Author Topic: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now. (Read 61057 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #150 on:** March 22, 2015, 08:35:09 AM »

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 22, 2015, 03:46:59 AM

Also, I feel its important to note at this point in the discussion::::

Make sure your coils are NOT reverse biased,.. meaning the magnetic field should be induced in the same direction.
The JT " will work" either way, but if they are in opposite directions, you are fighting the induction, and increase your losses.
this will also disrupt any inductor resonance.

This is clearly not true for the normal basic JT. There are four possible ways to connect the two coupled coils in a normal JT; two will work and two will not work. We've all gotten used to flipping the connections to one coil if our JT doesn't work the first time around. It will _not_ work "either way". Have you not built a basic JT circuit for yourself?

The TMLMJT circuit does not depend on the relative phasing of the inductors so it should not matter which way they are connected, since it does not depend on coupling of the two inductors and they are acting "in isolation" as it were.

However I've been playing around with a magnet near the inductors of my test unit with some interesting results.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #151 on:** March 22, 2015, 08:47:18 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 07:11:10 AM

Tinman this is the comparative result with and without a base resistor with no load. The flyback voltage increases about 15%.

On mine, I get a doubling of voltage at the Collector with no LED load, from 6 volts peak with LED to 12 volts peak without the LED. This is with about 1.5 volts at both supply sources. I still have the 220R resistor in place. With the resistor shorted I see very little change.

tinman · « **Reply #152 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:15:02 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 22, 2015, 08:28:52 AM

The circuit clearly has more than one mode of operation. Your traces don't look like MarkE's or mine, and also look at the large difference in frequency. The "double peaks" of your traces are happening at more ordinary JT frequencies of 30 or 15 kHz (depending on whether you count the double peaks as two cycles, or one.) While the last traces MarkE has shown are at 200-250 kHz and mine is running at over 500 kHz.

I don't yet have a pair of coils comparable to yours but I'll probably find, or wind, some a bit later on.

Maybe because i am useing air core inductors,and my run battery voltage is only .8 volt's-->i just grabed two old batteries from some old solar garden lights.

I am interested in what you have found with the PM near the coil's

tinman · « **Reply #153 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:19:53 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 07:11:10 AM

Tinman this is the comparative result with and without a base resistor with no load. The flyback voltage increases about 15%.

Mark
Do you have a darlington transistor you could try-i have none ATM. Just interested in what may happen?.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #154 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:21:11 AM »

Quote from: tinman on March 22, 2015, 09:15:02 AM

Maybe because i am useing air core inductors,and my run battery voltage is only .8 volt's-->i just grabed two old batteries from some old solar garden lights.

I am interested in what you have found with the PM near the coil's

On a normal JT a mag near the inductor raises the freq. I used this trick a few times when the circuit emitted a high pitch squeal. Place a neo on the inductor and the freq is raised high enough so you can't hear it.

Bill

MarkE · « **Reply #155 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:51:31 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 22, 2015, 08:47:18 AM

On mine, I get a doubling of voltage at the Collector with no LED load, from 6 volts peak with LED to 12 volts peak without the LED. This is with about 1.5 volts at both supply sources. I still have the 220R resistor in place. With the resistor shorted I see very little change.

Going from one to four LEDs to open circuit with the 120 Ohm resistor:

1 LED 4.88V peak, 2 LEDs 6.96V peak, 3 LEDs 9.04V peak, 4 LEDs 11.1V peak, open 19.2V peak.

With the base resistor shorted, the open voltage increased to 22.2V peak.

I went back and retested with the 1812 chokes and found that the circuit will oscillate with those like the others given a kick to start. I short the collector to emitter with tweezers to genrate the kick.

The one difference may be that the probe I am using on the collector is one of the 20X probes our mutual friend made up for me. It has pretty light capacitive loading. This is all running from 1.3V for the source battery B2. The recharging battery B1 was about 1.2V for all the tests with an LED.

profitis · « **Reply #156 on:** March 22, 2015, 09:53:47 AM »

Smoky.wher r u

tinman · « **Reply #157 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:02:02 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 09:51:31 AM

Going from one to four LEDs to open circuit with the 120 Ohm resistor:

1 LED 4.88V peak, 2 LEDs 6.96V peak, 3 LEDs 9.04V peak, 4 LEDs 11.1V peak, open 19.2V peak.

With the base resistor shorted, the open voltage increased to 22.2V peak.

