I have continued experiments with the SJR 2.0 using an air-core xformer (my thanks to LynxSteam -- good air-core design!).  Note that this is the straightforward 2.0 of Lasersaber and Lidmotor -- there is no bias from the + rail to the base.  Yet it generally starts right up and runs well.

  I need to note that since my last report on this air-core 2.0, I managed to short something out and thus I fried a transistor.  This happened while I was trying to light a bare CFL (i.e., guts removed, just the lamp).  So I had to replace the 2n3055.

PS -- the bare CFL did light up, but not brightly.  I much prefer the LED lamps and I've tested a bunch.  Of these, I still prefer the 1-watt "corn-cob" LED lamp from T-mart that I delineated earlier.  That's what I used today (first one bulb, then two).

  When I replaced the transistor with another 2n3055 that I have, I could no longer get the 53 Lumens/Watt that I discussed earlier.   It is possible some else changed, like connection - resistances; but I tried to keep things constant while I swapped out the 2n3055.  But, by moving the primary windings around a bit, I found today a maximum of 48 Lm/W, which is pretty good I think.

    The experiments today were run mostly at 10 Volts input from a PS.  I had already determined with this set-up that I got optimal light from about 8.5 to 11.5 volts.  10 V DC input makes calculating the input power easy...

  The photo shows 12-gauge wire on the primary concentrated at both ends of the tube.  I had taps on the red wire where I had removed some of the insulation.  I counted the windings and tapped the + voltage in at winding 31, 35, etc.  Note that with fewer windings on the primary, the output current (and voltage) are higher as expected, but the ratio Lumens out/Watts-in = Lm/W is not necessarily larger.  My goal remains to increase Lm/W.

   I'm using the calibrated light-box for measuring Lumens, with the calibration factor 0.08 Lumens/observed-Lux for my box as delineated in an earlier post.

 Here are salient results from today's experiments:

One LED bulb, with wires concentrated at left end, tapping at winding number

14   0.8A  2000 lux --> 160Lm, 160 Lm/8W = 20 Lm/W
31  0.60A   2030 lux--> 162 Lm, 162 Lm/6W = 27 Lm/W
40  0.19A  720 lux--> 58 Lm, 58 Lm/1.9W =   30 Lm/W
45  0.10A  310 lux--> 25 Lm, 25 Lm/1.0W = 25 Lm/W

I'm going to shorten the straightforward part, now that you see the pattern, to save typing time...
One LED bulb, with wires concentrated at both ends as in the photo attached, tapping at winding number

31   0.54A  152Lm,  28 Lm/W
35   0.45A  132Lm,  29 Lm/W
37   0.23A    78Lm,  34 Lm/W
40   0.25A   86Lm,  34 Lm/W

One LED bulb, with wires EVENED OUT along the length of the secondary coil; tapping at winding number

31   0.66A  240Lm,  36 Lm/W
37   0.61A  290Lm,  48 Lm/W   154 Khz on the DSO, 58 Vrms (output)
40   0.45A   169Lm,  39 Lm/W

Note the difference in Lm/W with the number of windings (tap) on the primary coil.

TWO  LED bulbs, same type, 1W 220V-AC bulbs, with wires EVENED OUT along the length of the secondary coil; tapping at winding number

31   0.74A  276Lm,  37 Lm/W
37   0.66A  291Lm,  44 Lm/W   72 Khz on the DSO (output)
  Note the drop in resonant frequency with 2 LED bulbs instead of one.  Lm/W drops a little/or roughly the same with 2 bulbs.

40   0.48A  192Lm,  40 Lm/W
45   0.39A  144Lm,  37 Lm/W

Conclusions:  windings spaced roughly evenly on primary is best; tapping at winding 37 for this set-up provides maximum, 47 Lm/W (at least as high as winding 45 -- I did not test higher as the Lm/W was dropping).

I did not / do not plan to post here.   I Like your work Conrad and am sorry your upset.  However, I'm not sure how you connect what I say to saturation.  I've learned some about that coil and it's rated for 380va.....its NOT saturating.  I don't believe the "Shacks" are either, as we are well below rated current on secondary (de-rated for higher fo). 
   Now as we approach higher power levels in a given bulb, is the core IN the bulb saturating and losing efficiency....very possible.  I think, at this point we can get an improvement if we can reverse engineer these some. 

@Peanutbutter:

The crucial experiment:

Take an ordinary incandescent light bulb (it has no internal circuit, just a filament in a glass bulb) e.g. a 25 Watt or a 40 Watt. Put this incandescent light bulb into the circuit (where you normally would put the LED-bulb or the CFL) and watch the power drawn by the circuit.

The power draw does not go anywhere near 25 Watt or 40 Watt, it stays at what I think is the "saturation region" of whatever transformer (defined by core type and number of windings for primary and secondary) one uses.

