Author Topic: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity? (Read 602660 times)

conradelektro · « **Reply #915 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:05:48 PM »

@Itseung888:

As far as I understand, you have sent out at least 30 of your devices to various people.

Did you get any useful feed back?

Greetings, Conrad

Void · « **Reply #916 on:** May 22, 2013, 02:30:26 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on May 22, 2013, 04:32:32 AM

@Void,
I shall be sending you the items in the diagram. They fit nicely into the plastic box. Please review and see if you need anything else. I shall also post the test results for all the Boards here first and outline what I believe to be the "confirmation" experiments. You are welcome to do any additional tests.
Two spare boards 133 and 134 will be included. You can pass them on to whomever you feel as helpful.
God Bless.

Hi Lawrence. Ok, that sounds good. Looks like I will have everything I need to run tests for you. I will posts my test results back here, if you like.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #917 on:** May 22, 2013, 03:45:33 PM »

I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.

The moral is this: If you want high COPs from your devices, you must measure them properly. A bottom-end Atten DSO is the right instrument to use. No other instruments will show you the necessary zero-crossings, therefore there is something wrong with them. Since the Atten DSO shows what is needed, it can be used, as in the latest series of shots, to support claims of OU, even though test and calibration measurements show the Atten DSO to be error prone, imprecise and inaccurate when doing normal measurements of low voltage oscillating signals.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #918 on:** May 23, 2013, 12:45:22 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2013, 03:45:33 PM

I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.

The moral is this: If you want high COPs from your devices, you must measure them properly. A bottom-end Atten DSO is the right instrument to use. No other instruments will show you the necessary zero-crossings, therefore there is something wrong with them. Since the Atten DSO shows what is needed, it can be used, as in the latest series of shots, to support claims of OU, even though test and calibration measurements show the Atten DSO to be error prone, imprecise and inaccurate when doing normal measurements of low voltage oscillating signals.

@TK.

I believe if you try to measure OU in your youtube elecctrosmog situation, you most likely will get cross 0 ref line behavior. Your LED will be lighted forever when your board is not connected via wires to anything. Just let your board pick up the electrosmog.

You have shown that to be a certainty. The next logical question is - how efficient can that process be? Can that energy be captured and stored continuously and use when needed???

Before people know solar panels, that energy was wasted. Can a TK device be built to use electrosmog energy???

ltseung888 · « **Reply #919 on:** May 23, 2013, 12:54:14 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 22, 2013, 03:45:33 PM

I think void or .99 or Pirate should send a board or two to Lawrence for testing, not the other way around. I predict that Lawrence will find OU in these boards with the same ease as he does with his own.

....

That is not a bad idea - especially with those boards that can light a LED for over a year. Board 116 has shown that there might be some sort of "sweet spot" at around 0.4V. Board 124 with the capacitor and twin timer has shown prolonged lighting with reasonable brightness. In my case, such behavior lasted around 2 weeks. How can it be prolonged for over a year?

There is still much more research to be done.....

ltseung888 · « **Reply #920 on:** May 23, 2013, 01:41:00 AM »

Just to show that two JT boards may be built based on the same circuit diagram but show very different results, I tried to similate the reading on the Void Board on reply 902.
*** One of our Current Curves should be inverted. But for comparison purposes, I leave them alone.

The comparison should convince anybody that the two Boards (Void and Board 124) are different. Different COP results are to be expected. The Spikes are missing on the Void Board.

We shall learn much more when Void gets the boards within 14 working days via Post Office Mail.....

Void · « **Reply #921 on:** May 23, 2013, 03:58:26 AM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on May 23, 2013, 01:41:00 AM

Just to show that two JT boards may be built based on the same circuit diagram but show very different results, I tried to similate the reading on the Void Board on reply 902.
*** One of our Current Curves should be inverted. But for comparison purposes, I leave them alone.
The comparison should convince anybody that the two Boards (Void and Board 124) are different. Different COP results are to be expected. The Spikes are missing on the Void Board.
We shall learn much more when Void gets the boards within 14 working days via Post Office Mail.....

Hi Lawrence. Those spikes on the waveforms on your board do appear to be noise spikes. Noise spikes that appear at a very regular interval like that could be caused by a switching power supply, as that is a typical looking sort of noise spike pattern that can be seen on an oscilloscope due to noise generated by a switching power supply. Another difference I notice in the waveform for your board is that your board is operating at a much lower frequency than mine. This will be very much dependent on the type of ferrite core used and the number of windings, as the frequency of oscillation of the circuit is determined in part by the amount of inductance of the toroid windings. Since you are using a different type of ferrite core than me, and you may also have a different winding count as well, the inductance of your windings will be different than on my board, and it would be expected that your board would operate at a different frequency than my board. As you say however, once I run some tests on your boards we can compare my measurements to your measurements to see how things look then. I would be really surprised if there is over unity, but we will see what the measurements show anyway.

I have noticed something interesting in some new testing I was doing, not relating to over unity, but maybe a way to improve on efficiency somewhat. I will run some more tests on my proto-board circuit when I get a chance, and post results if I find anything interesting.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #922 on:** May 23, 2013, 11:23:58 AM »

Quote from: Void on May 23, 2013, 03:58:26 AM

Hi Lawrence. Those spikes on the waveforms on your board do appear to be noise spikes. Noise spikes that appear at a very regular interval like that could be caused by a switching power supply, as that is a typical looking sort of noise spike pattern that can be seen on an oscilloscope due to noise generated by a switching power supply. Another difference I notice in the waveform for your board is that your board is operating at a much lower frequency than mine. This will be very much dependent on the type of ferrite core used and the number of windings, as the frequency of oscillation of the circuit is determined in part by the amount of inductance of the toroid windings. Since you are using a different type of ferrite core than me, and you may also have a different winding count as well, the inductance of your windings will be different than on my board, and it would be expected that your board would operate at a different frequency than my board. As you say however, once I run some tests on your boards we can compare my measurements to your measurements to see how things look then. I would be really surprised if there is over unity, but we will see what the measurements show anyway.

