LTJT - poynt99 Tests Assembled Unit

[muDped]

...

Or maybe the aether in Hong Kong is thicker than in Canada.  Unless you are just babbling, please tell us exactly what variables there are here to tweak?  I'd be interested to know.
...

Humbugger

Lawrence has already provided many clues.

It's rather like building a super sensitive
regenerative receiver for high frequency
operation.

Construction techniques which are thought
to be counter productive can yield extraordinary
results.

Or the fringe area TV antenna.  Often very unusual
dimensions and shapes produce incredible
reception.

Compound resonances or interference patterns
are capable of mysterious phenomena - even on
the small and low powered scale.

Outside the box.

[MileHigh]

Dumped, Humbugger, Wattsup, Lawrence:

I suppose that we are in the classic "secret sauce" debate here.  It's the belief that tweaking some parameter or parameters will unleash (pick your favourite word) something special and the output-to-input efficiency will go way up, and possibly achieve over unity.

The other side of the debate says let's look at this circuit and understand how it works.  Once you understand how it works then you will understand how parameter changes affect the circuit and you will understand that there is no "secret sauce" to be found.

Besides the "secret sauce" debate, what is a bit of a pet peeve for me is how people almost never discuss the losses in the circuits they test.  For the JT there are losses in the interconnect wires and the coils due to resistance.  There are losses in the core due to hysteresis.  There are losses due to coupling inefficiencies.  Ultimately, that's why when you look at the numbers for the LTJT you get an efficiency of about 30%.  That due to the losses and the fact that a lot of power is being dissipated in the collector LED.  That's reality staring you in the face where your measurements are in line with the expected losses.  You can also measure the losses individually and all the numbers will add up.

Another pet peeve is that if you believe that there is over unity in your electronic circuit, why not try to propose an explanation for it?  That's never done.  And just saying it comes from the "aether" or it is "vacuum energy" is a cop out.  If you can explain the loss mechanisms, why can't you explain the alleged over unity mechanism?   Just as importantly if you think that you have over unity, then show exactly where and when it occurs in your circuit.  Just blindly looking at the output is a cop out one more time.

Finally, another big factor at play is the phenomenon of misinterpreting what you are seeing on the bench because you don't have the proper education, training, and experience to understand what you are looking at.  You see it in YouTube clips all the time.  So if you sweep a signal through your circuit or change a capacitor and all off a sudden see a jump in a voltage somewhere and get all excited and think that you have discovered something.  The truth is that it is almost metaphysically certain that you have discovered nothing.  The only way to get over that hump is through education, training, and experience.  However, experience without the education and training and with a pre-disposed bias to be looking for phenomena that are "outside of the ordinary" and phenomena that are allegedly over unity is a recipe for minor disaster.  You see this dynamic all the time.  For example, look at the "captret" threads on the other forums that are just starting to die down.  The whole thing is nothing, a tempest in a teapot.

I suppose that was a bit of a rant too but what the hell!?

MileHigh

[poynt99]

I think Dumped is trying to intimate that he has one of these units on his bench exhibiting COP>1.

Looking forward to seeing your build and the awesome scope measurements of MEAN PI and PO Dumped. 

You're welcome.

.99

[MileHigh]

Notice how I have been nipped by Occam's Razor twice?  The voltage spike was simply due to the length of the wires powering the JT and the positioning of the probe.  The offset in the DSO was not because of some esoteric problem with the internal guts, it was just that the coupling was AC instead of DC.

No doubt Occam's Razor is lurking just around the corner with respect to a lot of "miraculous" phenomena that experimenters might observe on the bench.

[poynt99]

Here again are the measurements of the assembled unit Lawrence sent me. Corrections to the OUTPUT scope and probes have been made, so it is only proper to do the measurements again.

assembled_input_mean_2nd.PNG indicates an average INPUT power of 64.37mW.

assembled_output_mean_2nd.PNG indicates an average OUTPUT power of 236.6mW/10 = 23.7mW.

The results are very similar to the original test performed here.

