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 529517 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #480 on: April 07, 2013, 10:41:03 AM »
Lawrence, now that you have calibrated -- or rather adjusted the compensation of -- all your probes..... you still haven't said anything about the large voltage discrepancy that one of your probes showed. Was this fixed, what was the cause, and how did you fix it? This would not normally be caused by poor compensation and would not normally be addressed by correcting the compensation. Rather, it sounds to me like perhaps there is something wrong with the voltage divider inside the probe.
(I recently had to repair one of my probes, the initial 100R resistor was open entirely to small voltages but would conduct for higher ones, wreaking utter havoc with my ability to interpret readings from it. It was evidently damaged by a surge or something, or maybe mechanical strain. But on replacement with a new resistor all is now copacetic again.)

Could you please provide _new_ images of your calibrator output traces from each probe? This is just so we all can be quite sure that you have indeed compensated them correctly and that the voltage problem is fixed.

Please set the scope up as follows (Do NOT use any "auto" or "default" or "factory settings" buttons, please do this manually): time base at 250 microseconds per division. Vertical attenuation 1 volt/division, and assure channel is not inverted. Channel set for 10x attenuated probe, and the switch on the probe itself set to 10x. Channel baseline trace set _exactly_ on the center horizontal graticule line, and trigger set for the channel displayed and at one division above the baseline (+ 1.0 volt) and rising edge. Parameters displayed as "numbers in boxes" to the right of the traces should include the frequency _of the displayed channel_ and its P-P voltage.

ETA: I notice that you often display "RMS" values in the parameters boxes. Are you using these RMS values in your spreadsheet power computations in any way?

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #481 on: April 07, 2013, 12:14:38 PM »
@TK
 
You posted too much information for me to digest at present. Poynt99 has Board 33 and is in a position to answer most of your questions.  PhysicsProf should have two Boards within a few days.  PhysicsProf also has the Atten and he can help me to answer your questions.
 
In addition, Mr. Zhou and I met Prof. Julian Tree over the weekend.  Prof. Julian Tree actually built an oscilloscope test-ready board himself and presented it in Europe and at Dartmouth University, USA.  His Board has a COP of -4.9 and he used the oscilloscopes in the Physics Teaching Laboratory of Dartmouth.  I gave him 5 Boards (101-105) to take back to Europe and USA.  These Boards were tested at our meeting in Shenzhen.  He will further test them before comments.
 
To make sure that the Atten Oscilloscopes were calibrated and set up properly, I asked for the help of Mr. Zhou.  Mr. Zhou sells the Atten Oscilloscopes, calibrates and demonstrates the features for his customers.  In addition, Dr. Raymond Ting, who checks out new invention claims for the Chinese Government also has two Boards.  He has two Atten Oscilloscopes.  I shall post their certified results when ready.
 
I sow seeds.  I follow the Atten User Manuals for Calibration.  I do not claim to be an oscilloscope expert.  (I never mastered all the features on my mobile phone .)  Now the seeds are in the hands of experts.  We can wait for their test results.
 
My offer to send you a test-ready board still stands.  In that way, You can do all tests correctly yourself.  I shall not make mistakes and waste the time of the top experts especially now - many influential individuals are involved.
 
God Bless

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #482 on: April 07, 2013, 01:13:40 PM »
Lawrence, when will you get it through your silly head that I have six or seven JTs here that vastly outperform yours? When will you realize that the circuit I showed above on the printed circuit board is EXACTLY THE SAME circuit that your boards are using? Does overunity really depend on using a pad-per-hole board sloppily assembled with cold solder joints and stray wiring? Please do not talk about sending me one of your boards. Instead, address the problems in your own presentation, analysis, data gathering, and interpretations.