I went back and retested with the 1812 chokes and found that the circuit will oscillate with those like the others given a kick to start. I short the collector to emitter with tweezers to genrate the kick.

The one difference may be that the probe I am using on the collector is one of the 20X probes our mutual friend made up for me. It has pretty light capacitive loading. This is all running from 1.3V for the source battery B2. The recharging battery B1 was about 1.2V for all the tests with an LED.

It would be great to see at what efficiency the device is running at.
I must say Mark,i am most happy that you are experimenting with this setup.

Thanks

MarkE · « **Reply #158 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:19:43 AM »

Quote from: tinman on March 22, 2015, 09:19:53 AM

Mark
Do you have a darlington transistor you could try-i have none ATM. Just interested in what may happen?.

I tried a TIP-102. I could not get it to start. The base - emitter resistors are likely damping out the tank. I did manage to find a 2N3055 in my junk box. It runs much slower than the 2N2222A which is quite understandable given the lower gain.

MarkE · « **Reply #159 on:** March 22, 2015, 10:57:03 AM »

Quote from: tinman on March 22, 2015, 10:02:02 AM

It would be great to see at what efficiency the device is running at.
I must say Mark,i am most happy that you are experimenting with this setup.

Thanks

The efficiency is very low, around 1.2%: 2N2222A circuit 0 Ohms base resistor, 2 shielded 1mH 2.9 Ohm inductors: 4.2uA average current into two red LEDs in series and 1.3V average voltage for 5.5uW output, versus 1.29V in at 153uA for 458uW input.

tinman · « **Reply #160 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:33:24 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 10:19:43 AM

I tried a TIP-102. I could not get it to start. The base - emitter resistors are likely damping out the tank. I did manage to find a 2N3055 in my junk box. It runs much slower than the 2N2222A which is quite understandable given the lower gain.

Yes,that would be one of the reasons mine has a low frequency. the TIP35C seems to give much the same results as the 3055.

MarkE · « **Reply #161 on:** March 22, 2015, 02:27:39 PM »

Quote from: tinman on March 22, 2015, 11:33:24 AM

Yes,that would be one of the reasons mine has a low frequency. the TIP35C seems to give much the same results as the 3055.

So just for a lark, I measured the efficiency of an ordinary Joule Thief using a 470uH coupled choke from Coilcraft: MSD1260-474. For the transistor, I used a DMN2075 N channel MOSFET. This is a low threshold voltage, low on resistance device. I get about 65% efficiency at 7.4kHz. Peak current is about 140mA. There is only: the coupled choke, the MOSFET, and the LED.

MileHigh · « **Reply #162 on:** March 22, 2015, 06:55:21 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 02:27:39 PM

So just for a lark, I measured the efficiency of an ordinary Joule Thief using a 470uH coupled choke from Coilcraft: MSD1260-474. For the transistor, I used a DMN2075 N channel MOSFET. This is a low threshold voltage, low on resistance device. I get about 65% efficiency at 7.4kHz. Peak current is about 140mA. There is only: the coupled choke, the MOSFET, and the LED.

I think a few years back there were people that were convinced that the Joule Thief was going to "revolutionize everything." I am not talking about Bill's JT threads either. It was almost a cult. Yet, I am willing to bet that nobody ever measured the efficiency like you just did.

There is so much junk and superstition and inane nonsense out there (in this realm) when it comes to electronics. Once my nemesis Jbignes5 said something like "The Tesla bifilar coil was going to change the world." Really?! The guy doesn't have the slightest clue when it comes to electronics. Sm0ky2 is a classic example of somebody buying into a lot of crap but he can't offer up any substance to back up his claims. Yet he really believes what he is saying.

Not that it really matters in the overall scheme of things, but it used to annoy me. People are going to do what they want, and the human condition is such that there is both brilliance and stupidity wherever you look.

There is a kind of "Milgram experiment" at play that goes something like this: Here we are experimenting outside the bounds of conventional science. Proper understanding and measurements don't count, just look at your results. People that challenge us with conventional science are demons working for the cabal and you are under orders to denounce them as heretics.

So you end up with ostensibly nice people accusing other people of being "paid government agents" just because they want to apply science to understand what's going on. On one level it's really sick and they are no different than the people in the Milgram experiment believing that they were administering pain and suffering onto other people because an authority figure told them to do that.

