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: Overunity motor, part3, all 4 recharging bats reading at 1.400 volts now.  (Read 60080 times)

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
Quote
Very simple, is the set-up shown in this thread.

1) Motor + Battery = run time x.

2) Motor + Battery + recycling circuit and batteries = run time x, + run time y, + run time z, ...... etc.

Quote from: MarkE
and what do you think that means?

I think that means that some of the power that is not used by the motor, but is lost through the circuit, may be being "recycled"
We should investigate this, instead of blindly dismissing it.

Is that the only possible answer?
absolutely not, it could be the result of power distribution, leaking from the run-batteries, into the re-charging batteries.
 If this is the case, it should effect the run-time

There are other possibilities as well. But when the entire concept is thrown out the window because of some preconceived notion that everything we waste "must be wasted", and recycling the power drawn through our admittedly inefficient circuitry is "impossible" we shut the door to such investigation.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Well... hmm.

So I built the LidMotor version from MarkE's redrawn diagram above. I wound two toroidal inductors to measure 1.0 mH each on my ProsKit meter; this required 32 turns of #33 on each toroid. I used a BC337-25 transistor as I do not have any MPSA06 on hand. A blue LED, a 1n4004 diode and a 220 ohm resistor completed the circuit. I used two depleted batteries for power instead of supercaps. The circuit needs to be "tickled" to get it started, and I found the easiest way is to tickle the cathode of the LED with a little piece of solder. The collector of the transistor also is a good place to "tickle" to start oscillation. I could not get it to stay on with a Red LED, just single flashes when tickled but no sustained oscillation. It works with Blue LED just fine. Have not tried other colors.

My impression is that the circuit does _NOT_ appear to work by coupling between the inductors! At least, moving or reorienting the L1 inductor appears to make no difference in behaviour of the circuit in terms of startup or LED brightness. I have not yet scoped the circuit.

(I'm still waiting for the "friend-funded" Rigol scope to arrive. Supposedly things have been delayed by the Longshoreman's strike on the West Coast container ports and it is not expected to get to me until the first week of April sometime.)

ETA: It still works with the L1 inductor 2 feet away connected by a twisted pair to the solder pads. Still needs to be tickled to start but once it starts, LED brightness, etc. is unchanged from the previous test.
TK
Remove the 220 ohm base resistor,and you have my original circuit.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
I thought I saw a label on the tube that said "Aluminum".  I agree that with the circuit as represented, the LED will not light unless the transistor oscillates.  The but for the D1 diode, the LED would be reverse biased when L2 is not flying back. 

I constructed the circuit on a solderless breadboard using a 2N2222A transistor, 1N4005 diode, and OVLBR4C7 red LED.  I used two NiMH cells.  I used several choke configurations with the following results:

1) 1812 1mH 42 Ohm unshielded chokes 6" apart.  No oscillations.
2) 1mH 2.9 Ohm shielded choke L2 for the flyback, and 1mH 1812 42 Ohm choke L1 for the base-emitter.  No oscillations.
3) 1mH 2.9 Ohm shielded chokes both positions.  No oscillations.
4) 470uH x 2 coupled choke. 120 Ohm series base resistor.  Oscillates with coils oriented as in the graphic below, LED glows brightly, but the frequency wanders.
Peak collector to emitter voltage is just over 6V.  2.5V for the NiMH batteries + ~2V for the LED Vfw and ~0.8V for the 1N4005 and the rest is resistive drops in the choke and LED.
Mark
Remove the 120ohm base resistor-no need for it,as the inductor is already a resistor,and the circuit is already low powered.

sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948

Go ahead, put up a timing diagram of a "Joule Thief in resonance"

MileHigh

you know, im really trying not to get too deep into this ridiculous argument here, because it's off-topic for this thread.
This should be, and has been many times, discussed in the JT threads.
but since our benevolent author also uses a JT circuit with recharging batteries in a similar manner as the video posted here,
 i'll show you this.
When you send a pulsed DC signal through a transformer, there is a reluctance through the core, due to timing differences during charging of the core.
When this signal is at the resonant frequency (adjusted by the resistance through the transistor), the function becomes a purely resistive factor, and a clean waveform is produced, at maximum amplitude.
My lab was lost, and I don't have the tools to do this myself, so I dug up someone elses.

