, hopefully we can determine with some certainty what is going on with the Gabriel device over the next couple of weeks.
Cheers,
Feynman
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.135
Good stuff... and a reminder of the crucial importance of reliable measurements in the effort to definitively establish "overunity". I agree with Feynman's overall goal:
Quote
The goal is open-source solid-state overunity.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.29, 11:36:47
Note that .99 explained on or about 22 March 2011 that the one-CSR circuit gave a reading nearly the same as the two-CSR circuit (lower by 3% on calculated n) -- this is reasonable agreement. However, that previous test was done with the "standard" JT, rather than the present circuit which is the subject of this thread (the "reverse JT") -- so it would be good to revisit this issue.
Professor,
Also subsequent to that post, I made this test and post (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=773.msg12451#msg12451) on 2011-03-25 of the present circuit and concluded this:
QuoteThis is a good example of when this method does not work as a power measurement. Making the assumption that there is significant current in the LED may be incorrect, even though it may be illuminating.
You need to have a separate CSR for each leg to be measured with this configuration.
.99
Yes, yes, that's the circuit configuration I endorse Professor.
I'll say more later.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.29, 13:44:25
Professor,
Also subsequent to that post, I made this test and post (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=773.msg12451#msg12451) on 2011-03-25 of the present circuit and concluded this:
You need to have a separate CSR for each leg to be measured with this configuration.
.99
Note on that point, with which I agree -- I left for the University on the morning of the 25th of March (the day you posted the above) and my latest Tek 3032 data were taken using the 1-CSR method BEFORE I saw your post.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.29, 14:21:41
Yes, yes, that's the circuit configuration I endorse Professor.
I'll say more later.
Thanks, EMD. An interesting circuit config to be sure. I have gone back to this configuration this morning, at home using my PS and ATTEN DSO.
Requires low input current (8 mA) compared to config with 2 LED's (22mA) -- where current is measured using the PS and Vin = 1.51V.
I also added a cap (221 pF) across L1 as I have tried this lately, making a tank circuit out of the L1 leg. This does not increase the input current, so Pin stays the same, but the Pout curve shows greater 1-cycle area (integrating Pout with respect to time, giving Energy) -- which indicates that Pout increases as the cap across L1 is added. I find that interesting.
I should also note that using the 1X probe causes a change in brightness of the LED... I believe this may be due to the capacitance of the probe itself. Brightness change occurs whether the probe is hooked to the DSO or not.
My next step was to measure the Cap of the probe itself -- 154 pF at 1X, about 100 pF at 10X. (Probe left open-ended.)
I found that using the scope probe at 10X solves the problem, that is, the brightness of the LED does not change noticeably with the probe set at 10X, when the probe is connected to the circuit.
ANOTHER important observation (IMO) regarding reliable measurements -- the parameters of the scope probes themselves!
Indeed professor.
We should always use x10 probes unless there is a good specific reason to use a x1 probe, and then with the noted limitations as you've discovered.
I never questioned this with your testing because it is almost always assumed that folks are using x10 probes.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.28, 01:50:45
Thanks, .99. Now, after a short time the power asymptotically approaches certain values, which makes sense -- useful graph.
We see that the D3 LED burns 21 mW while the D2 LED burns zero -- and that I question because BOTH LED's are burning quite brightly at this voltage. Can you explain the zero power consumption in the D2LED when it is lit, nearly as brightly as the D3 LED?
No, I can not explain it. Your measurement of a few hundred uW is also odd, don't you think? If that was not an error, then something must be at play which is causing that LED to glow, even though it is not using a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, I can not "see" if the LED is glowing in the sim. 8)
Quote
But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):
n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.
Another question -- can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)?? This would be very useful to compare with data.
Yes, that would be correct. Here are the p(t) wave forms. I did not include the one LED because it shows no net power.
.99
Quote from: Itsu on 2011.03.28, 19:09:15
Great, thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.
Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.
If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.
Regards Itsu.
