Lasersaber's Jouleringer

[Farmhand]

Talking of balance. I think the balance is in favor of claimants not the skeptics or critics.

People see almost any comment as a criticism or "bashing" when most offer "balance".

Some folks like to excite others by talking up a simple oscillator, others like to point out it's nothing special and why.

What I seen in the past is people make a comment which goes against the hype and they are set upon by a gang of
unthinking internet bullies. I must say though things are improving but there are regressions. Many of the younger experimenters
have big notions of how easy it is to get OU, they get them from people not to unlike like LaserSaber, we all know who they are,
people see OU everywhere and post about it.
Should people ignore them, or should we do what we think is right and offer some balance and logic based on our own observations.

I've asked before and I'll do it again, he who says there is OU should show it and give evidence first hand, not hearsay. Show it.

Anomalies with measurements of LED power level devices means little. People should be showing reliable measurements of input and output.

When it all boils down these things are interesting, but show me one that is evaluated properly showing real work done as OU.

I have yet to see it. But the claims are so numerous it's crazy. Many of us are novices at electronics but we are intelligent people.
Anyone can do anything anyone else can do if they want to do it bad enough providing the playing field is even.

It can be insulting at times when some take the high ground and belittle people trying to learn or those who have been misled.
Not saying anyone here is, just my 20 cents worth. Misunderstandings are common. And they go both ways.

Some of us have allowed ourselves to be misled by supposed experts before and will not allow it again. We require proof of claims
and the onus of providing the proof is on the claimant. It all gives the free energy movement a bad name.

So I will ask. What exactly is so special about this circuit ? Anyone.

It looks like a transformer to me and as such should be very efficient, almost unity.

Cheers

[muDped]

Aye, and the debate is inspirational!

Within the experimenter community there will always
be lively debate between the two major groupings:
The Thomas Edison types and the Nikola Tesla types.

The Thomas Edison group advocates full steam ahead
with 99% Perspiration and 1% Inspiration [ analytical
thinking.]  Try everything and anything just to see if
even the "far off the wall" is good enough.

The Nikola Tesla group, contrarily, believes every
endeavor should be fully thought out and understood
to the maximum before "perspiration" is expended in
pursuit of experimental proofs.

Naturally, each grouping firmly believes that their
approach to seeking answers is the best;  so the
debate, with demands for proofs, goes on and on...

[Farmhand]

Yeah I would agree with that. But just to clarify my position, I don't think commenting that something is not convincing
or opinions on what should be measured is a "demand" as such. People do seem to take it that way at times though.
Misunderstandings. 

[Allcanadian]

@Farmhand

Yeah I would agree with that. But just to clarify my position, I don't think commenting that something is not convincing
or opinions on what should be measured is a "demand" as such. People do seem to take it that way at times though.
Misunderstandings.

I think you found the key word here "convincing" ie... "Serving to convince: a convincing argument; a convincing manner", "To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action" not unlike the concept of marketing where one wishes to convince another that what they are saying is true regardless of whether it is or not. Notice the term "belief" rather "firm belief" which again has no bearing on whether something is true or false only that it is convincing. In the end we can be conviced that we are correct about almost anything which may have no basis to reality, be it religion or science or anything inbetween, and many times what we call facts are based on who has the most convincing arguement.
My favorite is the electron... the atom is indivisible, no it has particles including an electron, no it is not a particle it is a cloud of particles, no there are no particles only virtual particles popping in and out of existence from a parallel universe, no there are no real particles only waves ... but waves in what?, what are the facts when the facts keep changing?. I'm quite sure everyone in history knew what the real undeniable facts were however it is a good thing for us their kids didn't believe them.

AC

[exnihiloest]

The problem is when people refuse to progress step by step in the knowledge on the pretext that they want right now an absolute truth that we have not even the evidence that it exists. An atom is indivisible until the moment where we can break it, or where we have a solid theory that it could be done.
Nothing comes from the ignorance. You can propose all kinds of pseudo-theories about everything, and even be later right about some of them because among any things that can be imagined, statistically some can fit the reality. But this is completely useless as long as you don't know how to get operational results from your imaginary production which has more chance to be wrong than to be right. There come the facts.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

...

Naturally, each grouping firmly believes that their
approach to seeking answers is the best;  so the
debate, with demands for proofs, goes on and on...

