Author Topic: Joule Ringer! (Read 834261 times)

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #495 on:** May 24, 2012, 07:28:17 PM »

Quote from: b_rads on May 24, 2012, 04:33:28 PM

My Lux Meter arrived yesterday and I now have three different setups to test. The LJL with multiple taps for CFLâ€™s, the LJL with speaker wire for LEDâ€™s, and a third setup which I will describe. Have not made the box yet to test the bulbs,
The third setup can be seen below. I found a transformer that I had salvaged from a speaker system some time back. This was a Harman/kardon 10 year old system that went bad. The transformer is a 120VAC 60Hz input with 18VAC 3A output. This setup is very sensitive to get started, but when it does, it performs very well. I placed a string of 50 LEDâ€™s rated at 4.8 watts, a LOA rated at 2 watts, and a FEIT Bathroom and Vanity rated at 1.2 watts on the circuit for a total of 8 watts load. Running off a 12 Volt battery, the current draw was 240mA resulting in 2.88 watts. Using my new Lux Meter I tested the LOA on AC and the meter showed 660. Running off the circuit the meter showed 1450. Those numbers are approximations since the numbers were bouncing around a bit. With these readings being totally unexpected, I performed the test a second time and the results confirmed the first test.

Brad S

Isn't it great to have actual NUMBERS MEASURED -- 1450 lux with the SJR and 600 lux with the grid... Exciting-- however, I ask that you PLEASE PUT THE LUX METER AND THE BULB(S) IN A FIXED POSITION IN A FOIL-LINED "LIGHT BOX".

In this way, you can be sure that the meter and bulb do not shift around when taking measurements. Also, you can put in known bulbs, known Lumens output, and calibrate your light-box (as described earlier in this thread), getting Lumens/Lux conversion factor for your box. THEN you can calculate Lumens (out)/ Watts (in).
Photo of my light box, as an example, is shown earlier in the thread.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #496 on:** May 24, 2012, 08:37:09 PM »

LynxSteam was kind to send me one of his air-coils for testing, with the Lasersaber 2.0 circuit; see photo. Thanks, Lynxsteam!!! Primary has 34 windings, secondary has 368 windings. I used the light box for the tests, described earlier.

Photo also shows the DSO waveform when a 13W CFL bulb was the load (left) -- approx sinusoidal. The right waveforme is for a 3.5 W LED bulb -- almost a square wave. So the load clearly changes the waveform; and also the frequency of the output signal, as shown in the table.

Gotta run -- please study the table and ask questions as you wish. Shows the versatility and ease-of-use of the light box. Note that I'm only getting about 23 Lumens (out)/ Watt (in) max with this -- not bad for an air core, IMO. These LED lamps running on the grid-AC put out about 60 Lumens/Watt. More runs coming!

conradelektro · « **Reply #497 on:** May 24, 2012, 10:42:57 PM »

I got an E-Core transformer (FERROXCUBE ETD49/25/16-3C90 FERRITE CORE, Farnell order code 3056417) which oscillates at about 8 KHz with the circuit below. The little circuit modifications help to start the oscillations and keep the transistor cool.

The 8 KHz still seem to be too high because some lamps perform poorly, others perform really well. This depends I guess on the internal circuit of the lamp.

I have some CFLs (unmodified) which light up very bright with less power consumption as specified by the manufacture at 220V. Some other CFLs I have only light up when they consume more than specified.

Only my small LED lamps (0.8 Watt, 1 Watt and 2.5 Watt) perform very well but only at 6 Volt (12 Volt would blow them up), they are very bright at about 70% of their specified power consumption (of course my judgement by eyesight is inaccurate). But the two big LED lamps (5 Watt and 9 Watt) need more power than specified.

Also incandescent lamps light a little (red glow) and consume much less than specified (about 6 Watt) but give almost no light, they just become hot.

I attribute the high power consumption of some CFLs and some LED lamps to the still too high frequency of about 8 KHz (which does not agree with the internal circuit of some lamps). If you look at the table posted by LynxSteam, you also see that some lamps perform poorly probably because the frequency of his air core is 30 KHz to 100 KHz.

So, how can I bring down the frequency of my E-Core transformer? How do I have to modify the circuit? Capacitors, where?

The screeching is just awful, with all lamps at 12 Volt (only with the little LED lamps at 6 Volt I hear nothing).