Itsu,
The voltage probes are not on any particular "setting" actually. The RMS voltages that you see the scope displaying, are there for "interest" sake only. The MATH multiplication is always performed using the raw data samples within the scope. With this now acquired p(t) wave form trace, we use the scope "measurement" functions to perform a MEAN computation on this red MATH trace, and it displays that for us as well. This is the one we are interested in.
Perhaps it would be prudent Professor, if you would remove those RMS measurements off the display, as apparently (and understandably) they are leading to some confusion.
Hope that clears things up for you Itsu. ;)
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.30, 00:21:12
No, I can not explain it. Your measurement of a few hundred uW is also odd, don't you think? If that was not an error, then something must be at play which is causing that LED to glow, even though it is not using a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, I can not "see" if the LED is glowing in the sim. 8)
Yes, that would be correct. Here are the p(t) wave forms. I did not include the one LED because it shows no net power.
.99
I think you are mistaking the data taken with the bad probe connection with the data acquired later (4 attachments shown above), which have outputs typically in the tens of mW range; although for the 1 LED case, Pout was only about 1.1 mW. Note the summary I provided (output power in bold here):
So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run)
Vin Pin(mW) Pout (mW) n
1.0 3.2 1.7 53%
1.46 32.9 19.7 60% <-- repeated for numerous cycles, same n found
1.46 30 21 70% <-- .99's SIM for comparison with above... appears fairly consistent to me
2.0 105.2 86.9 83%
1.46 10.5 1.1 10.5%
I'll comment on the waveforms later; gotta run to a community meeting this pm.
@99
With reference to the last sim you posted:
Reply:#72 prof_gl_scope06.png
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526)
Did you really use 8H for L1 & L2 in that sim???
Quote from: duff on 2011.03.30, 01:21:23
@99
With reference to the last sim you posted:
Reply:#72 prof_gl_scope06.png
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526)
Did you really use 8H for L1 & L2 in that sim???
No, it was not 8H.
The cool thing about SPICE when you begin to use non-linear cores as the coupling media, is that the component values change from inductance to the number of turns. So in fact the "8" shown means "8 turns". The core material and core size/area is known, so all that is needed is the number of turns of wire on that core.
8)
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.30, 01:01:12
I think you are mistaking the data taken with the bad probe connection with the data acquired later (4 attachments shown above), which have outputs typically in the tens of mW range; although for the 1 LED case, Pout was only about 1.1 mW. Note the summary I provided (output power in bold here):
So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run)
Vin Pin(mW) Pout (mW) n
1.0 3.2 1.7 53%
1.46 32.9 19.7 60% <-- repeated for numerous cycles, same n found
1.46 30 21 70% <-- .99's SIM for comparison with above... appears fairly consistent to me
2.0 105.2 86.9 83%
1.46 10.5 1.1 10.5%
I'll comment on the waveforms later; gotta run to a community meeting this pm.
OK professor, that is what I meant by "if this was not a error". Thanks.
Still, the 1.1mW is quite low compared to 20mW, and esp. if the difference in apparent lumens is minimal. It would be interesting to focus on this one LED for some time, to determine if it really is using only 1.1mW of power. Perhaps there is a new ultra-low power mode of LED drive yet to be discovered here?
Cheers,
.99
Quote from: duff on 2011.03.30, 01:21:23
@99
With reference to the last sim you posted:
Reply:#72 prof_gl_scope06.png
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=773.0;attach=4526)
Did you really use 8H for L1 & L2 in that sim???
Good call duff. This reminds me of something.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.02.15, 23:26:14
ION,
Here are the results of the tests with a core-type unit (3C90 material). I ran 3 tests; 1LED, 2LEDs, 3LEDs in series. Efficiencies computed in each case with LED(s) terminated at GND and at Vbat. All LED powers added together in cases where there is more than one.
1xLED
GND Connection:
Pbat: 61.3, Pled: 25, n=40.8%
Vbat Connection:
Pbat: 63.7, Pled: 18.08, n=23.38%
2xLED
GND Connection:
Pbat: 75, Pled: 12.5+12.5 n=33%
Vbat Connection:
Pbat: 74, Pled: 10+10, n=27%
3xLED
GND Connection:
Pbat: 79.8, Pled: 8.16+8.16+8.16, n=30.6%
Vbat Connection:
Pbat: 78.1, Pled: 7.07+7.07+7.07, n=27.2%
I suspect this trend will continue while adding LEDs in series, until finally, the two efficiencies will equal out at 0%.
