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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?  (Read 600390 times)

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #765 on: May 08, 2013, 12:23:14 PM »
1. Where do those voltage numbers come from? What is the accuracy of your voltage measurement? Have you calibrated your voltage measurements against a known standard? This is absolutely necessary if you are reporting a claim that depends on a few milliVolts difference, as you are here.

2. "Apparent" brightness here is no good as a criterion for several reasons, not the least being observer bias. You absolutely need to have a reliable and accurate _instrumental_ measure of light output, especially if you are making a claim based on "similar" light outputs and voltage levels that differ by a few milliVolts.

I've already given you links for local experts with good test equipment, links for affordable and accurate voltage standards, and so on. Should I now find you a suitable method of measuring light intensity, or can you handle that search yourself?

3. We need to see the schematic for your timer in the black box. Many people have made the error of allowing power from their timer/clock/control electronics to make it through and add power to the system under test. Please show the exact schematic and hookup for your timer so that we can evaluate whether or not it might be also acting as a power supply to the circuit under test.

9 mv / 1250 mv == less than one percent.  A result that is not different from noise, being smaller than the voltage measurement error of your oscilloscope, anyway.
Experoment will last for many days/weeks.  If the difference is 1% per day.  10 days will be 10%.  We can have multiple teams verifying the results.  The cost of DMM and Twin Timer are much lower than DSOs.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #766 on: May 08, 2013, 04:04:20 PM »
Lawrence, you are very difficult to work with. I know that your command of written English is very good. Why, then, do you continually ignore the actual points that I and others make concerning your experimentation?

I did not ask you for a photograph of your instruments. I asked you for some evidence that they are reporting correct values ! You absolutely need a precisely known voltage source with which to calibrate your voltmeters and scopes! Absolute accuracy-- and repeatability-- is indeed important, even if you are merely comparing magnitudes -- you are claiming something extraordinary, and so your "proofs" must rise to the challenge.

I did not ask you for a photograph of your dual timer. I asked you for a schematic !

And you are likely incorrect that longer runs would result in greater percentage difference in the final voltages. You are also incorrect in your statement that accuracy of the timer is not important. And your subjective evaluation of light brightness is worth nothing at all -- please research "observer bias" also known as "experimenter bias" -- you absolutely do need repeatable, accurate and precise instrumental measurements of this parameter.

And you still have not answered the questions concerning the great voltage discrepancy that one of your probe/channel combos showed when reading the calibrator's output. The output should have read around 3.5 v but your scopeshot shows nearly FIVE TIMES that voltage. This calls into question all data obtained with that probe/channel combo, from the very beginning up until the time that you show that the problem is resolved, which you have not yet done, in spite of at least a half dozen requests.

SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #767 on: May 09, 2013, 06:13:06 AM »
Quote from: TinselKoala

...you are very difficult to work with.

...Why, then, do you continually ignore...

...I did not ask you for a photograph...

And you still have not answered the questions...

...which you have not yet done, in spite of
at least a half dozen requests.

Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?

How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.

Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?


ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #768 on: May 09, 2013, 06:53:34 AM »
I am putting the problems related to the DC offset on the Atten aside.  It is very probable that I may have access to a 4-CH Tektronics in the near future.
 
The focus is on the energy saving aspects with twin timer 10 second ON and 2 minutes OFF.  The experiment continues into day 2.
 
I do not think high accuracy or expensive equipment is needed in this case.  Poynt99 has a demo board that can easily be ON without the battery for over 10 minutes.  He can confirm that the LED hardly dims in the first 2 minutes.  This is the "requirement" to develop a solution for at least 3 real organizations.
 
God Bless.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #769 on: May 09, 2013, 08:26:16 AM »
Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?

How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.

Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?

What I have asked for is nothing more or less than basic requirements to support the claims being made, and would take a dedicated experimenter about half an hour to do.  Voltage standards for calibration are basic. Understanding one's tools is basic. Schematics and/or detailed specifications of apparatus used are basic. Obtaining concurrently valid measurements by using different systems is basic. Calibrating your tools is basic.