.99

[MileHigh]

Looks great.  You can see in the screen capture "assembled_output_viewing_2nd.PNG" exactly when the core has completely been exhausted itself of stored magnetic energy.  The output voltage and current are on two linear downward slopes during the energy discharge.  When the current hits zero there is no more energy left in the core and the resulting voltage goes into "free fall" until it hits zero.

For Lawrence:  These are the types of scope waveform captures that I was expecting you to present to us.  I knew ahead of time what the waveforms should look like and Poynt has presented us with data that does conform with the expected waveforms.  In contrast, the first set of scope captures that you showed us several weeks ago were filled with noise and simply did not make any sense.  You would be wise to refrain from making any more references to those waveforms because the data is invalid.  The best course of action for your team in Hong Kong would be to do a new round of testing.  Also, your "FLEET Comparison Index" is irrelevant data and will be ignored.  The only data that is relevant is the average power out and the average power in.  Now that Poynt has real samples to work with the analysis will be done using standard scientific measurement techniques.

MileHigh

[PhysicsProf]

    Still enjoying variations on the LTJT circuit.  It occurred to me that the output shows alternating currently clearly, and so I put TWO LED's on the output circuit, in parallel, biases reversed.  As I expected, they both light up -- using red LED's.  In fact, subjectively I can say that the two LED's glow roughly the same.

  Then, using my ATTEN 60MHz DSO to look at the INPUT power (using the math function *), I find that the Pin waveform goes from saw-tooth to approximately square wave (with two LED's in the output circuit).  Calculating the input energy as I described before, the input energy (and power) approximately doubles.  

  When I remove the added LED from the breadboard-circuit (easy to do), I get the sawtooth on the input Power we are familiar with.  When I remove the OTHER LED, the pattern is quite different, more of a skewed rectangular tooth.  (I still don't have the ability to bring the waveforms here to the forum from this new DSO, sorry.)

Note:  one must exercise caution when installing the output-circuit-LED if one uses only one.  Clearly for a white LED, one direction is much brighter than the other bias-direction.


  It's all very interesting and instructive.  I'm using a toroidal inductor I purchased from Jameco, 100 uH with 34 windings I counted, this for the secondary, then I added thirteen (paired) windings for the JT-windings, wound by hand.    

  Yes, I have done a rough calculation Ein and Eout from the Power functions, in and out, integrating crudely over time (by hand).  This DSO displays the Power waveform but does not calculate the average of it for you, so I do it by hand.  A bit tedious, but I get a close look at the waveforms this way.  I also double check the frequency.    The best COP I've obtained for this particular set-up (Eout/Ein for one cycle) is about 0.85.  Of course, I removed the transistor-LED out of the circuit long ago.

  MileHigh -- would you expect the frequency to go up or down when I add a second LED to the output-circuit as described?

[chrisC]

Thanks for your detailed measurements 99. Well, Lawrence's trying to operate at a non ideal 600mV is surely asking for trouble where noise levels around 200mV. Then, trying to equate wild Vpp swings to real power is just silly. I hope this puts this nonsense of 'lead-in' or 'bring-in' energy crap to rest. But thank you for spending the time. TK already showed what bad understanding and bad measurements can lead to and EMD's comments are worth listening to.

chrisC

[MileHigh]

  MileHigh -- would you expect the frequency to go up or down when I add a second LED to the output-circuit as described?

If you add a second LED to the output circuit it means that when the transistor is switched on the battery drives two loads so the average impedance is lower.  The loads are the L2-core and the second LED.   I am assuming this increased load will result in the current going into L2 leveling off sooner and switching off the transistor sooner.  So that would make the operating frequency of the Joule Thief increase.

That's my reasoning but I could be missing something here.

MileHigh

[PhysicsProf]

If you add a second LED to the output circuit it means that when the transistor is switched on the battery drives two loads so the average impedance is lower.  The loads are the L2-core and the second LED.   I am assuming this increased load will result in the current going into L2 leveling off sooner and switching off the transistor sooner.  So that would make the operating frequency of the Joule Thief increase.

That's my reasoning but I could be missing something here.

MileHigh

Nope.  In fact, I observe the operating frequency to decrease when the second LED is added.
 In the case I describe above (where the toroid I started with was from Jameco), the frequency decreased from 266 down to 254 KHz when I added the second LED.  