In all the cases above, a GND connection shows a better efficiency. Unless this simulation is not telling the truth, I'd be inclined to always connect my LEDs to GND, if I was indeed a Joule Thief enthusiast that is. ;)
.99
Professor, can you increase the number of LEDs in series and check for efficiency next time? I suppose if we can transfer as much as energy in voltage instead of current.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.03.30, 02:31:47
OK professor, that is what I meant by "if this was not a error". Thanks.
Still, the 1.1mW is quite low compared to 20mW, and esp. if the difference in apparent lumens is minimal. It would be interesting to focus on this one LED for some time, to determine if it really is using only 1.1mW of power. Perhaps there is a new ultra-low power mode of LED drive yet to be discovered here?
Cheers,
.99
Right -- and I like Gibbs' suggestion also:
Quote
Professor, can you increase the number of LEDs in series and check for efficiency next time? I suppose if we can transfer as much as energy in voltage instead of current
.
Sure, this will be interesting... I'll start a list of things to check empirically with the Tek 3032... I learn a lot each session.
I'm just about ready to agree with Feynman, however -- that the JT-type circuits are not likely to be much overunity... In any case, I love to learn.
I don't think it's OU either, but IMO, it's going to be an epic battle between sim and scope. ;)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.29, 17:57:15
...
I should also note that using the 1X probe causes a change in brightness of the LED... I believe this may be due to the capacitance of the probe itself.
...
I confirm this fact, even in 10x mode which is the usual position of my probes when signals are strong enough.
I'm still playing with high Q and Stiffler like circuits, whose capacity is around 1 or 2pF and frequencies between 2 and 30 Mhz.
A probe changes noticeably the resonant frequency, even if it is quartz crystal controlled. When connected to the hot point, it becomes the dominant capacity. I have to disconnect the probe and to put it next to the hot point of the resonant circuit, i.e. to reduce this parasitic capacity down to 0.1pF or less, in oder to check the real natural resonant frequency of my circuit.
Quote from: poynt99Itsu,
The voltage probes are not on any particular "setting" actually. The RMS voltages that you see the scope displaying, are there for "interest" sake only. The MATH multiplication is always performed using the raw data samples within the scope. With this now acquired p(t) wave form trace, we use the scope "measurement" functions to perform a MEAN computation on this red MATH trace, and it displays that for us as well. This is the one we are interested in.
Hope that clears things up for you Itsu.
It does Poynt99, thanks again.
As my channels can only be set at Cyc RMS, Mean or P2P, and none of those show any creditable values when measuring Pout using the csr2 resistor (using the multiple DDM/RC method for Pin), i can not make any usefull power calculations, so i will refrain from posting any.
I can confirm same behaviour when using the probes in the 1x position that the normal polarity (dim) led goes out when attaching.
Regards Itsu
Thanks, Itsu -- and EMDevices! I had a bit of a sleepless night as I realized that with your circuit (attached again), there could be quite a bit of current flowing through CSR2, ie through the LED, without this being detected in CSR1 which measures the NET flow. That is, the effectively-recycling current through L1 and the LED could be quite high relative to the current flowing through CSR1. This would also explain/allow for the brightness of the LED as we have been puzzling about (see above discussion).
Further, I will add a CSR3 (1 ohm) south of L1 in order to compare the currents flowing through L1 and the LED -- and I want to look at the phase relationships also. Whew! This could get interesting again as Gibbs noted. (Good point, Gibbs) Thanks again EMD, and my apologies for being so dense on this issue in the past.
Also, I think the SIM with CSR2 and CSR3 would be interesting to see... not sure the sim and the empirical circuit are yet in agreement since the SIM has the power in one of the LED's (in the two LED circuit) at zero when it is actually lit....