The "authority figure" in this case is the belief that "we are cool rebels outside normal science" and associated peer pressure and that gives them a "license" to denounce outer people as "paid government agents." The whole thing is completely retarded.

Sorry for that diversion and back to your discussion.

MileHigh

MarkE · « **Reply #163 on:** March 22, 2015, 11:20:39 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on March 22, 2015, 06:55:21 PM

I think a few years back there were people that were convinced that the Joule Thief was going to "revolutionize everything." I am not talking about Bill's JT threads either. It was almost a cult. Yet, I am willing to bet that nobody ever measured the efficiency like you just did.

There is so much junk and superstition and inane nonsense out there (in this realm) when it comes to electronics. Once my nemesis Jbignes5 said something like "The Tesla bifilar coil was going to change the world." Really?! The guy doesn't have the slightest clue when it comes to electronics. Sm0ky2 is a classic example of somebody buying into a lot of crap but he can't offer up any substance to back up his claims. Yet he really believes what he is saying.

Not that it really matters in the overall scheme of things, but it used to annoy me. People are going to do what they want, and the human condition is such that there is both brilliance and stupidity wherever you look.

There is a kind of "Milgram experiment" at play that goes something like this: Here we are experimenting outside the bounds of conventional science. Proper understanding and measurements don't count, just look at your results. People that challenge us with conventional science are demons working for the cabal and you are under orders to denounce them as heretics.

So you end up with ostensibly nice people accusing other people of being "paid government agents" just because they want to apply science to understand what's going on. On one level it's really sick and they are no different than the people in the Milgram experiment believing that they were administering pain and suffering onto other people because an authority figure told them to do that.

The "authority figure" in this case is the belief that "we are cool rebels outside normal science" and associated peer pressure and that gives them a "license" to denounce outer people as "paid government agents." The whole thing is completely retarded.

Sorry for that diversion and back to your discussion.

MileHigh

The real efficiency killer in a Joule Thief is its reliance on saturation of the magnetic core to switch. The inductor current and circuit conduction losses shoot through the roof during the transition into saturation. Using very square magnetic material as used in better magnetic amplifiers would reduce that loss a lot at a price of more expensive cores. The $1. Chinese solar stick lights get around that by using a multivibrator circuit to time turning the switching transistor on and off. They turn the transistor off well before the core approaches saturation avoiding the big uptick in current that occurs with an archetypical Joule Thief. This also lets them use simple inductors that cost only a couple of pennies. If you want to buy coupled chokes needed by a Joule Thief, they are around $0.40 in 5K quantities and $0.20 each in million piece quantities. A number of those $1. retail stick lights get efficiencies close to 90%. They are limited in the average power that they can deliver by the discontinuous conduction of the inductor. 10mA to 20mA average current to the LEDs is common. They can be modified to continuously conduct to obtain more power, but at the cost of a substantial efficiency hit due to the need for output rectification and hard switching on both edges.

tinman · « **Reply #164 on:** March 23, 2015, 01:36:17 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 22, 2015, 11:20:39 PM

The real efficiency killer in a Joule Thief is its reliance on saturation of the magnetic core to switch. The inductor current and circuit conduction losses shoot through the roof during the transition into saturation. Using very square magnetic material as used in better magnetic amplifiers would reduce that loss a lot at a price of more expensive cores. The $1. Chinese solar stick lights get around that by using a multivibrator circuit to time turning the switching transistor on and off. They turn the transistor off well before the core approaches saturation avoiding the big uptick in current that occurs with an archetypical Joule Thief. This also lets them use simple inductors that cost only a couple of pennies. If you want to buy coupled chokes needed by a Joule Thief, they are around $0.40 in 5K quantities and $0.20 each in million piece quantities. A number of those $1. retail stick lights get efficiencies close to 90%. They are limited in the average power that they can deliver by the discontinuous conduction of the inductor. 10mA to 20mA average current to the LEDs is common. They can be modified to continuously conduct to obtain more power, but at the cost of a substantial efficiency hit due to the need for output rectification and hard switching on both edges.

Those little solar garden light circuits only use around 3mA ,and the LED apears quite bright.
Maybe a half bridge circuit that triggers at the 0 volt line across the driving coil.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now. (Read 61057 times)

TinselKoala

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

TinselKoala

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

tinman

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

tinman

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

Pirate88179

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MarkE

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

profitis

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

tinman

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MarkE

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MarkE

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

tinman

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MarkE

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MileHigh

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

MarkE

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.

tinman

Re: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.