Author Topic: Joule Ringer! (Read 833372 times)

shylo · « **Reply #180 on:** January 24, 2011, 02:44:16 PM »

Hi Stefan, Yes I see this with the caps I'm using as well ,it's too bad we can't increase this recharge effect,or can we? Is there any way to use larger caps to help in the recharge of a bank of smaller caps???.........thanx for any ideas.........shylo

ltseung888 · « **Reply #181 on:** January 24, 2011, 08:17:50 PM »

Dear All,

I have done a rough Area comparison with the Output Power Curve and the Input Power Curve with the FLEET Prototype A. The screen shots were done by PhysicsProf on Jan 22, 2011. It is obvious that the COP is greater than 1. Please see reply 350 on that thread and the following link:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9822;topicseen#msg9822

I am sure that the Joule Ringer undergoing the similar two oscilloscope test will also show that the true COP > 1.

Great Work and God bless you all.

Lawrence

Mk1 · « **Reply #182 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:21:30 PM »

@itseung888

Ok now it seems you managed to get others to see the potential of the Joule thief

Good work ! But now we need to address the real issue here .

You showed poor judgment in changing the name of the JT to your fleet shit , this doesn't give you the right to steel work from others and get the credit for it .

I personally think you did a good job , because no one would have done what you have done , lets clarify that you did not invent the fleet because it was already there and called the Joule thief , thousands of people put there efforts together for a common goal , and that goal was no to provide you with retirement money , we are in this mess because of people taking advantage of others , prove to use you are not one of those , stop calling the JT something else then a JOULE THIEF .

I must say i feel cheated by the fact that you try to steel the JT from the people that conceived it , i personally put 2 years of my time in this project , and that was a gift to the world not to you , you are part of the world and deserve access to it but not to take it as your own , you may think you did great by proving what most of us know , the only problem in doing that is that you removed our anonymity , now we will be a target , more work for everyone fighting all the trolls , our relative peace in conducting our experiment may be a thing of the past .

Now you know why others did not pursue the cop verification , but since you are simple man you did not catch that , i tried to tell you !

All and all , thank for helping the JT cause .

conradelektro · « **Reply #183 on:** January 24, 2011, 10:31:54 PM »

The circuit became a little bit better, still double triggering of transistor!

Sorry, nothing spectacular, but I could make the circuit with the little fly back transformer and the 15 Watt CFL at 12V a bit better.

It needed a 1nF capacitor parallel to a diode in between the trigger coil and the base of the transistor to give more light for the same power supplied.

At 0.6 Watt the CFL starts to be a useful lamp, may be as a reading lamp. At 0.15 Watt it is just nice to look at (nice yellow hue).

There still is a problem: the pulse from the trigger coil does not cleanly switch the transistor, a double triggering occurs.

The scope shots on the left are done between GND and the base of the transistor, and the scope shots at the right over a 1 Ohm shunt in between the drive coil and the collector of the transistor. One sees that the transistor does not switch cleanly. The diode and even better a 1nF cap parallel to the diode (in between trigger coil and base) does shape the trigger pulse better, but still not good enough. The diode is important to avoid a high negative voltage on the base (base below emitter is very bad for the transistor).

It looks like the current from the trigger coil brakes down a little bit when the transistor starts to open, hence not a clean switching. I think one needs a more powerful trigger coil (more windings) to overcome that. Which is difficult to set right in a salvaged fly back transformer.

Be aware that the circuit is very sensitive. It is optimized for a 12 Volt battery, any other Voltage would need readjustment of R1 and C1 and higher Voltages pose a real problem, because the transformer is not built for that, it will shorten. Lower voltages (below 7 Volt) do not ignite the CFL because the step up rate of the transformer is too little.

I understand why LaserSaber built his own transformer. This is the only way to control all parameters of this circuit and to move forward.

I hope that others will try the diode and parallel cap in between the trigger coil and the base of the transistor and report their findings. Once I get more fly back transformers, I will try with them.

Greetings, Conrad

hartiberlin · « **Reply #184 on:** January 25, 2011, 12:23:05 AM »

@Lawrence

Please post this topic in the Joule Thief board.
Who did these measurements and are these from a multiplying scope,
so power is calculated on the fly ?

@conradÂ´,
well done.
Maybe you can still add one or two 1N4148 diodes in series with its cathode from the basis
of your darlington transitor to the ground, so the anode will be at the ground.
This shunts away all the negative spikes at the basis and might help to
make the current pulse better inside the darlington.