Why do you not respond specifically to my specific questions?
1. I have asked you several times if your waveforms depend at all on probe cable routing. It would take you five minutes to perform the appropriate tests and report your results.
2. I have asked you to provide your calibrator output traces again, to show that your probes are now properly compensated and that the voltage discrepancy has been corrected. None of the big names you drop or the references you make are helping you to perform this simple task, which might take ten minutes of your precious time.
3. I have asked you how you resolved the huge voltage error of one of your probes. This is not a compensation issue, and since the error is about a factor of 5, it is probably not simply a 10x atten setting improperly configured. What caused it, how did you correct it, and let's see the trace from your calibrator proving it has been corrected. Please.

Do you recall your difficulty with the concept of AC versus DC coupling? Perhaps you will acknowledge that there may be one or two things about oscilloscopes and measurements that you do not understand fully, that your manual does not help you with, and that your various named experts are also seemingly not aware of. However, if you pay careful attention to what people like Poynt99, Picowatt, and... yes.... yours truly are telling you, you just might improve your skills and knowledge.

Quote
Poynt99 has Board 33 and is in a position to answer most of your questions.

How can Poynt99 possibly answer my questions? You are the one with the test probe that indicates the wrong voltage,  you are the one who posted the photograph that conflicts with the schematic you posted, you are the only one who can move your test leads around .... how can .99 possibly answer these questions? Only YOU can answer my questions, Lawrence.

ETA: I notice that you often display "RMS" values in the parameters boxes. Are you using these RMS values in your spreadsheet power computations in any way? Is Poynt99 in a position to answer this question?

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #483 on: April 07, 2013, 03:11:50 PM »
Cable position effects.  Not noticeable in the case shown.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #484 on: April 07, 2013, 04:09:17 PM »
Although the photo is for board #71 and the scope shots are for board #80, yes Lawrence you need to respond to the question of how the probe was connected for board #80's input current measurement, because the probe configuration shown in #71 is not in accordance with your diagram.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #485 on: April 08, 2013, 02:38:52 AM »
Although the photo is for board #71 and the scope shots are for board #80, yes Lawrence you need to respond to the question of how the probe was connected for board #80's input current measurement, because the probe configuration shown in #71 is not in accordance with your diagram.

@poynt99 and TK
 
Thank you for spending so much energy and time on this thread.  I shall try to do a full "thinking" review on why I started with Vrms and then the "unconventional incorrect" probe setting later.
 
Meanwhile, I redid the Board 80 Input measurements with the correct probe setting.  I also set the CH2 invert to "ON" and then to "OFF" and captured the CSV files.  Apparently the CSV values were the same with either setting.  The invert setting affected the display but not the captured values. The CSV file results in both cases showed that the Average Input Power was negative.  Please confirm with Board 33 and Tk's own boards.
 
May the Almighty grant us wisdom and revelation so that we can benefit the World together.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #486 on: April 08, 2013, 02:41:39 AM »
OK, thanks Lawrence for doing the cable test. But I don't see any batteries in the setup.... are you running on an external, bench power supply?

Because of the discrepancy between that photo I linked above and your circuit diagram, it's important that we confirm that your new measurements are taken with the probes positioned correctly (as in the schematic, not the photo), that the scope's probe compensation and probe attenuation are properly set, that the channel input couplings are properly set to DC, that the math correction that .99 has mentioned is done, and that the Channel Invert function is properly used, or not used, for the input current measurement channel as appropriate _and documented_.

Referring to your Manual, part 2.6.1.5, I see where the channel invert function is set, but not how it is indicated on the live scope screen during trace acquisition. Many scopes have an indicator that shows channel inversion. Is there one on the Atten scope? I can't see it if there is. If there isn't one on the live acquisition screen it is possible that a channel is inadvertently set to invert, or not invert, incorrectly and you might not notice it unless you took the trouble to check and document the invert/non invert setting along with each measurement session. It would not be the first time in history that a claimed overunity result was tracked down to an improperly inverted scope signal.

Could you do another test for me, please? With your equipment turned OFF and not hooked to any board in any way, but plugged into the mains as your test session requires... please take your handheld DMM and check for continuity between all of your equipment grounds. Look for continuity especially from your Power Supply's Negative output lead, to your scope probe "grounds" and the scope chassis. Be sure your equipment is OFF but plugged into the mains as normal when you do this check.