Quote from: Itsu on 2011.03.30, 09:41:23
I can confirm same behaviour when using the probes in the 1x position that the normal polarity (dim) led goes out when attaching.
Regards Itsu
That is quite interesting Itsu, thanks.
As I mentioned before, I think it might be possible to develop a new low-power mode of LED drive, if we can perform a few more controlled tests of the hypothesis, that being the LED can be illuminated almost to full brightness with extremely short pulses, or perhaps with a pulsed electric field which is below the forward turn-on threshold of the LED.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.30, 11:41:43
Further, I will add a CSR3 (1 ohm) south of L1 in order to compare the currents flowing through L1 and the LED -- and I want to look at the phase relationships also. Whew! This could get interesting again as Gibbs noted. (Good point, Gibbs) Thanks again EMD, and my apologies for being so dense on this issue in the past.
Alright, I have added 1 ohm resistors as advertised, CSR2 (voltage drop V4) south of the LED oriented as EMD recommended, and another (CSR3) south of L1 (voltage drop I'll call V5).
To measure power across the LED, I have the ATTEN provide the waveform for V3*V4, then I take the integrated area for one cycle (by hand).
Similarly,
To measure power across L1, I have the ATTEN provide the waveform for V3*V5, then I take the integrated area for one cycle (by hand).
To measure power INPUT, I have the ATTEN provide the waveform for V1*V2, then I take the integrated area for one cycle (by hand).
Of course, with the Tek 3032, it will calculate MEAN Power in each case, saving me a lot of trouble.
I find the relative power varies with applied voltage Vin, with more power going to the LED with increasing Vin, that is, P-LED/P-L1 increases.
Using x10 probes and at 1.83 volts on my system described in earlier posts,
I find that PL1 is approximately 40% of the power dissipated in the LED leg. This is not negligible...but I'm unsure just how to incorporate P-L1 into a calculation of n, because the inductor L1 is not a simple resistive load...
Do I simply take n = (P-LED +P-L1)/ Pin ?
We're to the point where the pieces are measured separately and can now be put together... in principle. If the above is not the equation for n, what is?
Just a friendly reminder, that before the single-CSR method was proposed, on Feb 27 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=717.msg11405#msg11405) I had proposed (and it was agreed upon later I thought) that the correct method for determining the power in each separate component involves it's own CSR. See the schematic below, and note that I made mention in note 5) that a CSR for the transistor could also be added, i.e. CSR3.
It seems we've gone full circle, and as a reminder to mitigate errors, we need to ask ourselves "what is the VOLTAGE ACROSS and CURRENT THROUGH the component I am interested in?"
.99
Gibbs quotes .99:
Quote
Here are the results of the tests with a core-type unit (3C90 material). I ran 3 tests; 1LED, 2LEDs, 3LEDs in series. Efficiencies computed in each case with LED(s) terminated at GND and at Vbat. All LED powers added together in cases where there is more than one.
1xLED
GND Connection:
Pbat: 61.3, Pled: 25, n=40.8%
Vbat Connection:
Pbat: 63.7, Pled: 18.08, n=23.38%
Just what does this mean, GND connection, as opposed to Vbat connection? Don't think I understand fully. Somehow, there needs to be a completion of the circuit back to the battery (-), right? Thanks.
There is an outstanding question for .99 in my previous post, above, which I hope you'll address, .99 (regarding GND connection).
In the last few days, I have been running the Joule Booster JB (or "reverse JT") circuit attached, with LED direction as urged by EMDevices. (thanks!)
There are a few changes from that diagram,
1. Add a variable resistor between the LED and point P21T ("V3" point) -- I decided to try dumping power here, and adjusted the R till it suited me (looking at Pin on the oscilloscope).
Later measured this Rvar = 1061 ohms.
2. Added a cap of 151 pF between the same point P21T and P22T
My goal was to minimize Pin while maximizing Pout, looking at the power waveforms on my ATTEN, and those mods were what I came up with empirically.
