PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-04-12, 07:50:24
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Prof. Steven Jones (PhysicsProf) JT variant  (Read 8598 times)
Group: Guest
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I thought it might be worthwhile seeing that the GL/SJ Joule Thief runs perfectly fine without a diode or LED in series with the load. I've made this simulation with a 100 Ohm resistive load. Measuring Pout now becomes a lot easier.

I also have this running with your component tweaks, where Rload is 9.8k, Rb is 2k, V2 is 3V, and the series battery resistor (R6) is 3.1 Ohms.

Steve, I would encourage you to try this and see if:

a) it still runs,
b) it still gives you a COP>1 measurement.

Regards,
.99
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2839
  Thanks for this question, .99.

  I recall having looked at this approach (without LED or diode in the output leg of the circuit) some time ago, but I'm certainly willing to take another look.  I'm in the middle of another project at the moment, but plan on some new observations early next week.

Thanks again,
Steve
   
Group: Guest
I can take away the LED at the Joule Thief Output Leg on my FLEET prototypes and they run fine.

However the Power Waveforms look different.  I would treat such as different circuits for my analysis.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2839
I can take away the LED at the Joule Thief Output Leg on my FLEET prototypes and they run fine.

However the Power Waveforms look different.  I would treat such as different circuits for my analysis.

Sure, but here's the question then -- Do you find a COP > 1 with this LED removed?
If so, then .99's suggestion is a step towards another measurement technique!
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2839
I thought it might be worthwhile seeing that the GL/SJ Joule Thief runs perfectly fine without a diode or LED in series with the load. I've made this simulation with a 100 Ohm resistive load. Measuring Pout now becomes a lot easier.

I also have this running with your component tweaks, where Rload is 9.8k, Rb is 2k, V2 is 3V, and the series battery resistor (R6) is 3.1 Ohms.

Steve, I would encourage you to try this and see if:

a) it still runs,
b) it still gives you a COP>1 measurement.

Regards,
.99

OK, I've removed the LED, as you suggested.  It rings, although there are significant changes as we shall see.

 Photo shows the scope traces for V across Rload -- left is with LED in, right is with LED removed.  Clearly the scope trace changes -- the frequency goes from 152.1 kHz with LED to 182.5kHz without LED, Vpp goes from 2.22 V to 4.44 V (note that the scale left is 0.5 V/div and 1 V/div on the right).  Of course, the pattern changes dramatically as one can see.

  Conditions:  Rload is 986ohms, Rb = 48.6k.  Vbatt = 1.62V.  Then I replaced the battery with a 10,000 uF cap to provide the input energy -- permitting a straightforward determination of the INPUT ENERGY (without using a DSO).  Thus, I like to use a cap for the input energy rather than a battery -- this also permits rapid comparisons when changes are made in the circuit.   (The second photo shows the circuit running off a 10,000 uF cap.  It is now a very straightforward circuit.)

For example, with the 10,000 uF cap charged initially to 1.62V, the LED glows for 46 seconds then the circuit continues to "ring" as seen on the DSO for a total of 1min 44s.  (The scope pattern, V across Rload, changes about the time the LED goes "out", but the circuit continues to ring as seen on the scope.)

Same conditions except removing the LED, the scope shows that the circuit rings for a lesser time = 51 seconds.

So, yes, the circuit changes quite dramatically without the LED, but still rings.

Now, .99, you said with this change,
Quote
Measuring Pout now becomes a lot easier.

If you will then explain how you would measure Pout with this change, I'll do it and calculate Eout/Ein.
 
I'm looking forward to your suggestion for Pout; thanks.
   
Group: Guest
Sure, but here's the question then -- Do you find a COP > 1 with this LED removed?
If so, then .99's suggestion is a step towards another measurement technique!

If I use the Average Output Power over Average Input Power as determined by the csv file of the oscilloscopes, I do get COP > 1.

By the way, if I replace the battery with a capacitor, the waveforms changed significantly.  I just treat the capacitor case as a different circuit.  

The fun continues.

Edit:  I did the actual experiment for your information.  I removed the LED on the Joule Thief.  The resulting COP from average power ratios was -3.84.  The negative sign came from the negative average Input Power.  See the attached xls file for details.
« Last Edit: 2012-02-21, 12:11:08 by ltseung888 »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Steve,

May I ask that you perform the measurement to answer part b)?

Unless the measurement still comes back COP>1, there is no point in trying the alternate method I will propose.

The fact that the circuit runs for about half the time on a capacitor with the LED removed makes sense doesn't it? Power is being delivered for only half the time WITH the LED due to the half-wave conduction of current.

Thanks,
.99
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2839
Steve,

May I ask that you perform the measurement to answer part b)?

Unless the measurement still comes back COP>1, there is no point in trying the alternate method I will propose.
...

Thanks,
.99

Lawrence claims that the "the measurement still comes back COP>1" for his device -- I think we would all like to encourage him to try another measurement method, and so I again encourage you to disclose your "alternate method" for determining Pout.  (Why are you being so secretive about it, .99?)

As for my measurements with the Tektronix 3032 reported a long time ago, I noted that these were "evidence for" (not proof of!) ou.    I've been developing alternate measurement methods also, and I'd like to see what you have up your sleeve.   I guess I'm not interested in traveling a fairly long distance up to the university to use the Tek 3032 just to see what it would give at this time...  I am doing other projects.  And I don't see why this measurement should be a requirement for your disclosing your "alternate method."

Why are you keeping your "alternate method" so close to the chest?  Out with it, man! Let's give it a try.
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence claims that the "the measurement still comes back COP>1" for his device -- I think we would all like to encourage him to try another measurement method, and so I again encourage you to disclose your "alternate method" for determining Pout.  (Why are you being so secretive about it, .99?)

As for my measurements with the Tektronix 3032 reported a long time ago, I noted that these were "evidence for" (not proof of!) ou.    I've been developing alternate measurement methods also, and I'd like to see what you have up your sleeve.   I guess I'm not interested in traveling a fairly long distance up to the university to use the Tek 3032 just to see what it would give at this time... 
 

Dear Prof. Jones,

I hope that you had a chance to study my edited reply to show that COP >1 when LED at the Joule Thief was removed.

I shall leave the calorimeter technique to you.  It is likely that I may be wearing a “long-lasting” LED Hat or driving a “Self-Powered” Electric Car very soon.  Another development is the “commercially resonance conditioned” batteries for toys.  Some toys using two or three AA batteries are now being converted to use one AA battery with the FLEET technology.  The expected life of the single AA battery will be much longer.

I fully expect the product from the South African Company being investigated by Sterling Allan to use similar lead-out energy techniques.  Thus my focus is to produce a “commercial resonance condition” FLEET for some specific toys – so that all qualified manufacturers can copy and improve.  I no longer care about the Overunity or COP > 1 search.  The Negative Power Waveform is my new focus. It is likely to confirm the theory of Lead-out or Bring-in Energy directly.

Please continue your alternative measurement technique research with poynt99 and others.  I already accepted my many FLEET prototypes with their Power Waveforms showing Output Energy is more than Input Energy.  To me, the search for proof-of-concept Overunity devices is over.  Hopefully, I may give a commercially implementable FLEET to the World on some specific toys and do not upset the teams who have spent much valuable effort and resources.

May God Guide us all.
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-04-12, 07:50:24