Are we better off today? Apparently not, because it is still true that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. However, anyone with the backing can evidently make all sorts of claims and pretend to support them with bad data, incorrectly obtained, while studiously avoiding any actual tests of the claims.

A capacitor can provide a known amount of input energy to the circuit over a known period of time. The output power can be monitored and the output energy can be calculated. The input energy can be compared to the output energy. A comprehensive series of experiments using this method might take a day or two to perform and would add real knowledge. Further, comparing two close brightness levels "by eye" in order to support some kind of overunity or enhanced efficiency claim is just silly. Lawrence has financial backing. Let him buy some proper test kit with it! A suitable light level meter of some kind. A voltage standard for calibration purposes. Let him rent a decent oscilloscope and an integrating power meter from the local test equipment rental company that I found for him. Even a simple paper chart recorder to monitor voltages over a long period of time would be nice to use on this kind of testing.

But instead we are running around HongKong providing fun and entertainment for a discount electronics broker and sending off NON_OU test boards to department secretaries all around the world.

Are we better off today?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #770 on: May 09, 2013, 08:34:04 AM »
I am putting the problems related to the DC offset on the Atten aside.
Then you must also put "aside"... by retraction... all the data obtained from these inaccurate and improperly used bottom-end oscilloscopes until and unless the accuracy and precision issues are addressed and corrected. An honest scientist would make a public statement withdrawing conclusions based on faulty data from faulty test equipment.

Quote
  It is very probable that I may have access to a 4-CH Tektronics in the near future.
 
The focus is on the energy saving aspects with twin timer 10 second ON and 2 minutes OFF.  The experiment continues into day 2.
 
I do not think high accuracy or expensive equipment is needed in this case.  Poynt99 has a demo board that can easily be ON without the battery for over 10 minutes.  He can confirm that the LED hardly dims in the first 2 minutes.  This is the "requirement" to develop a solution for at least 3 real organizations.
 
God Bless.
If a timer is required to produce these results.... then the power used by the timer must be included in the input power to the system.

Plus, the "requirement" to show extra efficiency is to show that the electrical energy input is converted to light output with more efficiency. That means brighter light, and/or longer runs at the same light level. Since you have no instrumental measurements of light level, you have no data. Confirming visually that "the LED hardly dims in the first two minutes" is an anecdote, not a measurement that proves anything.

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #771 on: May 09, 2013, 10:56:58 AM »
The following was sent to Mr. Zhou and the Atten Technical Support.  I may have missed some firmware updates etc.
 
Both scopes showed crossing 0 ref line characteristics.  But the values were very different.  Both Scopes were re-calibrated according to the Instruction manual.  (The comparison may not be fair as I used CH1 Vrms as the common point.  The frequencies were clearly different).
 
That is why I prefer to wait for the Tektronics before doing more DSO analysis.  My advice to researchers is - get access to a high end DSO.  If you cannot have one in your lab, make sure you have acess to one somewhere. 
 
God Bless.

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #772 on: May 09, 2013, 11:28:24 AM »
Is the "age of instant communication" turning
us into a lot of nagging, impatient old hens?

How difficult it must have been back in the
"Old Days" (pre-telegraph/telephone/internet)
when letters between experimenters on opposite
sides of the globe could take weeks or even months
to be delivered.

Are we any better off today or are we deceiving
ourselves when we think so?
@SeaMonkey
 
Do not worry about the comments from TK.  It is just his style.  Once you get used to it, you can pick out the valuable points and ignore the negative aspects.  The good thing about internet posting is that you can just ignore certain points.  Appearing rude is acceptable in heated scientific discussions.
 
I sow seeds.  My eyesight and hearing are poor.  My hands are shaky.  I have given up soldering and reading long manuals with small print.  I post my findings as they come along.  There is no telling whether I have tomorrow.  More than one-fifth of my old schoolmates already passed away.  The seeds are FREE and now I only send them to those who have high end DSOs and who specifically ask for them.
 
Internet posting is different from publishing a top scientific paper.  A top scientific paper takes months to prepare.  Internet posting takes minutes.  The standards are different.  I just post results as I understand them at the moment of posting.  Some mistakes or misunderstandings will be inevitable.  But I had to admit that I learned much in this process.  I think we are much better off today.....
 