Here are the other parameters of the JB set-up:
Vbatt = 1.3 V (older AA battery)
1888 ohms (including a second variable resistor) instead of the 1K ohm R shown in the attached schematic
MPS2222A transistor
151 pF cap along with L2 = 80 uH
L1 = 67 uH
Now, attached is a photo of the JB running and the red LED lit quite brightly. What surprises me is that the LED is lit up when there is a 1061 ohm resistance (1.06Kohms) in SERIES with the LED!
I have some results showing Pin and Pout for this circuit, but first I would like to ask .99 (or anyone!) to do the SIMULATION for this circuit, including the 1.06Kohm R in series with the LED, to see what power is going through the LED-output-leg of the circuit. Is the LED lit up -- in the sim?
I think there may be something unusual here, based on this result and Power measurements with this circuit, but before going on would like to see what the SIM result is...
PS -- this is NOT an April Fool's joke!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.03.31, 15:26:27
Gibbs quotes .99:
Just what does this mean, GND connection, as opposed to Vbat connection? Don't think I understand fully. Somehow, there needs to be a completion of the circuit back to the battery (-), right? Thanks.
Sorry Professor, I did not see this post/question.
This is referring to where the LED is terminated. It either goes from the transistor collector to ground (as per how we normally see it in our JT circuits), or the LED goes up to the battery rail (as a flyback diode would be situated as shown for eg.).
(http://www.acroname.com/robotics/info/articles/drivers/rly_intf.jpg)
Hope that makes sense now.
.99
Professor,
It does not surprise me that the LED still works even with a 1k or 2k resistor in series.
What is the voltage on the collector?
Also note that in a previous test, you had very little power in the one LED, and it was still illuminating. There may be something at play here, as I have already mentioned a couple of times.
No need to do the Sim, I know what it will show, almost no power to the LED.
.99
.99:
QuoteIt either goes from the transistor collector to ground (as per how we normally see it in our JT circuits), or the LED goes up to the battery rail (as a flyback diode would be situated as shown for eg.).
Alright-- thanks for the response.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.03, 22:27:25
Professor,
It does not surprise me that the LED still works even with a 1k or 2k resistor in series.
What is the voltage on the collector?
Also note that in a previous test, you had very little power in the one LED, and it was still illuminating. There may be something at play here, as I have already mentioned a couple of times.
No need to do the Sim, I know what it will show, almost no power to the LED.
.99
Positive from the battery connects direct to the collector, so it is at the battery voltage.
No Sim: OK, it seems that we need real measurements/ observations at this point.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.04.04, 00:56:24
Positive from the battery connects direct to the collector, so it is at the battery voltage.
No Sim: OK, it seems that we need real measurements/ observations at this point.
Indeed, that post of mine was in reference to the standard JT circuit.
Right, forgot. Let me re-phrase the question; what is the voltage on the emitter? ;)
I suspect it is showing a high negative swing?
.99
Indeed the emitter voltage has a high negative swing.
Corrected: Vrms for Vemitter is 1.8 volts... not surprising.
Conditions are as given a few posts earlier, except the refreshed battery has Vin = 1.46 volts now.
PS -- wife and I will be traveling, limited computer contact for about twelve days ...
Taking a probe across the LED, I find the voltage to swing from +1.4V to -!.4 volts.
Taking a probe across the 1.06Kohm resistor in series with the LED, I find the voltage to swing from +1.0V to -!.0 volts.
I don't see how the red LED can light up under these conditions, but it is lit nevertheless.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.04.03, 19:17:43
In the last few days, I have been running the Joule Booster JB (or "reverse JT") circuit attached, with LED direction as urged by EMDevices. (thanks!)
There are a few changes from that diagram,
1. Add a variable resistor between the LED and point P21T ("V3" point) -- I decided to try dumping power here, and adjusted the R till it suited me (looking at Pin on the oscilloscope).
Later measured this Rvar = 1061 ohms.
Correction: Rvar = 2.44 Kohms (re-measured, completely isolated from other circuit elements)
And replaced the red LED with yellow LED and also green LED -- yellow or green also lit up dimly using a single AA battery for input voltage of about 1.45 V.
Travel begins in earnest today -- wishing you all well as my computer contact will be limited for a couple of weeks now.