  Similarly, with another toroid, the operating frequency dropped from 417 KHz down to 334 KHz when I added the second LED as described.  

  Again, this little LT-JT device surprises us -- it surprised me, too.

  Now, about two weeks ago (before the debate, when I was still taking RMS measurements), I wrote the following:

I modified the JT circuit by removing the LED (across the transistor), so as to lower the input power requirement.  The JT still rings as seen with the DSO.

I also worked with and prepared the yellow toroid Lawrence sent me -- found that this one now has the following characteristics:

Just 8uH on each of the JT windings, and 0.023 ohms each.
35uH on the transformer winding and 0.054 ohms.

From there, we set the device up on a breadboard with a one ohm resistor + green LED on the output circuit.

This LT-JT behaves in an interesting fashion, in that it sometimes oscillates at an unusually high frequency, 571KHz, with lots of spikes observed.  The LT FLEET Index is seen at approximately seven, which was very encouraging to us.
But sometimes, it does not hit the resonance, I think, for then the Index is less than one.   Then I just disconnect the battery and re-start the device and then it will run at high Index for minutes without problem, until I disconnect the battery.

I can hardly wait for the good oscilloscope to arrive.

Now the new DSO has arrived, and it permits me to take a product and display the V*I waveform.  This is very helpful. I NO LONGER calculate the "FLEET Index" which was based on an erroneous approach.  Rather, I used the V*I waveform, and soon I expect to have a DSO which will calculate the mean values from the Power waveform, so that I no longer need to these calculations (with estimates based on observing the waveforms closely) by hand.

So I wish to clarify that the statement above, "The LT FLEET Index is seen at approximately seven" was based on erroneous calculations, yet the odd behavior of the device remains curious.  That is why I am seeking the best measurement methods possible, including in particular an evaluation of MEAN (or average) Pin and average Pout on a device, and why I intend to keep "tweaking" the device.

I don't think we fully understand the LT-JT or variations, and here I would include the "Joule Ringer" discussed on other threads and forums.

I hope that we can continue the measurements -- and here I thank .99 for his measurements -- and proceed with
RIGOR WITHOUT RANCOR.  That is what I seek.

[poynt99]

Thanks Professor.

Looking forward to your upcoming measurements.  

I am surprised at the low inductance of those two coils, especially since they are on a core. The air-core coils I made for the P9901 have an inductance of about 3uH each. I suspect those cores are iron-powder with the inherent distributed gapping. I have yet to measure the AL of the 3 cores I have, but I will.

Also, I wonder if your JT is perhaps jumping into the spurious mode of operation ION talked about here? (highly recommended reading btw, thanks ION).

Also thank you to Humbugger for his excellent work here on alternative testing methods for these switching circuits.

Sounds like we're all on the same page Professor....

.99

[MileHigh]

PhysicsProf:

I'm not surprised that I was wrong.  I am getting more and more tempted to run pSpice on my computer.  Of course having a real setup helps tremendously also!

If you really wanted to explore this further, you can easily separate the problem into two parts.  The two parts would essentially represent pulling the Joule Thief apart into two separate test circuits that are not actual Joule Thief circuits anymore.

The first part would be to investigate how much energy the core can store with respect to the amount of current you put through the coil of wire you have wrapped around the core.  If you plotted stored energy vs. coil current you would clearly see the slope of the curve level off as you approached core saturation.

The second part would be to investigate the power/energy and timing of the discharge of the stored core energy for varying loads with respect to a fixed reference amount of energy stored in the core.

When you deconstruct a Joule Thief and forget about the timing mechanism for a moment, that's all that it really is.  I am repeating myself but it's worth repeating:  It's just a device that stores energy in a toroidal ferrite core and then discharges that stored energy into a load.  So running the two separate tests described above would allow you to investigate those two processes independent of the timing mechanism.

MileHigh

[ltseung888]

This LT-JT behaves in an interesting fashion, in that it sometimes oscillates at an unusually high frequency, 571KHz, with lots of spikes observed.  The LT FLEET Index is seen at approximately seven, which was very encouraging to us.

But sometimes, it does not hit the resonance, I think, for then the Index is less than one.   Then I just disconnect the battery and re-start the device and then it will run at high Index for minutes without problem, until I disconnect the battery.