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #487 on: April 08, 2013, 02:48:09 AM »
Quote

UNDP Grant Programme 2013
 
Attention: Mr. Tseung,
 
You have been nominated by the UN for a Humanitarian Development Cash Grant program to enhance and develop the standard of living geared towards poverty eradication as targeted by the year 2020.You have been granted the sum of 950,000.00 Pounds your grant pin # UNF/FBF-816-1119 G-900-94.
 
 
 
Contact payment department for due remittance of funds.
 
Payment Officer : Mrs. Grace Mayer
 
Email: undpgrantclaimsdept@hotmail.co.uk
 
You are to provide her with the following information’s below for claims.
 
 
 
1 Full Names:
 
2 Full Address:
 
3 Nationality:
 
4 Age:
 
5 Gender:
 
6 Occupation:
 
7 Cell Phone:
 
8 Alternate Email Address:
 
 
 
[font=]Note: [/font]This is an automatic message do not click on your reply button,only send all require details to the below Email: undpgrantclaimsdept@hotmail.co.uk only.
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Dr. Waiser Marlene.
 
Chairman UNDP Grant Programme
 

I sent a couple of boards and some information to UN some weeks ago.  Is the above a legit response??? 
 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #488 on: April 08, 2013, 02:54:13 AM »
Ah, I just saw your post about the CSV file not changing in response to the channel invert setting. That seems strange to me. Is there some way we can confirm this?  Reviewing Table 2-47 and the associated text in the manual, I see nothing that is very helpful on this question.

But OK.... if the CSV storage is the raw, non-inverted data regardless of how the invert display button is set, then a negative value calculated here, with your probes positioned as in the schematic and apparently as in your latest picture above, indicates conventional +positive+ current flow in the normal direction, just as .99 has been telling you. See my rough sketch a few posts ago to understand which side of the current viewing resistor has the higher voltage in each case. The "negative" voltage reading comes from the fact that the probe TIP, at the negative pole of the battery, must be at a LOWER voltage than the ground clip on the circuit side of the current viewing resistor, when the current is flowing normally. So if the voltage at the ground clip is assigned "zero", then the probe tip will be negative.



Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #490 on: April 08, 2013, 03:04:59 AM »
Ah, I just saw your post about the CSV file not changing in response to the channel invert setting. That seems strange to me. Is there some way we can confirm this?  Reviewing Table 2-47 and the associated text in the manual, I see nothing that is very helpful on this question.

But OK.... if the CSV storage is the raw, non-inverted data regardless of how the invert display button is set, then a negative value calculated here, with your probes positioned as in the schematic and apparently as in your latest picture above, indicates conventional +positive+ current flow in the normal direction, just as .99 has been telling you. See my rough sketch a few posts ago to understand which side of the current viewing resistor has the higher voltage in each case. The "negative" voltage reading comes from the fact that the probe TIP, at the negative pole of the battery, must be at a LOWER voltage than the ground clip on the circuit side of the current viewing resistor, when the current is flowing normally. So if the voltage at the ground clip is assigned "zero", then the probe tip will be negative.

@TK and poynt99,
 
Can you point out where the highlighted information is posted.  Thank you.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #492 on: April 08, 2013, 03:39:21 AM »

@TK and poynt99,
 
Can you point out where the highlighted information is posted.  Thank you.
Most recently, .99 explained it here, just a few posts ago:
http://www.overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg356491/#msg356491
My sketch, posted a few comments ago and attached again below, should help make it clear. When the current is flowing normally _out_ of the battery, supplying power TO the circuit, then the two ends of the current sensing resistor are at different voltages.... with the junction of the resistor and the negative battery pole ("A) at a LOWER voltage than the end of the resistor that is towards the rest of the circuit ("B"). So a conventional current flowing out of the positive pole, thru the circuit dissipating power, will, when measured with your schematic diagram's probe orientation and a NON inverted channel -- as in your CSV data, apparently -- then you will read a negative value for this voltage, and this negative will carry through the Ohm's law calculation and result in a _negative_ power value. This is because of the "reversed" orientation of the probe, which is required in the special case of your circuit where four channels must be used simultaneously and with a common "reference" point, what you are calling the common circuit ground. Claro?