Thanks Professor.
Enjoy your trip.
.99
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.03.19, 03:11:02
Suppose my questions are
1/ How much energy required to charge an inductor to 1/2Li^2.
2/ How much energy can be gain from 1/2Li^2.
Or let me rephrase it in Newtonian equilvalent
1/ How much energy does it takes to cause a mass M to velocity V from relative rest position.
2/ How much energy can we gain from stopping mass M with velocity V to its relative rest.
I'm not surprise if n approaches 2 in this setup.
I'm back from the trip... a long one!
Yesterday, I tried to record ENERGY-IN and ENERGY-OUT from a JT-analog circuit, by using CAPACITORS to provide the input energy, and to collect the output energy. It worked, sort of.
But the efficiency numbers came in around 70%, which was lower than what I had obtained using the MEAN Power calculations, using a Tektronix 3032. I would like to understand this result.
So, I recalled something about apparent non-conservation of energy when stored energy in one cap flows to another cap -- with energy loss being evident. I tried this experiment using two identical 10,000 uF caps. The first was charged to 2.66 volts. Stored energy is 1/2 CV**2.
Then I simply connected this cap to its twin. Then the voltage on each one was the same, 1.33 volts -- of course, by charge conservation:
V = Q/C so by doubling C, the voltage is halved.
BUT -- consider whether ENERGY was conserved:
E = 1/2 CV**2 -- so HALF of the initial energy was lost in the process of simply connecting the charged cap to a twin uncharged-cap! Work it out -- we have two caps in the end, but the voltage was down by 1/2, square that -- energy in each is 1/4 of the initial energy. Two of them, so 2 * 1/4 (Einitial) = 1/2 (Einitial) in the final situation.
What happened to the "missing" energy, or did I do something wrong? (HINT -- if you think I did something wrong, remember I conserved charge but not energy... it appears in this simple experiment, you can't have it both ways.)
OK -- prove the professor of physics wrong... OR if you agree with me that energy was lost, then tell me
HOW do we determine n (in a JT-analog circuit, say) using CAPS to provide the input energy, and to store output energy? That is, do we consider that energy will be LOST necessarily -- as is the case when we directly connect CAPS as in my test above.? (That is, is the n = 1/2 in this case due to the circuit "inefficiency", or simply due to the requirement of charge conservation coupled with the nature of capacitors? are direct-connecting wires really just 50% efficient? I don't think so...)
PS -- the above questions are serious, not some sort of game. Although I did enjoy posing such questions to students in my classes, I will certainly admit.
I would like to know how to determine efficiency n of circuits by various methods -- in this case, how to ACCURATELY use capacitors to provide input energy and to store the output energy.
Hi Professor, and welcome back from your trip.
You are absolutely correct, in that 50% of the energy will be lost in such a direct cap-to-cap transfer. The "lost" energy is dissipated in the wiring between the two capacitors, and it matters not how low that resistance be, it will always amount to 50% loss.
When we insert an inductor in between the two capacitors, things begin to change and we are able to transfer the energy with less loss. The efficiency of this method depends on the inductor. The higher the inductance and the lower its DC resistance, the better. In other words, we want to use an inductor with as high a Q-factor (L/R ratio) as possible.
In my opinion, using two caps in this case as you have suggested as a means to determine circuit efficiency, may be more complicated and less accurate.
I'll let others weigh in on the merit of this approach however.
You may be interested in reading the attached document I put together some time ago, on this very subject.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.22, 14:28:27
Hi Professor, and welcome back from your trip.
You are absolutely correct, in that 50% of the energy will be lost in such a direct cap-to-cap transfer. The "lost" energy is dissipated in the wiring between the two capacitors, and it matters not how low that resistance be, it will always amount to 50% loss.
When we insert an inductor in between the two capacitors, things begin to change and we are able to transfer the energy with less loss. The efficiency of this method depends on the inductor. The higher the inductance and the lower its DC resistance, the better. In other words, we want to use an inductor with as high a Q-factor (L/R ratio) as possible.
