Author Topic: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues? (Read 147020 times)

tinman · « **Reply #300 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:33:26 PM »

author=MileHigh link=topic=16225.msg488109#msg488109 date=1468069720]

MileHigh
[/quote]

My capacitors were no good MH,as they began to degrade rapidly after only 50 odd cycles.
That is why i discontinued with them.

MH
I am not in agreeance with RMSs measurement's,and i stated that on his video.
But what i do like about RMS,is that he dose so much toward experimentation,so yes,i do support him,but i did not support his measurements in that video.

Quote

How would you test your capacitor on the bench to determine the size? Let's see your bench smarts in action on paper right now.

Well if i had the urge to do that,then i would graph the voltage across a load resistor over time,and then calculate the energy dissipated.

Quote

Shaken not stirred

!

Yes,i enjoy a good James Bond movie as well

Quote

You built a mysterious capacitor of unknown value.

Yes i did,and you are correct--2600 farads was probably not the correct value of that cap.
The value was a rough calculation made against another super cap of 100 farads,and how long each would run the same load-that being that small DC motor in the video.
When i first made the cap,it would run the same motor 26 times longer than the 100 farad cap would with the same voltage across it--so yes,it was a rough guess MH.

Brad

ramset · « **Reply #301 on:** July 09, 2016, 03:37:24 PM »

So
will it be Pens or the sword ?

Pistols at ten paces ??

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/

or a simple PDF ...

with gentlemen's rules

?

poynt99 · « **Reply #302 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:09:20 PM »

Quote from: ramset on July 09, 2016, 03:37:24 PM

So
will it be Pens or the sword ?

Pistols at ten paces ??

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/05/man-knowledge-an-affair-of-honor-the-duel/

or a simple PDF ...

with gentlemen's rules

?

What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

MileHigh · « **Reply #303 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:12:12 PM »

Brad:

Well, you get some Brownie points for being honest. This business of running a small motor off of a capacitor is nothing more than a Robert Murray-Smith parlor trick. He deserves a virtual beat down for that because from what I recall he made several clips seven or eight months ago where he makes an unsubstantiated claim of a capacitor size and the only thing he does in the clip is run a small motor. I have no idea what he is doing more recently.

This was the death knell for RMS for me: I told him politely that he made a totally whackadoo clip where he measured the current and he did not measure the voltage and he told me to piss off. If he had apologized profusely for making such a stupid mistake and then redid a new clip then he would be doing the right thing - but he didn't. Likewise, when I asked him for measurements to back up is claims about the capacitance of his devices he also told me to piss off. If you noticed I also discussed some comments he made in the comment section of his clips where he is clueless. I don't care what he is doing now, his credibility was destroyed for me seven months ago. The ridiculous electric supercar press release makes the whole company look like a bunch of clowns.

Quote

Well if i had the urge to do that,then i would graph the voltage across a load resistor over time,and then calculate the energy dissipated.

Things related to this subject matter have been the topic of discussion for a long long time now. Is that really the only thing you can offer up? Where are your bench smarts? Surely you can do better than that? What about a real procedure to measure the capacitance of an unknown device and what about any other parameters?

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #304 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:31:29 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 04:09:20 PM

What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design. Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen. I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense. Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting. Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #305 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:39:27 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 04:09:20 PM

What is the challenge? Here's one:

1) 1.5V bench power source (not a battery)
2) 3 LED's (of agreed upon part number) in series.
3) The challenge: Light the 3 LED's with a circuit powered off the 1.5V supply. Correctly measure the input power (Pin from source) and output power (Pout power (total) dissipated by the 3 LED's). The highest Pout/Pin ratio wins.

Caveats:

a) The frequency of operation must be between 1kHz and 100kHz.
b) Total Pout (all 3 LEDs combined) must be 60mW minimum (greater than 60mW is fine).

My understanding is that itsu would offer his services as builder and tester for any circuit MH would come up with to go against Brad's circuit.

Sounds like fun

I have to ask though,why would it matter what LEDs we use,if we are measuring the power being delivered to them?.

Brad

poynt99 · « **Reply #306 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:41:28 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 04:31:29 PM

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design. Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen. I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense. Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting. Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

You could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

poynt99 · « **Reply #307 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:44:32 PM »

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 04:39:27 PM

I have to ask though,why would it matter what LEDs we use,if we are measuring the power being delivered to them?.