Greetings, Conrad

b_rads · « **Reply #498 on:** May 25, 2012, 04:56:23 AM »

Professor - here goes! I recorded some numbers and I hope you can make some sense of them. First let me say that the transformer reguired the 4.8 watt LED string connected to get it to run. It runs in the 240 to 280mA range for a while and then it jumped to 450mA. I got my readings when it was at 450. All readings used 12 Volt source.

1.2 watt FEIT rated at 74 Lumens.
AC Power - 1030 Lux
AirCore LJL - 580 mA - 1672 Lux
Torid Transformer - 450 mA - 2290 Lux

2.0 watt LOA rated at 110 Lumens
AC Power - 1370 Lux
AirCore LJL - 620 mA - 1595 Lux
Torid Transformer - 450 mA - 2090 Lux

Both Bulbs Together
AC Power - 2620 Lux
AirCore LJL - 640 mA - 1824 Lux
Torid Transformer - 480 mA - 2480 Lux

BTW - I now understand the importance of the light box, Thanks!
Brad S

Lynxsteam · « **Reply #499 on:** May 25, 2012, 04:58:15 AM »

ConradElektro

It looks like you setup that E-Core exactly as Laser Saber specified, although his drawing shows 20:200 turns I think. My latest has 16:160 turns. I use just a tiny amount of adhesive between the E-Cores. Its called "Shoe Goop" or just "Goop" brand. It is flexible when set up, but very tough adhesive. I think even double sided tape would work. You just need something to cushion the chattering of the two cores together.

As for amp draw. I am finding that more total turns (total of secondary and primary) lowers amp draw. More turns equals more induction. I am starting to wonder with my air-cores if turns ratio even matters. I doubled the primary turns on my latest air-core and the bulbs still light nicely and the amp draw dropped by half. So what happens if I double primary turns again? We are not transforming AC/AC in a ratio. This is a flyback transformer, so whatever AC voltage we generate the High Voltage spikes from flyback will ride on that waveform.

JouleSeeker's Lux/lumens findings vs watts input matches what I saw with the first prototype. Now I am finding that I can drop the amps dramatically by increasing primary turns.

The other thing I find with the E-Cores and AirCores s that you wont see the full efficiency until you add more bulbs. The air-core gets more and more impressive as you add bulbs. One bulb takes 400 ma, 2 bulbs 500 ma. Each added bulb only consumes 100 ma more. The E-Core is a little different. It will consume only about 400 ma and little more as you add more bulbs. So a one bulb test doesn't tell the whole story on these devices.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #500 on:** May 25, 2012, 07:32:34 AM »

Great comments. Thanks Lynxsteam -- and that light box of yours is LOOKING GREAT, Brad! I see you're using the Lux meter I recommended also; same as I use. It was easy to build, huh?

Fast calibration -- run with the full set of bulbs (1 but Lynx and Peanutbutter say use more, like four or SIX) in place in the light box, using the GRID AC. Add up the rated lumens for THESE bulbs, and measure the LUX on your meter; divide to get the { rated-Lumens/observed-Lux ratio} for your light box (and meter). This is your calibration factor.

Then, without moving any bulbs, power the bulbs up using the blocking oscillator (whatever one wants to call it!

) -- and measure the Lux output! Multiply by the Lm/Lux-ratio above, and this gives the Lumens output.
Finally, divide Lumens by Watts input -- voila, Lm/W! Then we can make comparisons and measure our progress to GREATER and greater Lm/W...

Now -- I've made some progress today after the "honey-do's" were done.
The best I could do this morning was about 23 Lm/W. Well, I managed to double that. Here's how.

First, I finally rec'd a couple of high-efficiency bulbs I'd ordered, and these run at about 1 W using the mains and put out nearly 80 Lumens in the light box -- 80 Lm/W, which is great!
So I used this bulb, and immediately the yield with the AIR core SJR-2.0 jumped up to about 40 Lm/ W. I varied the voltage; here is near the optimum with changing only the bulb from previous runs this morning:

9V in; 0.8 A, so 7.2 W in.
3700 Lux in the light box, times 0.08 (my calibration-conversion factor for this box) = 296 Lumens.
296Lm/7.2W = 41 Lm/W -- not bad.

PS -- freq = 157 KHz; V-rms output = 104 V with this load.

Note: at 12V, I get just 29 Lm/W... So there is some tuning associated with varying the voltage. A broad maximum -- from 7V to 9V input, the yield stays near 40 Lm/W.