In my opinion, using two caps in this case as you have suggested as a means to determine circuit efficiency, may be more complicated and less accurate.
I'll let others weigh in on the merit of this approach however.
You may be interested in reading the attached document I put together some time ago, on this very subject.
.99
Thank you -- I have looked through your document -- very informative, especially (to me) the part that begins thus:
"In an attempt get obtain meaningful work output from the setup, the coil is replaced with a transformer. The goal is to shuttle the initial energy back and forth between C1 and C2 with as little loss as possible, and to tap the energy flowing through the series inductance in order to make it do some work for us."
I agree with your conclusion that using capacitors in an attempt to measure n = Eout/Ein is complicated and difficult overall, and probably not a good approach. In the simple experiment I did, charge was conserved as expected -- but energy was NOT conserved in the circuit -- it must have been lost due to sparking or resistance (or other factors -- energy did not evaporate).
However, there is a way using caps that may work: we use a Cap with VERY large C for the input and such a cap on the "output leg" of the circuit also, then running the circuit for a relatively short time so that the voltage drop in the input cap is small.
I'm not certain how to wire this into the circuit, frankly, because of difficulties imposed by the necessity of having a complete circuit -- and charge MUST be conserved!
Now, in your use of two DMM's, .99, to measure Pin and Pout, I also have a problem -- because the "high-resistance" voltmeters affect the circuit, as seen in subtle changes in the brightness of the LED [which I observe sometimes] when a DMM is connected at certain places in the circuit. How to get around that problem?
General conclusion to this point: accurately measuring Pin and Pout is not trivial, not at all. I suspect that many in the "free energy" field are making mistakes in their measurements, mistakes I would like to learn to avoid -- to get at reliable measurements (my goal at this time).
Here is another method that I tried; see what you think of this, fellow researchers.
With a standard JT, when I hook up a battery to run it, the voltage across the battery drops. This is expected for a circuit drawing power from the battery.
Another circuit B I've developed is different. I measure the battery voltage as it stands alone, actually two AA batteries in series, 2.65 volts. (not fully charged in this case)
Then I hook up the battery to circuit B and the voltage "of the battery" goes UP... to about 2.72 volts and stays up for a long time, at least an hour.
NOTE: Just two caps in the circuit, 151 pF each, and no other batteries.
Further, after an hour of running the LED brightly, the battery voltage is the same as when I started, within measurement error of 0.01 volt. When I run the JT, the battery voltage after the run is significantly less than before the run -- but not with circuit B.
How do you explain these observations?
Could you please show what circuit B looks like?
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.04.22, 14:47:33
Thank you -- I have looked through your document -- very informative, especially (to me) the part that begins thus:
"In an attempt get obtain meaningful work output from the setup, the coil is replaced with a transformer. The goal is to shuttle the initial energy back and forth between C1 and C2 with as little loss as possible, and to tap the energy flowing through the series inductance in order to make it do some work for us."
I agree with your conclusion that using capacitors in an attempt to measure n = Eout/Ein is complicated and difficult overall, and not a good approach. In the simple experiment I did, charge was conserved as expected -- but energy was NOT conserved in the circuit -- it must have been lost due to sparking or resistance (or other factors -- energy did not evaporate).
Now, in your use of two DMM's, .99, to measure Pin and Pout, I also have a problem -- because the "high-resistance" voltmeters affect the circuit, as seen in changes in the brightness of the LED [which I observe sometimes] when a DMM is connected at certain places in the circuit. How to get around that problem?
General conclusion to this point: accurately measuring Pin and Pout is not trivial, not at all. I suspect that many in the "free energy" field are making mistakes in their measurements, mistakes I would like to learn to avoid -- to get at reliable measurements (my goal at this time).
Yes, the lost energy in a cap-to-cap transfer will get
dissipated in the connecting wire.
First and foremost, understand that I have not been attempting to measure Pout using the DMM method, nor is it advised. It will not work for Pout.
For the Pin measurement, does the meter still affect the intensity of the LED's?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.04.22, 15:08:44
Yes, the lost energy in a cap-to-cap transfer will get dissipated in the connecting wire.