Regards, Stefan.

poynt99 · « **Reply #185 on:** January 25, 2011, 02:15:34 AM »

Quote from: Mk1 on January 24, 2011, 10:21:30 PM

@itseung888

Ok now it seems you managed to get others to see the potential of the Joule thief

Good work ! But now we need to address the real issue here .

You showed poor judgment in changing the name of the JT to your fleet shit , this doesn't give you the right to steel work from others and get the credit for it .

I personally think you did a good job , because no one would have done what you have done , lets clarify that you did not invent the fleet because it was already there and called the Joule thief , thousands of people put there efforts together for a common goal , and that goal was no to provide you with retirement money , we are in this mess because of people taking advantage of others , prove to use you are not one of those , stop calling the JT something else then a JOULE THIEF .

I must say i feel cheated by the fact that you try to steel the JT from the people that conceived it , i personally put 2 years of my time in this project , and that was a gift to the world not to you , you are part of the world and deserve access to it but not to take it as your own , you may think you did great by proving what most of us know , the only problem in doing that is that you removed our anonymity , now we will be a target , more work for everyone fighting all the trolls , our relative peace in conducting our experiment may be a thing of the past .

Now you know why others did not pursue the cop verification , but since you are simple man you did not catch that , i tried to tell you !

All and all , thank for helping the JT cause .

With all due respect Mk1, there is nothing new, novel, or unique about LT's (or whomever) version of the JT. The same goes for the JT itself. The blocking oscillator (BO) was "invented" before you were probably even born, so reality is that no one of recent times has any claim to the concept actually. Sure, there have been 100's of variations (LT's) and improvements over the years, but fundamentally the circuit is the same.

You spent two years tweaking, learning, and improving on the basic JT and that's great. No one is ever going to be able to take that away from you. However, how can anyone lay claim to what is and always has been fundamentally a BO, designed many many years ago?

What precisely did Lawrence 'steal'? The addition of a secondary? That's actually quite basic for all that know transformer theory. The truth is, the device could be made more efficient without that secondary, and the output taken from the 'primary'. One only need dig into some modern buck/boost converter designs in order to learn about the best circuit configurations.

ION has been designing and working with BO circuits for about 50 years, and he has indicated that LT's design exhibits an efficiency of only about 75% or so, maximum. There are more advanced techniques (and better components) which were developed over the last 10 to 20 years that can allow for efficiencies as high as 95%.

.99

Mk1 · « **Reply #186 on:** January 25, 2011, 02:31:17 AM »

Quote from: poynt99 on January 25, 2011, 02:15:34 AM

With all due respect Mk1, there is nothing new, novel, or unique about LT's (or whomever) version of the JT. The same goes for the JT itself. The blocking oscillator (BO) was "invented" before you were probably even born, so reality is that no one of recent times has any claim to the concept actually. Sure, there have been 100's of variations (LT's) and improvements over the years, but fundamentally the circuit is the same.

You spent two years tweaking, learning, and improving on the basic JT and that's great. No one is ever going to be able to take that away from you. However, how can anyone lay claim to what is and always has been fundamentally a BO, designed many many years ago?

What precisely did Lawrence 'steal'? The addition of a secondary? That's actually quite basic for all that know transformer theory. The truth is, the device could be made more efficient without that secondary, and the output taken from the 'primary'. One only need dig into some modern buck/boost converter designs in order to learn about the best circuit configurations.

ION has been designing and working with BO circuits for about 50 years, and he has indicated that LT's design exhibits an efficiency of only about 75% or so, maximum. There are more advanced techniques (and better components) which were developed over the last 10 to 20 years that can allow for efficiencies as high as 95%.

.99

Sorry , but you are exactly what i was talking about ...

Yes i did not invent it nor did you or Lawrence . My point is a spent many hours helping people and teaching them , many things . First even if really basic the addition of a secondary was never done on a JT circuit until i showed and promoted it , go read the tread yes the long one , then be judge ... i spent my time so everyone would benefit , but no one in particular not even me.

But this tread is not related to lawrence in anyway except that he posted here .

So i will refrain form making anymore comment , until a proper tread is created , since this tread is on the JR form LaserSaber.

