Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?  (Read 538312 times)

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #435 on: March 30, 2013, 10:51:28 AM »
 I shall go to the funeral service of my secondary school science teacher, Mr. Tam, on April 2, 2013.  I still remember the first question at his first science lesson.
 
“What is the shortest distance between two points?”  I thought that I had the answer.  I felt that I had the answer.  It was obvious.  But I could not give the answer at that time.   The answer was – “a straight line”.  Even though I embarrassed myself in front of the Class for not providing the answer, I felt in love with Science ever since.
 
He also raised some non-obvious scientific phenomena.  Does a heavier object fall faster than a lighter one?  My initial reaction was YES.  That was wrong but many wise people in the early centuries also believed the wrong answer.
 
The classic one is – is the Earth round or flat?  My untrained answer is that it must be round because the sun and the moon are round.  Then I learned the story of Galileo.   He was forced by the Church to say that the Earth was flat even though he knew from all his observation that the Earth was round.
 
The most important lesson I learned from Mr. Tam was – in science, one needs to make careful observations and experiments.  One can make assumptions or hypothesis.  However, the hypothesis must be backed up by experiments.  Even if one of the experiments contradicts the hypothesis, the hypothesis cannot be turned into a Physical Law.  The hypothesis must be modified or dropped all together.
 
We are facing the same situation in FLEET.  We have many confirmed prototypes that show Average Output Power greater than Average Input Power.  This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Some members in the Forum yelled that the Experiments must be wrong.  They refuse to look into the possibility of energy coming from the environment or Lead-out Energy.  Who will turn out to be the true scientists?
 
I do hope that Mr. Tam will rest in peace knowing that at least one of his students is willing to fight for Scientific Truth.  Amen.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2013, 07:02:56 PM by ltseung888 »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #436 on: March 31, 2013, 06:48:15 AM »
Board 83 and Board 84 for Prof. Steven Jones (PhysicsProf).
 
The initial package appeared to be lost.  A new package will be sent.  This new package will have two oscilloscopet test ready boards (83 and 84).  Prof. Jones has the Atten Oscilloscope and is in the position of verifying the analysis directly.
 
I am usng the Zhou technique - just test using the oscilloscope on Input Waveform and see if the current has net negative value.
 
May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World together.

Why are the frequencies of the two boards 83 and 84 so different? One is almost three times faster than the other one. Is this an experimental error?

Your REAL current does not have "net negative value", because if it did, your input batteries/capacitors would charge up, and keep charging up, and keep charging up....... The fact that they do not, indicates that your "net negative current value" is an artefact of some kind.

As I said before.... your only evidence for any COP other than unity is from your particular spreadsheet analyses of your instrumental measurements. You have absolutely no concurrent validity demonstrating that your measurements are correct. It is possible to construct manifestly NON-overunity devices that show the same negative input current artefact that you are showing. But it is not possible for you to provide any other, concurrent, demonstration that your devices are OU in any way. Your OU is only in your measurements and calculations, nowhere else.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #437 on: March 31, 2013, 07:29:01 AM »
Why are the frequencies of the two boards 83 and 84 so different? One is almost three times faster than the other one. Is this an experimental error?
@TK
 
There were no experimental errors.  Every board was hand-built and possibly by different individuals.  Variations in toroid winding, soldering technique and component positioning would give rise to different results.  Some boards did not show OU at all.  Such boards were rejected.  The passing criteria by Mr. Zhou was examination of the Negative Current waveform.
 
*** I have stated many times before - not all JTs show OU even though they all light up the LEDs.  The oscilloscope must be used to select - especially when the Boards are produced in the garage fashion.

 
It does not matter about concurrent validity checks at this point.  I am only interested in other testers producing same results with their oscilloscopes.  That will elminiate any experimental or equipment errors.  One step at a time.
 
@poynt99
 
When will you be able to hook up Board 33 to your 4 channel oscilloscope?  Thank you in advance.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #438 on: March 31, 2013, 10:49:56 AM »


Your REAL current does not have "net negative value", because if it did, your input batteries/capacitors would charge up, and keep charging up, and keep charging up....... The fact that they do not, indicates that your "net negative current value" is an artefact of some kind.


http://youtu.be/zBR9lO2ISGs
 
@TK
 
The pulse charging mechanism is more complicated than you thought.  The Battery Voltage fluctuates and the trend can go UP or DOWN.  At present, if the trend is UP, I let the recharging continue.  If the trend is DOWN, I disconnect the battery.  I may insert another battery or just let the battery “rest”.  With such monitoring, I managed to get a 1.26V rechargeable battery (energizer) to recharge back to over 1.4V. 
 