This is the problem in my opinion.  Each group should not firmly believes that their approach is the best but rather know your style and place and respect others.  I am a mix of both types.  At time I just want to get my hands dirty without thinking and other time I just want to do experiments in my head.  Theoretical people should not call experimental stupid or experimental should not call theoretical crackpots.  I guess working together is my point.  There is also a problem with theoretical vs theoretical and experimental vs experimental.  Pretty much one think they better than the other.  Like Einstein and Niels Bohr, but even they have their own unique part in physics that made them respect each other.  Recognize what you're good at and respect what others good at. 

[exnihiloest]

...
I would agree it can be interesting especially when someone unskilled in the art does something nobody could ever have predicted that just blows you away, such is the art of creativity which may supercede skill in many respects.
...

This never happens.
"In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared minds."
Louis Pasteur

[exnihiloest]

Actually the blocking oscillator goes back probably to the 20's or earlier and was accomplished with vacuum tubes.

My first was built in the mid 50's using transistor CK722 when they first became available to hobbyists for less than a dollar.

It was used to illuminate a four foot fluorescent tube  held in the hand as we walked the streets as part of a halloween prank.

Maybe this was the first actual lasersaber.

In the 50's, it's likely. You was a real pioneer.

It is always interesting and often humorous to watch persons completely unskilled in switchmode designs attempting to build these things.

Sometimes they get lucky and even a blind dog occasionally finds a bone.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. LOL

If the experimenter is intelligent enough and modest, he knows that he doesn't know what many others know about his setup, and so he can progress in his knowledge. If he is a pretentious egocentric who is convinced to have discovered something new in conventional effects that all people more skilled than him already know, he will remain a fruitless idiot for ever.
I have doubts about the ability of both categories to discover something new. For discovering what is new, you must know what is old, otherwise you can't remark what is unusual or inversely, you take an old effect for a new one.

...
Lasersaber never does a careful accounting of power. His videos resemble a magician doing tricks, not an engineering assessment of the circuits merits, because he has a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding power magnetics design.

Tektronix uses blocking oscillators which are rigorously and robustly designed as part of the HV generation circuits in some of their older oscilloscopes.

I am willing to discuss the merit and downsideof Lasersabers latest circuit if anyone is interested. It does show some accidental novelty.

From what I understand in the video (spoken English is not obvious for me), Lasersaber says there is a supercapacitor in the circuit, but an electrolytic capacitor seems also required. Did I well understand? If so, this could just be a question of impedance, the lower impedance of the electrlolytic capacitor is required for the circuit to oscillate, and the role of the supercapacitor is to provide energy. I wonder also why he put 8 capacitors when only one is enough (probably for his effects of "magician" when removing them one by one...).

[ion]

Lasersaber's use of a ferrite rod will likely generate lots's of EMI since the gap is at the maximum it acts as a dipole and is a very effectivre radiator of EMI.

As such it is difficult to get a lot of inductance, which means you need to add more wire, which has resistance and will contribute to losses.

A closed magnetic circuit or one with a small gap such as EI ferrites or the appropriate toroidal material will be more efficient pound for pound. It will also require fewer turns.

Losses generally go up as a function of frequency, so keeping the inductance high and the frequency low is one path toward higher efficiency.

If size is not a constraint, you can take this to the limits and be very efficient.

Going the other way, attempting to get the smallest size and highest power transfer, you are compounding switching losses.

This latter (compact design)  has always been the aim of switchmode power supply designers, so they are constantly tweaking the switching circuit to get fast transition times for low loss.

Auto radios of the forties and fifties used a vibrator switch at low frequency ( around 100 to 120 Hz.) to chop the DC battery supply into AC, and very large magnetics to get an efficiently derived plate supply for the tubes

Here's a fun walk through of the old vibrator circuits which were used before power transistors were developed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp6PkRTmb8U

[exnihiloest]

...
Auto radios of the forties and fifties used a vibrator switch at low frequency ( around 100 to 120 Hz.) to chop the DC battery supply into AC, and very large magnetics to get an efficiently derived plate supply for the tubes

Here's a fun walk through of the old vibrator circuits which were used before power transistors were developed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp6PkRTmb8U

It reminds me my student time of the end 70's. The autoradios had transistors, but a friend had still an old autoradio based on tubes. He had open the housing and I wondered at the mini-tubes. I was not aware of their existence.
I have never known the time of the rectification with mechanical circuits. In the 60's my first rectifier was a selenium bridge, that ended in smoke. We can't imagine today how a simple 1N4004 diode could have been an inestimable treasure at this time.