TK makes a great demonstration of this effect in his video, using a fairly accurate signal generator, and his O-scope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY

as you can see here, this greatly alters the effect of the induction through the secondary coil, which will increase the efficiency of your joule thief circuit. 
This is how a JT circuit was intended to be used. This is the effect described by Steven Mark.
The "toy" that has become so famous, makes no reference to this critical factor, and therefore, the quickie-circuits produced in the How-To instructionals are not resonant, and inherently inneficient.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
This circuits opperation was found quite by accident. It started out as a simple pulse motor circuit where the trigger coil was sepperate from the run coil. I designed it like this so as i could adjust the trigger timeing. Anyway,i gave it a run with the rotor,and it worked quite fine. But when i stopped the rotor,the circuit continued to oscillate. So i removed the rotor altogether,and found i could move the trigger coil to any position,and the circuit would continue to oscillate-->and thus,the birth of the cool joule circuit.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Sm0ky2:

Quote
TK makes a great demonstration of this effect in his video, using a fairly accurate signal generator, and his O-scope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY

as you can see here, this greatly alters the effect of the induction through the secondary coil, which will increase the efficiency of your joule thief circuit. 
This is how a JT circuit was intended to be used.

Unfortunately you are off base one more time.  You are seemingly blindly applying one thing to something else when it does not jive - it does not make any sense.

TK is looking for the self-resonant frequency for a stand alone coil.  He is making "a mistake" by using a square wave but the test still works.

Going back to the subject at hand:  Big deal.  You are talking about a Joule Thief, not a stand-alone inductor.  You have to understand that they are not the same thing.  In addition, your "logic" is crap.  You are saying, "Look, an inductor has a self-resonant frequency and that makes a Joule Thief work better."  Really?  Really?  Where is big missing gap in your explanation that is not there?  How do you jump from point A to point B?

You are simply showing classic nonsensical "failure mode logic" that you see on the forums all the time.  The truth is that for years the Joule Thief threads were low tech and people were just doing stuff by trial and error and finding solutions without understanding them.  With fairly high confidence I can state that all the talk of "resonance" was no different than everybody making references to resonance on every second thread without even knowing what they were meaning.

So it comes back to you:  Show two timing diagrams for a Joule Thief, one without resonance, and one with resonance, and explain what is going on and explain the advantage of the setup with resonance.  You are going to have a real hard time showing the timing diagram with resonance because it doesn't exist.

I have an interesting factoid for you that I alluded to earlier:  When a coil hits its self-resonant frequency for all practical intents and purposes it is "crapping out" and failing to do its job.  Electronics designers make sure that their designs do not get close to the self-resonant frequencies of their coils because that will screw up their circuit.

You have read a lot of BS about Joule Thieves and resonance and believed it.  The simple fact is that it is a BS concept.  If you disagree then prove me wrong with a set of fully explained timing diagrams and a circuit.  And that apparently is what you can't do.

MileHigh

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Well... hmm.

So I built the LidMotor version from MarkE's redrawn diagram above. I wound two toroidal inductors to measure 1.0 mH each on my ProsKit meter; this required 32 turns of #33 on each toroid. I used a BC337-25 transistor as I do not have any MPSA06 on hand. A blue LED, a 1n4004 diode and a 220 ohm resistor completed the circuit. I used two depleted batteries for power instead of supercaps. The circuit needs to be "tickled" to get it started, and I found the easiest way is to tickle the cathode of the LED with a little piece of solder. The collector of the transistor also is a good place to "tickle" to start oscillation. I could not get it to stay on with a Red LED, just single flashes when tickled but no sustained oscillation. It works with Blue LED just fine. Have not tried other colors.

My impression is that the circuit does _NOT_ appear to work by coupling between the inductors! At least, moving or reorienting the L1 inductor appears to make no difference in behaviour of the circuit in terms of startup or LED brightness. I have not yet scoped the circuit.

(I'm still waiting for the "friend-funded" Rigol scope to arrive. Supposedly things have been delayed by the Longshoreman's strike on the West Coast container ports and it is not expected to get to me until the first week of April sometime.)

ETA: It still works with the L1 inductor 2 feet away connected by a twisted pair to the solder pads. Still needs to be tickled to start but once it starts, LED brightness, etc. is unchanged from the previous test.
Those results suggest that the LED damps the oscillation.  That in turn does suggest that it is circuit parasitics causing the oscillations.

Based on that I went back to the two shielded 1mH chokes, and found that by using more than one red LED in series I could get the oscillations to start.  Unlike the blocking oscillator using the coupled choke, the LED brightness is very dim.  By playing with it enough I was eventually able to get oscillations to start with just one red LED.  Loading the base with a 10X scope probe made the LEDs much brighter. Opening the base connection kills the oscillations, as does adding even a tiny amount of capacitance from the collector to the emitter common, or a large resistance from the base to emitter.  This tells us that Tinman was right that Miller capacitance is the energy source.  The Miller capacitance reacts with the large inductance in series with the base to drive these oscillations. 