 
However, when I was not monitoring, the rundown trend might continue.  The Battery Voltage could drop to <1V and no amount of Pulse Charging can bring it up again.  If I use normal recharging (from the commercial recharger), the Battery can be recharged again.  Many researchers reported that such a process would shorten the life of the Battery.  Similar behavior on the 12V car battery recharger was reported by teams trained by me.  They claimed that they might have solved the problem.  How???
 
*** A better video showing the BSI Demo Board recharging the Input Rechargeable AA Battery and lighting 38 LEDs at the same time.  This 3 minute video clearly shows that the battery voltage increased from 0.809V to 0.870V in around 3 minutes while lighting 38 LEDs.  What is the source of this energy?  Lead-out Energy!
 
http://youtu.be/FRUBuuh8whQ
 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #439 on: March 31, 2013, 06:21:19 PM »
@poynt99
 
When will you be able to hook up Board 33 to your 4 channel oscilloscope?  Thank you in advance.
I am hoping to work on it Monday, as I am off that day.

Offline Pirate88179

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #440 on: March 31, 2013, 09:53:13 PM »
I am hoping to work on it Monday, as I am off that day.

I want to make a prediction here.  I believe that .99's tests will show somewhere between .60 and .69% efficiency.  Not bad for a simple JT circuit but no where near 100%, much less 200%+ as has been discussed.

From what I see in the photos, these boards are not even using ferrite toroids, they appear to be using the powdered iron type.  Obviously, these will work but we have found that you need a very high permeability ferrite to get the numbers into the 80% plus range.  Since the testers are not using these toroids, my prediction is derived from numbers we have seen in the earlier days of the JT topic.

For example, off the top of my head, in the Jeanna's JT circuit, we used ferrite with a permeability rating of 10,000.  That turned out to be a great circuit that could do many things but, it was not O.U. by any means.

The above is just a prediction and/or educated (somewhat) guess.  I just wanted to get this on the record.  This is not intended in any way to detract from Lawrence's efforts here at all.  He has gone through a lot of trouble and has spent a lot of time on this and, I admire him for doing so.

When the numbers come in from those that really know how to measure such devices, I may be proven wrong, but I do not think so.

I look forward to .99's results.  If Lawrence is correct, I would be very happy for him and be one of the first to congratulate him.

Is TK testing one of these boards?

Bill

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #441 on: March 31, 2013, 11:46:25 PM »
 
I want to make a prediction here. I believe that .99's tests will show somewhere between .60 and .69% efficiency. Not bad for a simple JT circuit but no where near 100%, much less 200%+ as has been discussed.
 
 From what I see in the photos, these boards are not even using ferrite toroids, they appear to be using the powdered iron type. Obviously, these will work but we have found that you need a very high permeability ferrite to get the numbers into the 80% plus range. Since the testers are not using these toroids, my prediction is derived from numbers we have seen in the earlier days of the JT topic.
 
 For example, off the top of my head, in the Jeanna's JT circuit, we used ferrite with a permeability rating of 10,000. That turned out to be a great circuit that could do many things but, it was not O.U. by any means.
 
 The above is just a prediction and/or educated (somewhat) guess. I just wanted to get this on the record. This is not intended in any way to detract from Lawrence's efforts here at all. He has gone through a lot of trouble and has spent a lot of time on this and, I admire him for doing so.
 
 When the numbers come in from those that really know how to measure such devices, I may be proven wrong, but I do not think so.
 
 I look forward to .99's results. If Lawrence is correct, I would be very happy for him and be one of the first to congratulate him.
 
 Is TK testing one of these boards?
 
 Bill
 

@Bill
 
TK is NOT testing one of these boards.  If he had one or more of these boards, he would have used the high end oscilloscopes to check the results.   At present, he is trying to help by scrutinizing for possible experimental errors.  I appreciate that as it prepares me for the inevitable meetings with the Top Universities.
 