...the odd behavior of the device remains curious.  That is why I am seeking the best measurement methods possible, including in particular an evaluation of MEAN (or average) Pin and average Pout on a device, and why I intend to keep "tweaking" the device.

I don't think we fully understand the LT-JT or variations, and here I would include the "Joule Ringer" discussed on other threads and forums.

I hope that we can continue the measurements -- and here I thank .99 for his measurements -- and proceed with
RIGOR WITHOUT RANCOR.  That is what I seek.

The behavior of the device changing the apparent index and waveform for no apparent change or explanation was observed many times in Hong Kong.  We attributed it to shifting of the pseudo resonance condition.

The prototype shipped to Poynt99 was damaged in shipping and he had to re-solder one of the joints.  That could easily "shift the frequency" away from the pseudo resonance condition.

I am glad that both PhysicsProf and Poynt99 are continuing the experiments in a scientific way.  Sooner or later, they will hit on the pseudo resonance condition again.

The best chance of hitting on the pseudo resonance condition is to use two DSOs and have the LT-JT on a breadboard.  Then play with the various changes – different hole positions, different values of electronic components, different power sources, different wire lengths, etc.   The most obvious hint is the moving of the hand close to the LT-JT and there are significant changes in waveform (under some configurations).  That would be a good hint that a pseudo resonance condition is near.

The TK experiment is instructive – long leads contributing to changes in capacitance and inductance.  In our case, we use such changes to effectively change the resonance condition.  It is difficult to keep changing inductors or capacitors.  But it is relatively easy to move to different holes on the breadboard and to tweak the leads.

God is again bringing us closer to the truth.  May He continue to guide us along the right path!  Amen.

[ltseung888]

Standardize a FLEET prototype???

Many have asked me the question – why are your FLEET prototypes have different turns?  Would it be simpler to have one fixed configuration – such as 13 turns JT winding and 17 turns transformer winding?

At present, every FLEET prototype was produced by hand.  When I used 13 turns JT and 17 turns transformer winding, I did not always get Index greater than 1.  I had to change the number of turns to get the Index greater than 1.  I did not always succeed.

I accept that I have not mastered the science of pseudo resonance tuning.  I do not know the exact parameters and their relationships yet.  Much more research needs to be done.

I view the Joule Ringer as much more advanced than FLEET.  It has successfully demonstrated that the battery can be removed and the LEDs and CFLs can still be lighted via capacitors for many minutes.  The number of LEDs and CFLs it can light is much more than FLEET.

If I were to give an honest opinion to a new comer and comment on which device to replicate, the answer is the Joule Ringer.  Both devices need to "hunt for the sweet spot".  More researchers are working on the Joule Ringer and providing more information.

If the new comer wants to leapfrog, I would advise him to go for large air toroids.  The research hopefully will lead to a Steven Mark type TPU.  I believe in some type of resonance effect to bring-in the electron motion energy.  Exactly how that can be achieved is still an open question and a challenging area to researchers.

God helps those who help themselves.  Those who never hunt for resonance will never find resonance.  Amen.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I'm glad you're back on your feet mr. Tseung.  You have faith and that's all it matters.  The obvious is that the JT surprises everyone showing maybe we don't fully understand the process of induction.  Keep up this paced and we'll figure it out soon enough.  

I like the joule ringer because it might seems to have a high COP, but I like your joule thief because I believe there is something better  

[ltseung888]

Another debate topic – anyone interested?

While Poynt99, PhysicsProf and others are working on the experimental side, some of us without the apparatus can discuss the theoretical side. 

I would like a debate or discussion on the following topic:


If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units.  If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.

If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.

Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine.  It does not violate any Laws of Physics.


Any one interested???

God showed us the Truth.  We should thoroughly understand and apply it.  Amen.

[poynt99]

Lawrence, I have a couple questions:

1) Who tested the assembled unit prior to you sending it to me?

2) Do you have test results and scope shots you can post of it? (if you have already, feel free to post it again here).

.99

[Grumpy]

Another debate topic – anyone interested?

While Poynt99, PhysicsProf and others are working on the experimental side, some of us without the apparatus can discuss the theoretical side. 