OH -- note that the bulb says it is for 220V, 50 Hz -- but it works just fine with the above conditions! Someone asked about that; I think it was Jules. Here's the bulb I'd now recommend, Jules:
Cheap E27 1.5W 36 LED 252LM White Light LED Light Bulb AC180~240V;50HZ,5500~6000K | Everbuying.com
-- and only $8.93 each if you buy 2...
It does not put out the Lm/W advertised on-line, but at about 80 Lm/W measured in my light box, it is better than other LED bulbs I've tested (typically 55-65 Lm/W).

Next, I tried a trick used by Lynx earlier, I compressed the primary winding down to about 3" along the base of the coil -- so it covers now maybe 1/4 of the secondary coil... starting to look like a Tesla coil now.

Results -- my best to date -- follow:
9V in; 0.33 A, so 3 W in.
1990 Lux in the light box, times 0.08 (my calibration-conversion factor for this box) = 159 Lumens.

159Lm/3W = 53 Lm/W -- a big improvement from 23 max this morning!

PS -- freq = 178 KHz; V-rms output = 84 V with this new bulb and the primary coil concentrated at the bottom.

Whew! (PS -- I'm not claiming OU at this stage!!)

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #501 on:** May 25, 2012, 08:16:44 AM »

My calculations in bold:

Quote from: b_rads on May 25, 2012, 04:56:23 AM

Professor - here goes! I recorded some numbers and I hope you can make some sense of them. First let me say that the transformer reguired the 4.8 watt LED string connected to get it to run. It runs in the 240 to 280mA range for a while and then it jumped to 450mA. I got my readings when it was at 450. All readings used 12 Volt source.

1.2 watt FEIT rated at 74 Lumens.
AC Power - 1030 Lux
calibration factor: 74/1030 = 0.072

2.0 watt LOA rated at 110 Lumens
AC Power - 1370 Lux
calibration factor: 110/1370 = 0.08; average calibration factor is 0.076. With more bulbs of known Lumens, you could improve the accuracy... 0.076 is close enough for now -- you evidently have about the same conditions as in my box, factor = 0.080 in mine.Now, for the tests with the Lynx-type air core SJR:

AirCore LJL - 580 mA - 1672 Lux
1672 * 0.076 = 127 Lm; 127/7 W = 18. (about what I found this morning with the air core SJR, 20 -- good agreement actually)
Torid Transformer - 450 mA - 2290 Lux
2290 * 0.076 = 174 / 12*0.45 = 174/5.4 = 32 Lm/W -- improving!

AirCore LJL - 620 mA - 1595 Lux
121 Lm/ 7.4W = 16 Lm/W
Torid Transformer - 450 mA - 2090 Lux
159 Lm/5.4 = 29 Lm/W

Both Bulbs Together
AC Power - 2620 Lux (but I will use the same factor; tired, after midnight )
AirCore LJL - 640 mA - 1824 Lux
1824 * .076 = 139 Lm 139/ 7.7W = 18 Lm/W
Torid Transformer - 480 mA - 2480 Lux
188 Lm / 5.8 = 32 Lm/W.

BTW - I now understand the importance of the light box, Thanks!
Brad S

You're most welcome!

Great progress and tests, Brad! thanks for this work and for recording the numbers. Now -- note that the "record" sits at 53 Lm/W (see post above) for actually measured Lumens using a calibrated box...I think you will get there and past soon.

conradelektro · « **Reply #502 on:** May 25, 2012, 02:19:15 PM »

Quote from: Lynxsteam on May 25, 2012, 04:58:15 AM

ConradElektro

It looks like you set up that E-Core exactly as Laser Saber specified, although his drawing shows 20:200 turns I think. My latest has 16:160 turns. I use just a tiny amount of adhesive between the E-Cores. Its called "Shoe Goop" or just "Goop" brand. It is flexible when set up, but very tough adhesive. I think even double sided tape would work. You just need something to cushion the chattering of the two cores together.

As for amp draw. I am finding that more total turns (total of secondary and primary) lowers amp draw. More turns equals more induction. I am starting to wonder with my air-cores if turns ratio even matters. I doubled the primary turns on my latest air-core and the bulbs still light nicely and the amp draw dropped by half. So what happens if I double primary turns again? We are not transforming AC/AC in a ratio. This is a flyback transformer, so whatever AC voltage we generate the High Voltage spikes from flyback will ride on that waveform.

JouleSeeker's Lux/lumens findings vs watts input matches what I saw with the first prototype. Now I am finding that I can drop the amps dramatically by increasing primary turns.