It will not be allowed to go out of hand .

flathunter · « **Reply #187 on:** January 25, 2011, 12:57:04 PM »

Lucky me!

I found a 58000 microfarad cap at the radio market - it'll keep my xenon running for 10 mins with no battery (of course, not full brightness for ten mins). The flyback is very noisy when it hits resonance - like lasersaber, i find the pitch and tempo of the ringing in the flyback EXTREMELY useful for getting resonance. I use a radio on the floor and an AV plug to check if it has reached that point. When im charging with the exciter, my hand approaches the exciter tower and the flyback screams and gets to resonance also.

Heres my setup - I'll post a video soon.

flathunter · « **Reply #188 on:** January 25, 2011, 01:32:31 PM »

Sorry for the unbelievably large pic - im terrible with computers.

Heres the vid

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

conradelektro · « **Reply #189 on:** January 25, 2011, 05:33:53 PM »

@flathunter

Interesting use of an AV-plug!

May be one should try to limit the Voltage in your AV-plug with a Zener-Diode as indicated in the drawing below? As long as the big capacitor stays charged well enough to drive the fly back, the voltage would stay at e.g. 13 Volt (with a 13 V Zener Diode).

I guess, it is the neon at the base of the transistor that discharges excess Voltage? Once Voltage is stabilized with the Zener diode, one could use a resistor there.

Greetings, Conrad

e2matrix · « **Reply #190 on:** January 25, 2011, 06:58:45 PM »

Nice work conrad. I found a TIP41C last night. Do you think those would work about the same as the TIP31c? I haven't tried using a diode on the base as I found it last night but so far no luck with it.

conradelektro · « **Reply #191 on:** January 25, 2011, 08:23:25 PM »

Again I little better, MPSA06 and TIP31C Darlington pair.

With this strange Darlington pair (MPSA06 and TIP31C) and C3=100pF, I get the impression that the 0.6 Watt version is a little brighter than with two TIP31Cs. Still there is this strange double triggering at the base of the transistor (which probably prohibits even better performance).

@Stefan (hartiberlin): a diode between base of transistor and GND does not prohibit the formation of negative spikes, it is the diode between trigger coil and base that does this. A zener diode between base and GND could limit the positive spike at the base (but it is so small anyway in my circuit).

@e2matrix: TIP41C should work (I do not have any), especially in combination with a MPSA06. I think your trigger coil is the problem. It is not so easy to find a good trigger coil in a fly back transformer, some might not have any useful trigger coil at all. One could try a Slayer Exciter version in this case (secondary at the base of the transistor, as some people did successfully with their fly back transformer). Further up in this thread I posted a Slayer Exciter with a big tower coil and you could use this circuit with your fly back transformer.

It is also difficult to get C1 and R1 right. One should start with R1 = 100K and change C1 between 1 nF, 10nF, 100nF and 1000nF till it works. Once it works, careful adjustment of R1 then defines the power consumption.

I find, that the diode between trigger coil and base of the transistor is important. C3 (parallel to this diode) is only a little touch.

Also C2 has an influence, should be at least 100 uF.

I am still waiting for delivery of ten different fly back transformers (for obsolete PC-monitors). Once they are here, I will go into that "trigger coil problem". I also think that my little (yellow) fly back transformer (which I used for all the circuits I talked about lately) has a no good trigger coil, hence this strange double triggering I am measuring. The trigger coil in a Joule Thief type circuit must have a certain strength (Voltage of the signal and Amperage to sustain it over the switching of the transistor). If the trigger signal is too strong, one can do something (diode between trigger coil and base, and zener diode between base and GND), but if the signal is too weak, no luck.

Greetings, Conrad

the_big_m_in_ok · « **Reply #192 on:** January 26, 2011, 02:33:00 AM »

Quote from: flathunter on January 25, 2011, 12:57:04 PM

Heres my setup - I'll post a video soon.

@flathunter , in regard to Reply #187, Page 13
I like the circuit, but the photo size is extensive, all over the screen, until I invoke the .JPG link at the bottom. It fills up the page then, and it printable.

It really is an unusual diagram. Reminds me of a Tesla coil with a power takeoff coil over the tower coil.

Have you built one yet? If so, did you get it to function in electrical resonance?