In my opinion, one crucial point is the number of turns for the primary (which then of course determines the number of turns for the secondary in order to reach a certain step up ratio). The more turns for the primary, the more power can be transferred. But the size of the core limits the number of possible turns. So, a bigger core might be helpful for more power.

Also the frequency is very important, lower frequency allows more power to be transferred. And this circuit runs at a few Kilohertz, so we are limited by the rather high frequency.

I have to dig out some book about transformer design and do the mathematics. The transformers taken out of power supplies are all optimised for 50Hz - 60Hz and the Joule Ringer works at a few Kilohertz. And in case of air cores up to a few 100 KHz, I observed 400 KHz with smaller air core coils.

If a core is rated for higher frequencies (like my E-core for FERROXCUBE) it will support higher frequencies up to 30 KHz, but power transfer is still smaller for higher frequencies than for lower frequencies. Take into consideration that 50Hz is 100 times less than 5000 Hz. So, the power one can transfer is 100 times less at 5000 KHz than at 50 Hz. So, the power supply you took the core from was able to provide 1000 Watt with a 50Hz input, and with the 5000 Hz input you can only reach 10 Watt.

One can see the "saturation" much easier with low inductance cores for pulse transformers (e.g. ferrite grade 3E27). When I used such cores, the power transfer was limited to one or two Watt (similar to the air cores).

The factors which determine the Wattage possible to be transferred:

- core type (material of the core)
- core size
- number of turns for primary (which determines the number of turns necessary for the secondary)
- frequency

And it is not easy to do the mathematics, specially "core type" and "core size" are hard to factor in. Also the number of turns is not as trivial as it sounds when doing the mathematics, because the diameter of the wire and the changing diameter of the windings play a role too. It all comes down to the fact, that my knowledge for doing the correct mathematics is limited. But the tests give a good indication of the limits of power transfer.

This said, I do not want to discourage people to work with this circuit. Just look carefully before drawing conclusions. Read through the posts and you will see that all experimenters observe this "limits for power transfer", specially with air cores (because they have low inductance). The "magic" of this circuit is, that power draw does not rise after a certain number of bulbs is connected. So, power transfer is limited.

Greetings, Conrad

Great work JouleSeeker!  64Lm/watt.  How much do you want?

I am glad the discussion and exploration continues.  The "Magic" is partly that we are exploring, trying different things and having fun doing something useful.  We could all be drinking beer watching basketball (nothing wrong with that).

A couple notes: 
I can't get anywhere near beating the E-Core with the Aircore (to be expected). 
There are some resonant points on the aircore that give really good results
Without the HV hooked up to a load I got quite a shock off the 12v positive lead while hooking up the aircore.  I am pretty sure the battery is part of the LC tank circuit and its charging between cycles.  Put a diode on the negative side of the battery and the circuit doesn't work.  If this is the case the battery may also be part of the limiting factor and part of the tuning.  I get better results with a large lead acid 12 v rather than a small nicad pack.  If the oscillations occur without the LED bulb then perhaps the bulb is not the big factor in the circuit but more along for the ride.

I am where Joule Seeker is with playing with ferrite, but with an enclosed magnetic field around the aircore.  This then is no longer an aircore.   I am playing with completely enclosing the coils to see what difference it makes.

My goal is to get total power up so that the ten bulbs are closer to fully bright and that we maintain the self adjusting ability of the circuit.  I want to avoid core losses and eddy currents in the core material as much as possible.

PB291 says the core is not saturating, Conrad says yes it is.  Could it be the Battery resistance is the limiting factor and confounding everyone's results?  Batteries have resistance and it is very difficult to measure.  It is usually between 1-4 Ohms.

I don't know who reads these posts but perhaps you can pass this
along to the offended parties...
...

I apologize and I am sure the thread will fade off.

Anyway, sorry for the encroachment, I will bow out of this area of exploration.

It is difficult to comprehend how anyone could feel "offended" by the
development of the discussion and all that has been included.

There is really nothing new under the sun.  Each circuit and its several
different variations that have been presented are all "re-hashes" of what
has been done by others long ago.  As one who's been working with
semiconductors since 1960 I can assure all concerned that the Joule
Thief/Joule Ringer circuits (even those with the 'load' in the base drive
sub-portion of the circuit) have been conceived/tested/evaluated by
many, many experimenters in the past.

The ONLY aspect of the circuits which is new and revolutionary is the
Light Emitting Diode.

It is difficult now to find documentation relative to the early work done
with these circuits since the hobbyist magazines have largely disapperared.
I happen to still have a copy of an old document MIL-HDBK-215 dated
15 June 1960 which is titled "MILITARY STANDARDIZATION HANDBOOK,
SELECTED SEMICONDUCTOR CIRCUITS."