The other thing I find with the E-Cores and AirCores s that you wont see the full efficiency until you add more bulbs. The air-core gets more and more impressive as you add bulbs. One bulb takes 400 ma, 2 bulbs 500 ma. Each added bulb only consumes 100 ma more. The E-Core is a little different. It will consume only about 400 ma and little more as you add more bulbs. So a one bulb test doesn't tell the whole story on these devices.

@Lynxsteam

Thank you for the comments, that helps. The glue is a good idea, I have some which hardens into a rubber like substance.

My E-core has a primary of 2 wires wound in parallel with 10 turns and a secondary of 100 turns (all bell wire). So, using just one wire of the primary (the other stays unconnected) results in a step up ratio of 1:10. My last post reported the results with this 1:10 ratio.

Today I connected the two primary wires in series which results in a step up ration of 20:100 = 1:5. This reduced the power draw of the big 9 Watt LED lamp almost by halve (at 12 V was ~1.3 A and is now ~ 0.7 A).

Other lamps are showing some difficulties with the 20:100 = 1:5 ratio:

The 5 W LED lamp needs 18 Volt to start, but I then can reduce to 13 Volt 0.4 A. (also a reduction of Amp draw).

The (unmodified) CFLs need 18V to 20V to start up, but can then be reduced to 12 Volt and also draw significantly less.

I will try 20:200 step up by rewinding the secondary with thinner enamelled copper wire (otherwise 200 turns will not fit on the bobbin). I also will hook up something to connect more light bulbs in a safe way.

My E-Core:
http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/etd49-25-16-3c90/ferrite-core-half-etd49-3c90/dp/3056417
http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cli-etd49/ferritringkern-klammer/dp/105778
http://at.farnell.com/ferroxcube/cph-etd49-1s-20p/bobbin-etd49-1-section-20pin/dp/3056338

In the depth of my house I found "Core-Zilla" hiding in a dark corner for decades. It stems from a process-computer power supply (more than 1 KW) from the 1970-ies. We will see what I can do with it. Unfortunately the bobbins are lost, I have to build two from cardboard or acrylic or a combination of.

Greetings, Conrad

Lynxsteam · « **Reply #503 on:** May 25, 2012, 02:53:42 PM »

This is fantastic teamwork for people who have never met! We are discovering and learning on a daily basis and putting the knowledge to work.

ConradElektro, thanks for confirming what I am seeing with increasing the primary turns. I don't even bother with fluorescents now. But as you have found they can be used with a high startup voltage. But that requires some complication. I am designing for the average person who doesn't want to be bothered with taking CFLs apart.

Can I suggest that we (JouleSeeker) start a new thread in regards to the Light Box testing? Your work is very interesting and will get lost in everyone's different Joule Ringers. Its definitely a new and important Phase in the development of two different setups, perhaps three. SJR 2.0, LJL, and Torroid transformers.

Today I will make another LJL of the same size, but with 14 awg primary the full length of the secondary with multiple tap points. My hunch is power draw can come down further with the AirCore and Induction can stay high.

Lastly, if anyone is out there, can someone diagram the current flow in the SJR 2.0 circuit with just one transistor? It seems that the Flyback has to push back through the source battery between pulses. Its like the battery is in the LC circuit getting charged between pulses. Is this correct? I would be happy to animate the circuit on YouTube if someone could diagram the action.

JouleSeeker · « **Reply #504 on:** May 25, 2012, 04:37:43 PM »

Quote from: Lynxsteam on May 25, 2012, 02:53:42 PM

This is fantastic teamwork for people who have never met! We are discovering and learning on a daily basis and putting the knowledge to work.

ConradElektro, thanks for confirming what I am seeing with increasing the primary turns. I don't even bother with fluorescents now. But as you have found they can be used with a high startup voltage. But that requires some complication. I am designing for the average person who doesn't want to be bothered with taking CFLs apart.

Can I suggest that we (JouleSeeker) start a new thread in regards to the Light Box testing? Your work is very interesting and will get lost in everyone's different Joule Ringers. Its definitely a new and important Phase in the development of two different setups, perhaps three. SJR 2.0, LJL, and Torroid transformers.
[snip]

Thanks for the encouragement, Lynxsteam - however, would rather not "proliferate threads" as this makes it difficult to follow the progress, with too many threads. Already, I try to keep up with several... and there is a parallel thread to this one at EF.