Offline ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #493 on: April 08, 2013, 10:44:35 AM »
One other important issue to be keenly aware of Lawrence, is that your CH1 (A1-A2) probe is NOT giving you an accurate measurement of the true battery voltage for making the input power computation. You are in fact measuring across both the battery and the battery CSR resistor.

In order to obtain the true battery voltage measurement from the A1-A2 difference, you must subtract the voltage drop across the battery CSR (A4-A3) from the A1-A2 measurement.

Since A1-A2 is positive, and A4-A3 is negative, subtracting the two is equivalent to adding the two. So in fact your battery voltage is actually higher than what your A1-A2 probe is capturing, and as such, your input power result will be higher (in the negative direction) as well.

Of course you would need to do this computation in the spread sheet.
@TK and poynt99,

Please help me to get this confusion out from the spreadsheet analysis.  Let us assume that NO Invert function was applied in both Ch1 and Ch2.  In the spreadsheet, should I add the A1-A2 value (positive) and the A4-A3 (negative) values together to get the TRUE input voltage across the battery? 
 
The addition will effectively lower the value of the "Input Voltage" (A1-A2 value).  I should then use this lowered value in the calculation of the Input Power.  Multiple the lowered (A1-A2) value with the captured (A4-A3) value.  For the calculation of the COP or the Power Comparison, I should then add a negative sign to the resulting Input Power value.

Is that correct?

Thank you for clarifying this point.   I shall redo the experiments with the "correct" analysis if needed.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #494 on: April 08, 2013, 12:03:44 PM »
No, Lawrence, your true input battery voltage is HIGHER than what your probe reads. Your probe is reading the battery and the resistor in series, not just the battery alone, and so is reading low, by the amount of the voltage drop across the resistor.

Hmm. Let me see if I can give my explanation without confusing things too badly.

Is the battery CSR to be considered part of the "power supply", or part of the circuit being powered? Since it's dissipating some power that the battery is supplying, I tend to think of it as part of the circuit. So the battery voltage that should be used for input power to the complete circuit is that which is read directly from the battery terminals without this resistor in series.

But the probe arrangement that Lawrence must use reads the battery voltage _with_ the resistor in series, and so must be reading _lower_ than the true battery voltage that we seek. Right?

What is the magnitude of this difference, and how can we correct for it? Since we know we need an answer that is Higher than what we are reading on the battery probe, we know that we have to _add_ something positive to our reading.

The difference is the voltage drop across the resistor. The true battery voltage is higher than what the probe reads, by the value of the voltage drop across the resistor, which is given directly by the "current" probe. The only problem is the negative sign of the reading from the current probe, which, as we recall, is an artefact of the way we need to position probes in this circuit.

So you take the reading from the battery probe, and ADD the _absolute value_ of the voltage drop across the resistor given by the current probe. The result gives the true battery voltage, as if the resistor wasn't there between the battery and the probe leads.

Note that this is NOT different from what .99 said. It just puts it in a different way. Subtracting a negative number is equivalent to adding its absolute value.


Of course if the resistor is considered part of the circuit, then the power dissipation in the resistor itself must be included in the circuit's total power dissipation as output.


ETA: I think your scope itself has the ability to do this "live" by selecting the Subtract function in the Math setup screens. Subtracting the voltage drop seen by the Ch2 probe from the battery-resistor voltage seen by the Ch 1 probe will yield the correct answer, because subtracting a negative is equivalent to adding a positive value. Again, this is the same thing that .99 has said and that I have explained above.