Within its over 300 pages of circuits nearly every conceivable transistor
configuration is dealt with - including several versions of the blocking
oscillator which has come to be known as the Joule Thief.

The earliest home made Capacitor Discharge Ignition Systems which
many of us constructed in the '60s relied upon flyback generated high
voltage (400 - 500 Volts) which was produced in several versions of
single transistor blocking oscillator.

For anyone to think that they've found something new and incredible
which hasn't been seen before in transistor power oscillators is just a
bit disingenuous.

I cannot see where Lynxsteam should feel any need to make apology.

I can see, on the other hand, where some may wish to look into the past.

I don't know who reads these posts but perhaps you can pass this along to the offended parties.  It was not my intention to "rob" anyone of anything, circuit designs, their rightful place in our esteem, their turf.  I just bumped into this stuff (joule thiefs, joule ringers...) trying to find better ways to use wind power.  Using an aircore transformer, induction coils, alternator coils, is something I have been using for quite a while now.  I thought it was very clever to try LaserSaber's simple circuit with the aircore.  Evidently, that was a "no-no".  The aircore is not great or better than what LaserSaber shows, just different.  But apparently not different enough to start a new thread.  I apologize and I am sure the thread will fade off.

Anyway, sorry for the encroachment, I will bow out of this area of exploration.

Huh?    I've been on these forums for approaching two years now and any time someone puts an idea or circuit up PUBLICLY, it is "open sourced" that is, you are free to take it and run with it however you wish.  And your contributions BACK into the community are much appreciated!  You don't have to, but YOU do, and that is great!

  No one owns any "turf" on the air-core or JR or SJR circuit, that I know of.   
I wouldn't worry about that.   

Please do NOT " bow out of this area of exploration."  I'm certainly not going to.  And I intend to keep sharing also.
I agree with comments of Nick and Seamonkey above.

PS -- this is too fun to let egos get in the way of the fun... although, sure, we are human.  Faraday and Sir Humphrey Davy come to mind -- but Faraday continued despite the opposition nonsense from Davy.

  This is an OPEN_SOURCE forum; we are working together, most of us, to see what we can learn and do.  Most have altruistic motives for humanity, I believe, but also just having fun with electronics and discovery. 

Somewhere a couple pages back I posted specs on the E-Core I have been using.  I used 16 turns primary, 160 turns secondary - telephone wire 24 awg.  I used the single 2N3055 transistor.  Primary wound solid across spool and one wound with two primaries, one unused.  Primary wound first.  Diodes anywhere in the circuit are not so good.  Resistors anywhere just burn amps.  Caps have little effect.  # of turns on either primary/secondary don't matter for oscillation.  HV can be connected or not.

I would love to hear how you got 71 L/W.

Tank circuit.  Think about that.  Why is it called a tank?  Do we want a teacup or a swimming pool?

 

So today I wound the Lasersaber -recommended E-core, and fired her up!  worked great, after a little fiddling. 
Thanks for input -- especially Lasersaber, Lidmotor and Lynxsteam.  (The three L's?    )

Video shows the result:  http://youtu.be/XGZf0_T_e14

If you see the voice out-of-sync with the picture, let me know, would you?  I'm seeing that problem.

 Here's the description with it:

I did a replication of Lasersaber's 2.0 super-Joule-ringer, described here:
http://laserhacker.com/SuperJouleRinger2.html
First runs at 10V from the power supply, at about 0.08A.  I measured the Lux output from a 1.5W LED bulb, shown in the vid, in my calibrated light-box:   440 Lux, so 35 Lumens.
The input power is 10V * 0.08A = 0.8W (from the power supply readings). 
So we have for Lasersaber's 2.0 operating at 10V input, 35Lm/0.8W =  about 44 Lm/W.

This is less than I had with Lynxsteam's air-core system shown in background in the vid. BUT, in next vid at 17 Volts, the E-core system gets up to 74 Lm/W, which is better than I ever got with the air-core system (even adding Ferrite rods into the air-core system).

Since this is my first winding of the Lasersaber E-core, I'm quite sure even higher Lm/W yields can be achieved. 

I highly recommend use of the straightforward light-box (described at energeticforum.com and overunity.com) to get quantitative Lumens/Watt readings -- much more reliable than the naked eye!

  OK, I've done a vid on a few more tests:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlYzx8_wKFs&feature=youtu.be

Nothing spectacular, but lots of fun.
From my description of the vid:

More experiments on my replication of Lasersaber's super-Joule-ringer 2.0 (described at Laserhacker.com).   Here I add one 82 pF cap across the LED lamp (a test recommended by Lynxsteam-- thanks!).  I also show the effect of varying the voltage on the current draw and on the light output.  At 17V input, the system reaches about 70-72 Lumens/Watt.  One hand on the voltage control, the other holding the video camera... Happy experimenting!