God Bless.

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #773 on: May 09, 2013, 11:45:09 AM »
Unfortunately TK is right. Charge capacitor, do what TK is asking and face the music....  ;D

ltseung888

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4363
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #774 on: May 09, 2013, 02:19:00 PM »
Unfortunately TK is right. Charge capacitor, do what TK is asking and face the music....  ;D
Any one can produce the Board.  TK actually produced one.  It will take him little effort to build another one.  He can do the above experiment himself easily.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #775 on: May 09, 2013, 02:47:07 PM »
Lawrence,

Either something is different between how those two ATTEN scopes are set up, or they aren't worth the plastic they're made of. The readings are completely different.

Why has Mr. Zhou not tried one of his Instek scopes?

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #776 on: May 09, 2013, 05:36:29 PM »
Any one can produce the Board.  TK actually produced one.  It will take him little effort to build another one.  He can do the above experiment himself easily.
No, I cannot, not "easily".

1. I "produced" a board with this identical circuit long ago. When Lawrence showed the pictures of his pad-per-hole boards, I was moved to make my PCB board with sensing resistors and testpoints all installed and connected with minimum fuss and no chance of error, unlike his chosen construction techniques. (He could have had massproduced PCBs made for a tiny bit more cost than what he spent on the pad-per-hole prototype boards.)

2. I have never detected nor claimed to detect any overunity performance from my JT boards, regardless of construction, from boardless "deadbug" types all the way through to the PCBJT and beyond. Therefore, testing _my_ boards in the sensitive and comprehensive manner described would be an exercise in futility. It does take some time to do this test, and the test should be repeated exactly enough times for statistics like error ranges to be derived from the results. Why bother testing known underunity devices, except for reference? Let's see a proper test series of this kind for a claimed _overunity_ board like one of Lawrence's.

3. It would NOT be "easy" for me to do the complete test as described, although I could do it if necessary. My oscilloscopes are analog and thus would require "old-school" techniques to perform the necessary output multiplications and integrations (with the modern additions of digital photography and spreadsheeting making the process somewhat easier, but still far from "easy"). It would perhaps take me four hours of concentrated effort to produce the output integration accurately using my analog kit... and the result will be within a few percent of that produced in milliseconds by a good high-end DSO or DPSO. Nevertheless I have already illustrated the first part of the testing-- the application of a known input energy during a known time interval-- in a YT video. In spite of all this, I just might take the time and trouble to do the "full Monty" in analog, for reference and educational purposes. Maybe. I'm getting pretty tired of all this, though.

4. Apparently these Atten oscilloscopes are indeed not worth the plastic they are molded from. They are flashy toys but cannot be relied upon for quantitative measurements, and even qualitative evaluation of the actual traces is problematic. Even the 'about' value of their calibrator output is flaky: surely it is possible for a scope maker to provide an _accurately  known_ voltage level at the calibrator output! Failing that, any experimenter using this kind of scope absolutely needs an independent voltage reference source.

5. What do you mean, Lawrence, that you have "set" your channel 1 to 500.0 mV RMS? I don't understand this. Please explain further. I see that both channels are indicating exactly 500.0 mV RMS in the numbers-in-boxes window. How?

Quote
I sow seeds.  My eyesight and hearing are poor.  My hands are shaky.  I have given up soldering and reading long manuals with small print.  I post my findings as they come along.  There is no telling whether I have tomorrow.  More than one-fifth of my old schoolmates already passed away.  The seeds are FREE and now I only send them to those who have high end DSOs and who specifically ask for them.

Lawrence, I am sorry for the problems of old age and illness. You can believe me when I tell you that I too have similar problems, although I can see well enough using glasses and magnifiers, and I've been soldering for so long that I could do it in my sleep probably, although I am increasingly shaky myself. I also have little patience for long instruction manuals with fine print... but if I need the information, there is little else that I can do to obtain it. Many of my old friends have died, too. There is no telling whether I have tomorrow....