That brings up the point – why are the well known JT researchers not using the oscilloscopes to check their circuits?  My present circuit is just the plain JT.  Admittedly, I rejected many – probably more than half.  Now I rely on Mr. Zhou and team who are much more skilled.  Previously, I relied on G-LED and BSI Hong Kong.  They are commercial entities and their primary goal is to make money.  They used oscilloscopes and got OU results.
 
Without the oscilloscopes, the research is like shooting birds in the dark.  My contributions are to propose the Lead-out Energy Theory and use two relatively cheap oscilloscopes.   But the floodgate is now open.  Any individual or organization with USD2,000 to spare can jump on the bandwagon and benefit the World.
 
*** Bill, you are so confident in predicting the COP is from 0.6 to 0.69.  What is the method you normally use to measure the COP of your JTs?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 01:53:37 AM by ltseung888 »

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #442 on: April 02, 2013, 01:20:23 AM »
 At the funeral service of my Secondary School Science Teacher, Mr. Tam
 
I had a chance to meet many old schoolmates.  Most of them either lost most of their hair or their hair turned white.  The organizer of the planned 50th meeting of the Old Boys that graduated in 1963 was there.  He said that at least 30 pasted away.  Another 10 might be too sick to come.  Some lost contact altogether.
 
One of them said: “If you have something you still want to accomplish, do it now.  At our age, there is not much time left. “
 
I got an Easter gift that carried a similar message.  So I am preparing the mass email to sow the seed.  The Boards for USA will be hand-delivered to Prof. Julian Tree in Shenzhen on April 5, 2013.  Another 100 oscilloscope test-ready Boards are being produced.
 
May the Almighty guide us on the right path to benefit the World.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #443 on: April 02, 2013, 10:53:45 AM »
Waveforms of Board 77,78 and 79.
 
The last three Boards in my Bedroom are 77, 78 and 79.  Another 100 has been ordered.  Many of the Boards have gone to Churches, Schools, Friends, Charitable Organizations.  When I sow seeds, some will fall on rock, some will be eaten by the birds etc.  The good thing is that I got donations to help me buy more seeds.
 
Hong Kong and China will become the leader in Lead-out Energy Research not because of me.  The generous and risk taking donors deserve much credit too.
 
Board 78 is different from the rest.  I shall look at it in more detail.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #444 on: April 02, 2013, 11:59:57 AM »
Board 78 waveforms and oscilloscope analysis.
 
Average Input Power   = -0.05546 watt
Average Output Power = -0.01164 watt
COP =0.21   (two negatives make one positive)
 
Since both Average Input Power and Average Output Power are negative, this board is giving energy out to both the DC Power Supply and the Load.  Energy must come from the surrounding environment.  This Board 78 will be kept for further research.
 
God reveal the secrets to those who try, try and try.....

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #445 on: April 02, 2013, 12:58:57 PM »
I want to make a prediction here.  I believe that .99's tests will show somewhere between .60 and .69% efficiency.  Not bad for a simple JT circuit but no where near 100%, much less 200%+ as has been discussed.

From what I see in the photos, these boards are not even using ferrite toroids, they appear to be using the powdered iron type.  Obviously, these will work but we have found that you need a very high permeability ferrite to get the numbers into the 80% plus range.  Since the testers are not using these toroids, my prediction is derived from numbers we have seen in the earlier days of the JT topic.

For example, off the top of my head, in the Jeanna's JT circuit, we used ferrite with a permeability rating of 10,000.  That turned out to be a great circuit that could do many things but, it was not O.U. by any means.

The above is just a prediction and/or educated (somewhat) guess.  I just wanted to get this on the record.  This is not intended in any way to detract from Lawrence's efforts here at all.  He has gone through a lot of trouble and has spent a lot of time on this and, I admire him for doing so.

When the numbers come in from those that really know how to measure such devices, I may be proven wrong, but I do not think so.

I look forward to .99's results.  If Lawrence is correct, I would be very happy for him and be one of the first to congratulate him.

Is TK testing one of these boards?

Bill


I think Bills prediction is right and I would like to make a prediction of my own, that if anyone uses Lawrence's flawed measuring technique they will also find OU,
it's like watching a politician in action quoting statistics all day long but when it comes to the reality, the truth is seriously lacking, Lawrence has known for many years that if he has genuinely got  OU he would be able to produce a self-runner, but he never does because even he knows he can't fake a self-runner with statistics.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #446 on: April 03, 2013, 02:04:43 AM »
Lawrence and all,

I am getting the tests set up, but a couple questions first:

1) What do I do/test (if anything) with the board with the 10F capacitor? Time how long the LED stays lit after charging the cap with a 1.5V battery? (looks like about 15 minutes or so in one test.)