I have noticed something interesting in some new testing I was doing, not relating to over unity, but maybe a way to improve on efficiency somewhat. I will run some more tests on my proto-board circuit when I get a chance, and post results if I find anything interesting.

@Void,

The Box was mailed vis ordinary air mail at the Post Office this morning. It should arrive within 14 working days. Please post a message as soon as you receive it. I have the results from Boards 121 and 122 from Mr. Lau. I need to type and analyze them. Both appeared to indicate some unexpected behavior at around 0.4V..... That may be the sweet spot for the Zhou Boards.

Void · « **Reply #923 on:** May 23, 2013, 03:21:32 PM »

Quote from: ltseung888 on May 23, 2013, 11:23:58 AM

@Void,
The Box was mailed vis ordinary air mail at the Post Office this morning. It should arrive within 14 working days. Please post a message as soon as you receive it. I have the results from Boards 121 and 122 from Mr. Lau. I need to type and analyze them. Both appeared to indicate some unexpected behavior at around 0.4V..... That may be the sweet spot for the Zhou Boards.

OK, thanks.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #924 on:** May 23, 2013, 04:41:44 PM »

Result of Battery Change vs Time with Board 121 and 122. The experiment was performed by Mr. T S Lau.

Board 121 is simple JT. Board 122 is JT with Capacitor. General shape is the same.

At just below 0.4V, the slope of change is slow. LED gets dimmer but still ON for a few days. This portion is likely to be the "lead-out Energy" range.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #925 on:** May 23, 2013, 11:28:16 PM »

"Suck-in" energy might be more appropriate than "Lead-out". Mr. Lau's graph would be much more exciting if its slope reversed, or even flattened totally out.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #926 on:** May 23, 2013, 11:34:00 PM »

With the success of the experiments on Board 121 and 122, Mr. T S Lau continues on.

This time, he is comparing Board 127 and 128 with rechargeable Batteries. Board 127 is the standard Joule Thief with a capacitor. Board 128 has the Twin Timer. It is a repeat experiment. There is still the possibility that the Timer may induce energy.

ltseung888 · « **Reply #927 on:** May 24, 2013, 12:02:28 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 23, 2013, 11:28:16 PM

"Suck-in" energy might be more appropriate than "Lead-out". Mr. Lau's graph would be much more exciting if its slope reversed, or even flattened totally out.

I prefer "brought-in". One of the things Mr. Lau will focus on next time is the small peak for Board 121. He happened to notice a votage rise at that time and focused on taking readings at 2 minute rather than 12 hour intervals. There could have been many more such peaks. I shall try to pick out more with the Atten monitoring the voltage change at around 0.4V.

Why should there be such Voltage Peaks??? Energy sucked-in???

markdansie · « **Reply #928 on:** May 24, 2013, 01:12:01 AM »

Quote from: conradelektro on May 22, 2013, 02:05:48 PM

@Itseung888:

As far as I understand, you have sent out at least 30 of your devices to various people.

Did you get any useful feed back?

Greetings, Conrad

I late last year attended with a friend a demonstration of some of the "boards" in California. Itseung888 was online via Skype. None showed any signs of over unity and when the batteries were removed the caps ran down. I was going to order one to test in our lab for the purposes of showing the results on some high end equipment with people who know what they are doing when it comes to measurement. What followed was even more astonishing. We were sent an email where it stated I and my friend were so impressed we were to fly to Asia to form a business relationship. I let my friend deal with that (I am not using his name). I did not bother to proceed with any testing after that.
This may not be of any use to anyone but I felt since you were asking.
PS I love these little circuits and all the fun experimenters have with them, I am even testing a few in our water battery technologies. Bottom line...no over-unity.
Kind Regards
Mark

TinselKoala · « **Reply #929 on:** May 24, 2013, 11:23:20 AM »

Lawrence..... I am completely flabbergasted. You have not told us, until now ..... that your Timer is powered from the AC MAINS. AC 110/220 V, right on the label. Is that right? You have AC mains power coming in to your timer box, which contains who knows what kind of transformer, switching power supply, solid state relay, oscillator inside it.... powered by the AC mains

? Right next to your JT which as I have shown is perfectly capable of picking up energy wirelessly

I submit to you here and now that ALL your data taken using this timer is suspect, as is ALL your data taken with those God-forsaken ATTEN sillyscopes.

Further, the little bump on Mr. Lau's graph is called "noise" or "sampling error". If you had data at higher temporal resolution you would no doubt see more of these little bumps. And if you had, say, twenty Atten scopes and twenty JTs to monitor all at the same time, you'd see bumps all over the place. And then when you averaged them all together you would see "average" behaviour that was smooth. In short, the bumps are likely insignificant pimples that mean nothing in reality. Chase them down by all means.... but not using an Atten oscilloscope or a mains-powered "timer" sitting next to your device-under-test.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity? (Read 602660 times)

conradelektro

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

Void

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

TinselKoala

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

Void

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

Void

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

TinselKoala

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

ltseung888

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

markdansie

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?

TinselKoala

Re: Is joule thief circuit gets overunity?