@Lawrence: I have received your JT boards in the mail, and as soon as I get a chance I will run some power measurements on your boards and post the results here in this thread, if you like. Other than basic power efficiency tests at say an input power supply voltage of 0.5V, are there any other specific tests you would like me to run on the JT boards you sent me? I can also run comparison power measurement tests with a super capacitor as the input power source, and with a battery as the input power source, to compare results.

Edit:
A quick preliminary test on board #'s 118 and 119 (with the DC offset on my scope channels first checked for calibration) shows no zero crossing on the input current waveform, as would be expected. The waveform shapes appear to be pretty close to what I see on my JT circuit, with one difference being that Lawrence's boards run at a lower frequency than my JT board. I will run full power measurement tests on these boards as soon as I get a chance.

@Void,
 
Great.  We can do similar experiments.  The first one I would like to check is the occurrance of the Spikes - possibly due to "electrosmog".
 
Try to capture the waveforms in your standard environment.  Then repeat with the Board close to a "noisy" environment - next to some electrical appliance such as PC, TV, washing machines etc.  Check whether you can detect any spikes.  We can use TK's video or the wireless JT circuits as a guide to produce "electrosmog" if needed.  Check whether such spikes cross 0 ref line.

@Lawrence: Here are my power measurements for your JT Board # 119.
For the same input voltage (0.5VDC) using my regulated power supply, your JT board runs at a much lower frequency than my board (most probably mainly due to the different type of toroid you are using), and your board also has higher input and output currents than my JT board at the same input voltage. The switching spikes on the input voltage waveform on your board are sharper with a higher amplitude, and with less ringing than I get with my JT circuit.
The efficiency measured to be pretty close to my JT board at the same input voltage however.
Do you want to see these same type of measurements for the other boards you sent me as well?

Input Voltage:  500mV
Input Power:  5.282mW
Output Power:  3.779mW
Efficiency:  71.54%

I am attaching the scope screen shots below.
Yellow traces are the voltage waveforms, and blue traces are the current waveforms.
I am also attaching the Excel spreadsheet files showing the data samples and the resulting power calculations.
-- void --

Yep. But if your input power is free, and would be wasted if you didn't harvest it somehow.... that's good, right? And even 80 percent is pretty good if your input power is free, because...well... your input power was free. If it really is, that is. Maybe a "forever light" needs a chemical bias source that remains at 0.45 volts in order to be able to continue to harvest electrosmog for long periods of time or something, and the chemical source's voltage need not be depleted, as long as the power through the system is coming from the electrosmog.
Like the spring on a screen door. You only have to do work against it once, to open the door and prop it open with a rock. Then the flies can come and go as they please through the open door.
Experiments can be done to rule out all of these hypotheses, and finally the real explanation for Lawrence's "forever light" will emerge.

would be possible to used the earth battery as an input power

would be possible to used the earth battery as an input power

I already did that a few years ago.  I lit 400 leds from a JT circuit and my earth battery.  Check out my youtube videos if you like.

Bill

@Void,
There is something wrong with the Input Waveform.  If you used Board 119, the waveform should be similar to the attached.  Do not use the Invert function.  The Current Waveform (CH2) should be mostly negative.  In your example, it is all positive.  Please check.

Hi Lawrence. I have explained this before. There is nothing wrong with my input current waveform measurement. The reason your input current waveform shows as negative is because you hook up your scope probe for the input current measurement in reverse, which causes your current waveform to show as inverted. Since I am using a 2 channel scope, I see no reason to not measure the input current in its proper orientation. I might try an experiment to connect my input current probe in reverse like you connect it, just to see if the input power measurement comes out the same, but just with an inverted sign. If you think about it, for your input current waveform to show as negative current, your input current waveform must be inverted.

Hi Lawrence. I have explained this before. There is nothing wrong with my input current waveform measurement. The reason your input current waveform shows as negative is because you hook up your scope probe for the input current measurement in reverse, which causes your current waveform to show as inverted. Since I am using a 2 channel scope, I see no reason to not measure the input current in its proper orientation. I might try an experiment to connect my input current probe in reverse like you connect it, just to see if the input power measurement comes out the same, but just with an inverted sign. If you think about it, for your input current waveform to show as negative current, your input current waveform must be inverted.

@Void,
 
The reason why I used the "strange way" is to cater for the possible 4 CH scopes and the Tektronics from Poynt99.  Please use the same convention so that we can compare easily.  Thank you.

@Void,
The reason why I used the "strange way" is to cater for the possible 4 CH scopes and the Tektronics from Poynt99.  Please use the same convention so that we can compare easily.  Thank you.

Hi Lawrence. I can repeat the power measurement test on board 119, and measure the input current with the Ch2 scope probe leads reversed like you have been doing, if you like. I will do this as soon as I can get a chance.

Hi poynt99. I haven't tried the math trace feature on my scope, but according to the manual for my scope, it does have a CH1*Ch2 math trace function.

Could you try it please?

Also try to see if you can then apply a "mean" auto-measurement of the resulting p(t) math trace.

Thanks,

.99