I would like a debate or discussion on the following topic:


If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units.  If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.

If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.

Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine.  It does not violate any Laws of Physics.


Any one interested???

God showed us the Truth.  We should thoroughly understand and apply it.  Amen.

For this to work, you have to "lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding".

How do you propose to do this?

[ltseung888]

Lawrence, I have a couple questions:

1) Who tested the assembled unit prior to you sending it to me?

2) Do you have test results and scope shots you can post of it? (if you have already, feel free to post it again here).

.99

The assembled unit was tested in Hong Kong.  I do not have Oscilloscopes here to check before sending.  I did not bring the test results from Hong Kong  - on the false assumption that it is easy to find two good oscilloscopes in Irvine.  I believe the archived CD may still be available.  I shall try to dig it out when I get back to Hong kong next time.

[ltseung888]

For this to work, you have to "lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding".

How do you propose to do this?

That will be the substance of the debate .

You can go to my bench ltseung888 and check out the locked teaching thread for some preliminary information.

We can discuss the details in the debate.  And learn together with the World.  Interested?

[poynt99]

The assembled unit was tested in Hong Kong.  I do not have Oscilloscopes here to check before sending.  I did not bring the test results from Hong Kong  - on the false assumption that it is easy to find two good oscilloscopes in Irvine.  I believe the archived CD may still be available.  I shall try to dig it out when I get back to Hong kong next time.

OK, Lawrence, that is the where. Can you tell us who tested this particular unit?

Thanks,
.99

[ltseung888]

OK, Lawrence, that is the where. Can you tell us who tested this particular unit?

Thanks,
.99

I believe this particular unit was tested by myself and Mr. Aaron Quant in Hong Kong.

[poynt99]

I believe this particular unit was tested by myself and Mr. Aaron Quant in Hong Kong.

OK Lawrence,

I am going to return the assembled unit to you so you can test it again, and post your results. Or, I can send it to Aaron in China.

You do not require two identical oscilloscopes to perform the COP testing or tuning.

.99

[ltseung888]

OK Lawrence,

I am going to return the assembled unit to you so you can test it again, and post your results. Or, I can send it to Aaron in China.

You do not require two identical oscilloscopes to perform the COP testing or tuning.

.99

Wait until I provide the return information.  I shall send you PM.  Thank you.

[MileHigh]

Lawrence:

I remember you claimed that the fully assembled unit that you sent to Poynt was an over unity device.  It was tested and it was found to be an under unity device.

You made reference to the cold solder joint possibly having something to do with this discrepancy and I don't think that's possible.  In addition, "pseudo resonance" is not a valid concept.  If you believe it is a valid concept then you will have to demonstrate that with scope shots and proper average power-out vs. average power-in data.  I will also remind you again that your "FLEET Comparison Index" concept is invalid.

I apologize if I am sounding tough, but this is a true reflection on where we stand with your Joule Thief samples.

Can you come up with an action plan to convince us that your Joule Thief is an over unity device?  My suggestion is that you and/or Aaron Quant make measurements on a device and post photographs, scope shots, and submit all of the relevant data to back up your claim, and that even includes what the power source is.  This would have to include data that shows the alleged "pseudo resonance" mode because you are clearly indicating that you only get over unity when the Joule Thief is operating in "pseudo resonance" mode.  If you want to make your case even more convincing then you should also document the ordinary operating mode for the Joule Thief with full data.  You would also have to clearly and unambiguously state how you got the device to switch from normal operating mode to "pseudo resonance" mode.  Since I assume that we are discussing a fully assembled unit, perhaps it will only operate in "pseudo resonance" mode.  You would have to clearly and definitively document all of these things so that there are no uncertainties and ambiguities before you send a new device to Poynt.

If all of this makes sense to you then you can send the new device to Poynt and he can double-check your measurements.  The burden of proof rests on your shoulders Lawrence, and only on your shoulders, to send a device to Poynt that he can simply attach a power source to and attach his scope probes and then make measurements that will either confirm or refute your claim of over unity.

This is just my personal suggestion for an action plan.  I submit it for your and Poynt's consideration.

MileHigh