--Lee

nul-points · « **Reply #193 on:** January 26, 2011, 02:21:27 PM »

the schematic above is drawn with the 2 diodes on the AV plug reversed

as shown they'll charge the capacitor with a -ve voltage for the darlington collector supply (NPN needs +ve supply)

they should be pointing in the same sense as the Zener diode addition given by Conrad

wings · « **Reply #194 on:** January 26, 2011, 04:22:05 PM »

Quote from: hartiberlin on January 24, 2011, 01:29:27 PM

I studied some more the basics of capacitors and what we probably have here with the
Joule Ringer is, that the short discharge pulses are just recharged by dielectric absorption:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_absorption

Dielectric absorption is the name given to the effect by which a capacitor that has been charged for a long time discharges only incompletely when briefly discharged. Although an ideal capacitor would remain at zero volts after being discharged, real capacitors will develop a small voltage, a phenomenon that is also called soakage or battery action. For some dielectrics, such as many polymer films, the resulting voltage may be less than 1-2% of the original voltage, but it can be as much as 15 - 25% for electrolytic capacitors or supercapacitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_capacitor#Dielectric_absorption_.28soakage.29

Some types of dielectrics, when they have been holding a voltage for a long time, maintain a "memory" of that voltage: after they have been quickly fully discharged and left without an applied voltage, a voltage will gradually be established which is some fraction of the original voltage. For some dielectrics 10% or more of the original voltage may reappear. This phenomenon of unwanted charge storage is called dielectric absorption or soakage, and it effectively creates a hysteresis or memory effect in capacitors.

The percentage of the original voltage restored depends upon the dielectric and is a non-linear function of original voltage.[2]

In many applications of capacitors dielectric absorption is not a problem but in some applications, such as long-time-constant integrators, sample-and-hold circuits, switched-capacitor analog-to-digital converters, and very low-distortion filters, it is important that the capacitor does not recover a residual charge after full discharge, and capacitors with low absorption are specified[3]. For safety, high-voltage capacitors are often stored with their terminals short circuited.

Some dielectrics have very low dielectric absorption, e.g., polystyrene, polypropylene, NPO ceramic, and Teflon. Others, in particular those used in electrolytic and supercapacitors, tend to have high absorption.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondensator_%28Elektrotechnik%29#Temperaturabh.C3.A4ngigkeit

Kondensatortyp      Dielektrische Absorption
Kunststoff-Folienkondensatoren, Polyesterdielektrikum    0,2 bis 0,25 %
Kunststoff-Folienkondensatoren, Polypropylendielektrikum    0,01 bis 0,05 %
Keramikkondensatoren, X7R      0,6 bis 1 %
Keramikkondensatoren, Z5U      2,0 bis 2,5 %
Aluminium-Elektrolytkondensatoren      etwa 10 bis 15 %

So alufoil electrolyte caps can have an automatic recharge rate of 15 % due to
dielectric absorption !

So it really depends also on what kind of electrolyte capacitor you are using for the Joule Ringer circuit.

It must be a cap that has a high dielectric absorption !

from:
http://www.keith-snook.info/capacitor-soakage.html

"For any fixed charge { Q } on the plates of a capacitor the voltage will fall if the plates move together { V=Q/C } and will increase if the plates move apart â€” If a dielectric material can be readily compressed and relax back because it is made of fibrous paper soaked in oil and or the foil of the plates is loosely wound then the plates will move together as the capacitor is charged â€” The value of C will increase and give a greater charge Q for any applied voltage

After a rapid charge and removal of the supply â€” the voltage across a capacitor can rise beyond the supply voltage which is most likely due to the compressed dielectric relaxing back to its natural position and its original value of C â€” After a rapid discharge â€” where the high current pulls the plates together â€” the remaining low voltage will rise as the residual charge on the plates is again subjected to decreasing C as the dielectric relaxes back â€” These effects are easy to measure but not easy to isolate from other effects like chemical and molecular changes in the dielectric"

parametric effect?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Ringer! (Read 833372 times)

shylo

Re: Joule Ringer!

ltseung888

Re: Joule Ringer!

Mk1

Re: Joule Ringer!

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

hartiberlin

Re: Joule Ringer!

poynt99

Re: Joule Ringer!

Mk1

Re: Joule Ringer!

flathunter

Re: Joule Ringer!

flathunter

Re: Joule Ringer!

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

e2matrix

Re: Joule Ringer!

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

the_big_m_in_ok

Re: Joule Ringer!

nul-points

Re: Joule Ringer!

wings

Re: Joule Ringer!