@all: note that the Lux meter that Brad and I are using is available now at Amazon (Prime) for only $13.30 -- a big savings.
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Meter-LX1010B-Luxmeter-display/dp/B000JWUT6O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337954180&sr=8-1

b_rads · « **Reply #505 on:** May 25, 2012, 05:41:55 PM »

Quote from: Lynxsteam on May 25, 2012, 02:53:42 PM

This is fantastic teamwork for people who have never met! We are discovering and learning on a daily basis and putting the knowledge to work.

Lynxsteam - you are preaching to the choir, I could not agree more. As you have said, this is just so darn much fun. Regret that I do not have more time to devote to this project.

ConradElektro - connecting those 2 primaries in series really does lower the current draw. I think it might be time to replace my transistor as my current levels are jumping around some without changing anything. I have really abused that tranny with testing and I want to get back to the lower current draw.

JouleSeeker - I cannot thank you enough for sorting out my numbers for me. I am thrilled that we see similiar results. For all, cannot stress enough the importance of the light box. Without confirmation from the Professor on this, everything else is speculative.

Afterthought - when making your light box, choose a power strip that does not have the on button indicator light. I replaced mine and it did make a small difference.

NickZ · « **Reply #506 on:** May 25, 2012, 07:53:02 PM »

Guys:
Thanks to all for your great tests. It certainly saves the rest of us all the time to go through the same experimental process. Especially when using several bulbs, this has already saved much of the normal output consumption and expense. And makes the use of smaller solar panels and much cheaper storage batteries now very feasible to many people anywhere in the world.
The question that I have is: Has anyone tried to place the 10 or so primary windings over on the outside of any preexisting windings on already wound E-cores? As possibly by doing so, some of the used already wound E-cores can be made to be used, as they come, with only a little modification to their original windings or connection points.
Is this even possible???
NickZ

conradelektro · « **Reply #507 on:** May 26, 2012, 03:12:48 PM »

I did some more tests and some scope shots (see attached picture).

What I think is happening: The power supply tries to prohibit a current feedback from the circuit. So, it will be better to use a battery instead of a power supply, because the power supply becomes part of the circuit and influences it (by attempting to regulate voltage).

I put some double sided sticky tape between the halves of the E-Core and it practically eliminated the screeching (and one can pull the Ferrite halves apart when needed, which would be difficult when glue is used).

The tests and scope shots where done at 12 Volt with a 9 Watt unmodified LED lamp for 110V - 240V.

Greetings, Conrad

Lynxsteam · « **Reply #508 on:** May 26, 2012, 03:41:49 PM »

Conradelektro - I am glad the double sided tape worked for you. The screeching isn't tolerable, is it? And you are right you can take apart while experimenting. I glued mine because I was happy with performance and I can't get more wire in. Try a second layer of tape and it might just quiet down. I know in some applications gapped E-Cores are specified and that is about what we get when we separate the E-Cores with tape or glue.

Nick - I like your idea about using "found" E cores but how will you know what you have for turns. I suppose you could just give it a try. I thought it was easier to just cut off all the windings and start new.

NickZ · « **Reply #509 on:** May 26, 2012, 03:59:38 PM »

Conradelektro and All:
I've just seen a video (I forget which one it was now) where one half of the E-core was pulled away from the other half slightly, and the light got brighter yet, and noise stopped, entirely. But, the wattage and draw went up somewhat as a result. So, for higher light output that can be tried, especially if the draw is not much of a concern, as when using solar as a source.

Thanks for the tip on using tape in between the two halves of the E-core.
Someone also mentioned to dip the whole core into varnish, or to use E-poxy glue.
That noise would not be acceptable to me, as it would drive me nuts, and I just would not be able to handle it.
Thanks again, and good luck with your tests.

NickZ

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Joule Ringer! (Read 834261 times)

JouleSeeker

Re: Joule Ringer!

JouleSeeker

Re: Joule Ringer!

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

b_rads

Number Crunch Time

Lynxsteam

Re: Joule Ringer!

JouleSeeker

Re: Joule Ringer!

JouleSeeker

Re: Number Crunch Time

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

Lynxsteam

Re: Joule Ringer!

JouleSeeker

Re: Joule Ringer!

b_rads

Re: Joule Ringer!

NickZ

Re: Joule Ringer!

conradelektro

Re: Joule Ringer!

Lynxsteam

Re: Joule Ringer!

NickZ

Re: Joule Ringer!