The question you need to ask yourself is this: Do you really want to spend your tomorrows sowing rotten seeds on stony soil? Or do you want to spend it with your grandkids, playing in the sun?

Seeds are fine to sow, if they are fertile and will yield worthwhile, sweet fruit. If they are known to be rotten and corrupt, seeds for weeds instead of nourishing vegetables.... it is not useful to sow them, even if they are "free".

Have you gotten any reports back from anyone you've sent your boards off to?

Void

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #777 on: May 09, 2013, 06:59:17 PM »
Is there a link to a schematic of an optimal version of this JT circuit? I'd like to build the most optimized version and run some power input and output tests to see how the circuit performs.
Thanks

SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #778 on: May 09, 2013, 09:15:03 PM »
Quote from: TinselKoala
The question you need to ask yourself is this: Do you really want to spend your tomorrows sowing rotten seeds on stony soil? Or do you want to spend it with your grandkids, playing in the sun?

Seeds are fine to sow, if they are fertile and will yield worthwhile, sweet fruit. If they are known to be rotten and corrupt, seeds for weeds instead of nourishing vegetables.... it is not useful to sow them, even if they are "free".

Are the "seeds" which are sown in the
thoughts above fertile with the ability
to produce sweet fruit?

Expressions which are intended to elevate
oneself while denigrating another reveal
more about the source than the target.

Has this discussion borne fruit which is
beneficial?  I would argue that it has.

Have "issues" arisen which relate to "ego"
and feelings of frustration, resentment
and the perceived need to condemn?
Unfortunately, yes.

But without fail, in the end "Truth" will
rise to the surface.  It may have already.

Truth about more than the questions
ostensibly under discussion...

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?
« Reply #779 on: May 09, 2013, 09:54:59 PM »
Are the "seeds" which are sown in the
thoughts above fertile with the ability
to produce sweet fruit?

If you allow weeds to set seed in your garden and they pollute my carefully tended lawn..... then I have every right to complain. If your "seeds" take up valuable time, energy and resources and wind up giving those who actually are trying to do proper research into fringe issues a bad name... then I have every right to try to quell the sowing of those dangerous seeds.
Quote

Expressions which are intended to elevate
oneself while denigrating another reveal
more about the source than the target.
I think it's clear that I and PW and .99 have more knowledge of the issues of oscilloscope operation and measurement in general than does LTseung. We have tried to share our knowledge with him, not to elevate ourselves (something that's not needed) but rather to elevate HIM to a level of knowledge and competency so that he can be confident... and accurate... in his assertions. To criticize this effort says more about the critic than the target.
Quote
Has this discussion borne fruit which is
beneficial?  I would argue that it has.
So would I. I'm sure Lawrence is much more competent in making oscilloscope measurements now, and I hope that other readers of this thread have also learned valuable skills along the way. Just as the lathe is the King of Tools, so also is the oscilloscope the King of Test Equipment, and anyone who does electrical overunity research should understand them and perhaps even own one or two reliable, accurate and precise units of their own. Making the mistake of thinking that "digital is better" no matter the cost level is just that: a mistake, and as we have seen here, numbers in boxes may be convenient but they are not always correct.
Quote

Have "issues" arisen which relate to "ego"
and feelings of frustration, resentment
and the perceived need to condemn?
Unfortunately, yes.

But without fail, in the end "Truth" will
rise to the surface.  It may have already.

I contend that it would NOT have risen to the surface without the strongly critical evaluations that have occurred in this thread. The claimant has made claims based on incorrect instrument usage, incorrect instrument calibration, imprecise and unreliable instrumentation, and overenthusiastic expressions of religious faith. He is receiving support _because_ of his faulty claims, and these claims would still be standing had we here not uncovered the various errors involved in making them. He has resisted performing real tests of his claims, preferring instead to provide "proof" in the form of demonstrations that in fact prove nothing. Lawrence is a good guy, no doubt about that, but certainly some of his _actions_ seem to require "condemnation", like using uncompensated probes, sending out test boards before measurements are confirmed as to accuracy, and so on.

Quote
Truth about more than the questions
ostensibly under discussion...

Feel free to list those other questions whose truth has risen to the surface in this discussion.