2) For testing board 33, should I use a regular 1.5V battery, a rechargeable 1.5V battery, or a power supply set to 1.5V (or something lower?) for its source?

.99

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #447 on: April 03, 2013, 03:38:48 AM »
                        Itseung888 doesn't matter what you say... doesn't matter what your scopes show... doesn't matter how many testers you get involved... it all comes down to this.

NO SELF LOOP = NO INTEREST!


end of story.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #448 on: April 03, 2013, 03:59:56 AM »
 
Lawrence and all,
 
 I am getting the tests set up, but a couple questions first:
 
 1) What do I do/test (if anything) with the board with the 10F capacitor? Time how long the LED stays lit after charging the cap with a 1.5V battery? (looks like about 15 minutes or so in one test.)
 
 2) For testing board 33, should I use a regular 1.5V battery, a rechargeable 1.5V battery, or a power supply set to 1.5V (or something lower?) for its source?
 
 .99
 

@poynt99
 
Answers to your questions.
(1)    On the Board with the 10F capacitor, do the following tests:
a.       Do what you have done.  Connect the 1.5V battery for 1 minute.  Disconnect and see how long the LEDs remain ON.  15 minutes is about right for your Board.
b.      Connect the 1.5V battery for 1 minute.  Disconnect for 2 minutes.  Connect for 15 seconds.  Disconnect for 2 minutes and reconnect for 15 seconds.  Repeat this manually a couple of times and see if the LED remains brightly ON throughout the entire process.
c.       Step b shows the possibility of saving electricity.  If you have a twin timer, repeat step b automatically.

(2)    On the oscilloscope test-ready board, do the following tests:
a.       Use a DC Power Supply.  Connect your 4 channels according to the circuit diagram supplied with the Boards.  Show the waveforms at 0.5V, 1.0V and 1.5V.
b.      Do a full Oscilloscope analysis.  Show the Average Input Power, the Average Output Power, the comparison of the Output and Input Power curves and the resulting COP.  Do this with the DC Power Supply setting at 1.5V.
c.       Get two rechargeable AA batteries.  Note their starting voltage.  Run them down slightly on some electrical appliance (e.g. a toy fan).  An example is from 1.4 to 1.25V.  Use a voltmeter to monitor the change in voltage continuously.  Use one rechargeable AA battery as the Power Supply.  You may find that the voltage as shown on the Voltmeter does one of the three things. (Go up, Go down, Remain steady).
d.      If the voltage goes up, that implies the circuit is lighting the LED and recharging the Battery at the same time.  Leave it alone and see how high the voltage will go.
e.      If the voltage goes down, take out the battery and let it “rest”.  Insert the other battery and see what happens.  With luck or God’s Blessing, you will see step d behavior.
f.        If the voltage is steady, wait longer and see if it changes to step d or step e.
g.       Optionally, you can connect the oscilloscope and monitoring the waveform all the time.  You will probably find that the Input Current curve fluctuates quite a bit.  There may be sudden high positive or negative peaks.

(3)    Optionally, you are encouraged to use the oscilloscope test-ready board to drive the other Board with capacitor.  B1 is the positive and B3 is the negative.  The connection is equivalent to using the LED in parallel with the Input to the Capacitor board.  Display the waveforms.  You will see some interesting feedback waveforms.  More research is needed.
 
Your waveform displays and the full oscilloscope analysis giving COP and showing negative average input power will be of special interest.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #449 on: April 03, 2013, 09:30:12 AM »
Ah, so now we have negative output power as well as negative input power.  I shake my head slowly in awe.

Lawrence, I have asked you to provide traces from your scope's calibrator, so that we can see the probe response to a known square wave signal generated by the scope itself. I'll ask again now.

Please provide a calibrator trace from each probe, as they are at present, without making any adjustments to the probe's compensating trimmer cap.

I would also like to know if your readings are at all sensitive to the way the probe wires are routed. That is, with everything hooked up and running, if you move the probe wires around (not the probe contact points, just the wires) do the scope traces change at all?

Thanks in advance, and happy Chinese Easter.