The last scope shot is the collector and base waveforms with the LEDs open.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
you know, im really trying not to get too deep into this ridiculous argument here, because it's off-topic for this thread.
This should be, and has been many times, discussed in the JT threads.
but since our benevolent author also uses a JT circuit with recharging batteries in a similar manner as the video posted here,
 i'll show you this.
When you send a pulsed DC signal through a transformer, there is a reluctance through the core, due to timing differences during charging of the core.
When this signal is at the resonant frequency (adjusted by the resistance through the transistor), the function becomes a purely resistive factor, and a clean waveform is produced, at maximum amplitude.
My lab was lost, and I don't have the tools to do this myself, so I dug up someone elses.

TK makes a great demonstration of this effect in his video, using a fairly accurate signal generator, and his O-scope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZN5QJZClY

as you can see here, this greatly alters the effect of the induction through the secondary coil, which will increase the efficiency of your joule thief circuit. 
This is how a JT circuit was intended to be used. This is the effect described by Steven Mark.
The "toy" that has become so famous, makes no reference to this critical factor, and therefore, the quickie-circuits produced in the How-To instructionals are not resonant, and inherently inneficient.
Once more:  The archetypical Joule thief circuit is a blocking oscillator not an oscillator timed by a resonant tank.  If you wish to discuss a circuit that is timed by a tank as it turns-out Tinman's circuit is, then show a diagram for such a circuit.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
There is a disconnect with Sm0ky2 where he doesn't understand that the method of excitation for the coil in a Joule Thief is not even related to a method for finding the self-resonant frequency for a coil.  He is also blindly believing the generic catch-all phrase that "resonance make the circuit more efficient" and applying it to a Joule Thief.

Sm0ky2:  With a few months of diligent study you will be in a better position to appreciate this.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Once more:  The archetypical Joule thief circuit is a blocking oscillator not an oscillator timed by a resonant tank.  If you wish to discuss a circuit that is timed by a tank as it turns-out Tinman's circuit is, then show a diagram for such a circuit.
So i threw together a quick cool joule circuit,just so as i could have a look at it with my digital scope.Below is the slightly modified circuit(D1 removed),and a scope shot. The blue trace is across emitter/base,and the yellow trace is across emitter/collector. I am useing two identical solenoid coils from an old washing machines water valves-->both have the steel core removed,so as they are air core now. I have changed the transistor to a TIP35C. Looking at the scope,it seems that the transistor is switching on with only 480mV on the leading pulse,but not sure how the trailing pulse is happening,as the base of the transistor is still a negative polarity ???

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
There is a disconnect with Sm0ky2 where he doesn't understand that the method of excitation for the coil in a Joule Thief is not even related to a method for finding the self-resonant frequency for a coil.  He is also blindly believing the generic catch-all phrase that "resonance make the circuit more efficient" and applying it to a Joule Thief.

Sm0ky2:  With a few months of diligent study you will be in a better position to appreciate this.
It's a pretty much a put up or shut up situation for him.  Anyone can make claims.  Providing evidence for those claims, that can be another matter.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
So i threw together a quick cool joule circuit,just so as i could have a look at it with my digital scope.Below is the slightly modified circuit(D1 removed),and a scope shot. The blue trace is across emitter/base,and the yellow trace is across emitter/collector. I am useing two identical solenoid coils from an old washing machines water valves-->both have the steel core removed,so as they are air core now. I have changed the transistor to a TIP35C. Looking at the scope,it seems that the transistor is switching on with only 480mV ???
The LED / B1 branch just load the oscillator down.  I've got my measurements and simulation in pretty close agreement now using the parts I listed.  The base current is pretty much a sawtooth.  It takes a big jump on the falling side of the collector voltage waveform and then ramps towards zero, where the collector voltage pulses upward and then collapses as L2 discharges.

If you are using your scope probes in X1 mode, you should change that to X10 mode.  It will reduce the loading effects of your probes.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365

  This tells us that Tinman was right that Miller capacitance is the energy source.  The Miller capacitance reacts with the large inductance in series with the base to drive these oscillations. 

The last scope shot is the collector and base waveforms with the LEDs open.
I am learning--> i have great teachers.
TK & MarkE
Thanks for taking the time to check it out.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
The LED / B1 branch just load the oscillator down.  I've got my measurements and simulation in pretty close agreement now using the parts I listed.  The base current is pretty much a sawtooth.  It takes a big jump on the falling side of the collector voltage waveform and then ramps towards zero, where the collector voltage pulses upward and then collapses as L2 discharges.

If you are using your scope probes in X1 mode, you should change that to X10 mode.  It will reduce the loading effects of your probes.
I have switched the probes to 10x,and i dont see much difference in the wave forms,but the voltage across the circuit has risen some. I set the voltage on each channel to 100mV/PD,and dropped both channels down one devision so as to fit the whole wave form in the frame.

minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244



  To the likes of Floor and sm0key,
                MarkE , TK, MH  etc. are trying to educate, read and learn before making
   comments, everything they say can be verified. If any of them err and you point
   out they'll retract or amend as necessary, we should all be on the same side!
               John.