First and foremost, understand that I have not been attempting to measure Pout using the DMM method, nor is it advised. It will not work for Pout.
For the Pin measurement, does the meter still affect the intensity of the LED's?
.99
Ah, I see the difference, .99. The LED brightness in circuit B changes significantly when I look at output using the DMM (either of the two I'm using), but this is not the case when I do the Pin measurement.
About circuit B, I would like to discuss it generally at this time rather giving the specific circuit. I'd like to do more measurements of different types myself first, I hope you all understand.
About the battery not dropping in voltage -- so I ran this overnight, for over NINE HOURS, with the LED lit albeit dimly in this case for the input battery (rechargeable, but never charged -- purchased yesterday) was just 1.26V at the start. The LED (resistance not known; how to measure??) was in series with 6.1 ohms in three resistors, so there was clearly significant resistance on the output leg of circuit B.
I just measured the voltage of this battery this morning -- 1.26 volts, measured on two different DMM's, same as at the start last night. To me, this is itself a significant result... although I'm not willing to claim anything yet. I want to do measurements using different methods, you see. I will say that the Tek 3032 basically agrees -- circuit B draws VERY little mean input power.
I would like to get to the bottom of this, to understand the results from circuit B finally.
Attached are two schematics, tested on the way to my development of circuit B (which differs significantly from both of these). Please focus with me for a moment on measuring the input power -- see how the scope probes are connected, the same in both circuits and in circuit B.
Now, the Mean input power -- given the way the probes are connected -- will it show up positive or negative on the scope? (MEAN Pin)
Let's consider that first, then I'm willing to show the input power waveforms for this strange circuit B.
IF we assume that the circuit is UU and that the net power is FROM the battery, then your MEAN Pin should come out negative. Voltage across the CSR will be net negative wrt GND, and hence V*I will be negative also.
Remember also that we have to ADD the power in the battery to the power in the CSR to get the actual Pin.
.99
As an alternative to obtain the Pin, you can use the scope math to perform (V1-V2), then take the MEAN of that. This will give you the average battery voltage. Then you can multiply that by the MEAN voltage across the CSR to get average battery power.
so in summary, you have:
MEAN[(V1-V2)] * MEAN[V2] = Pin
.99
Now, I have been using oscilloscopes, but I'm looking for an accurate alternative for measuring power. I've been concerned about RF pick-up in the probes, for example.
Hence I've pushed for the used of the cap/time method for measuring Pinput -- direct, straightforward.
For Poutput, I'm proposing the use of a simple calorimeter. Here's the latest from discussion with my colleague to get a ~5-10% measurement of Poutput. (After tests at this level are made on several devices, one can use the expensive calorimeter at the university for better precision.)
This design one may be able to use at home. I welcome comments!! especially on the temperature measurement -- is there something better than a Seebeck device, on the block of aluminum?
From Prof H:
Quote
A block of aluminum (around 4" diameter and 1" thick) to act as a constant temperature heat sink. This does not have to be temperature controlled unless you want to operate away from room temperature.
Stick a 2" square BiTe thermoelectric (Seebeck device or thermopile) on the block with heat sink compound or the right type of silicone glue. Connect the wires from the [Seebeck or thermopile] device to a microvoltmeter and a computer.
Place the [DUT] device on the Seebeck device so it makes good thermal contact, maybe use heat sink compound. [We should think about this part... resistors, LED's etc. need to dump their heat "through" the thermopile, for the measurement of Poutput to be accurate. In time, and with good insulation, the heat will go through, but it may be very slow unless thermal contact is good... comments?]
Run the wires around the aluminum block and tape them down...
Cover the whole thing with a Styrofoam box.
To run the experiment:
Wait until the signal from the voltmeter is stable, record some baseline for a few minutes, trigger the device, and continue recording until the signal returns to baseline.
Integrate the signal above the baseline to get the total heat.
Calibrate the system with an electrical resistor in place of your device.
And note that this cal'r is not a Faraday cage... the DUT sits on top of the thermopile, which sits on the heat sink (Al cylinder).
Comments welcomed.