Brad

To make it more fair, controlled, and comparable, the source and load should be the same. Different LEDs have different forward voltages etc., and using a different forward voltage might give an efficiency advantage.

tinman · « **Reply #308 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:45:42 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on July 09, 2016, 04:31:29 PM

However, I admire the way you formulated the challenge, it makes great sense. Something similar should be done for a pulse motor build-off to make it more interesting. Or what you just stated is perfect for a Joule Thief build-off.

MileHigh

Quote

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact that if I wanted to do it I would need to work on a bench to iterate on a design. Since I have no bench and no desire to do it, it's not going to happen. I can't just put something on paper without testing it and iterating on it myself.

MH

I have to say that i do understand what you have stated above,but at the same time,i am a little confused. Was it not you that stated that the pen was mightier than the bench?,but now you say you need the bench before you can put pen to paper

Anyway-Poynt
That challenge seems to good to let go to waste.
How about we make it a forum challenge?--where you join in as well

Going by your parameters of the challenge,we are looking for the most efficient boost converter to run 3 LED's-yes?.

Brad

tinman · « **Reply #309 on:** July 09, 2016, 04:53:04 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 04:44:32 PM

To make it more fair, controlled, and comparable, the source and load should be the same. Different LEDs have different forward voltages etc., and using a different forward voltage might give an efficiency advantage.

Fair enough.
I only hope that i can get the LEDs you choose--maybe those big 10mm ones,although i have a heap of the 5mm ones from solar garden lights. ?

Brad

itsu · « **Reply #310 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:35:32 PM »

Quote

You could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

Any circuit (within reason) is fine by me, a joule thief like circuit comes in mind first to ramp up the 1.5V to something that will light the leds, or a switching PS like concept for higher efficiency.

Itsu

MileHigh · « **Reply #311 on:** July 09, 2016, 10:10:18 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on July 09, 2016, 04:41:28 PM

You could always simulate a design.

The design can be anything by the way; one of your own, something from an application note from Linear Technology, something COTS off ebay, you name it. Perhaps itsu has an idea of his own, and you two could collaborate on it?

In another time or another era, I may have been interested. But unfortunately not this time.

I figure you could emulate the DC-to-DC converter strategy of high-frequency switching to stay away from the resistive losses in the main coil. However, there are switching losses also so perhaps slower switching with a big low-resistance coil would work also. After all, you don't have to worry about any size or cost constraints for the coil or any other components for that matter.

I actually think sticking to a Joule-Thief-style architecture makes it more interesting. Then you are constrained with the Joule Thief feedback mechanism and the inherent disadvantages associated with it. So that pushes the designer to try to optimize the switching and the timing when constrained within the "box" of the Joule Thief architecture.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #312 on:** July 09, 2016, 10:27:22 PM »

Quote from: tinman on July 09, 2016, 04:45:42 PM

MH

I have to say that i do understand what you have stated above,but at the same time,i am a little confused. Was it not you that stated that the pen was mightier than the bench?,but now you say you need the bench before you can put pen to paper

Brad

You are just being your pain-in-the-ass imp character and I am not amused. The pen is mightier than the bench and the pen comes first. It's time for a smack-down.

Let me translate that for you in the context of this discussion: You learn knowledge in the classroom or by yourself or on the job. That is "the pen." Then you apply that knowledge by going on the bench.

I will give you an example: You want to design a circuit to energize an inductor and then discharge the inductor into a load. If you don't have the slightest clue how the inductor responds when you energize it by applying a voltage across it, how can you possibly make intelligent decisions and component choices when you are working on the bench? Sound familiar?

You are also trying to conveniently forget something.

What is your test procedure for your supercapacitor? You have said almost nothing, and in fact, much to your chagrin and loathing, your first response was pretty much junk. Yes, I am pressing the button because the button had to be pressed.

Where are your "bench smarts?" You say you have learned nearly everything on the bench. How would you test a supercapacitor to measure it's size and any other parameters that you want to mention? I am asking for a test procedure from you, not one lousy sentence. Are you up to the challenge?

The whole world is watching Brad.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #313 on:** July 09, 2016, 10:47:51 PM »

While it is very amusing to see you mates arguing back and forth, it has been a long time since anyone has actually posted any real empirical results. Some of the arguing and conjecturing (hand-waving, or maybe ****-waving

) has to do with the Joule Thief circuits and their efficiency. So I decided to make up a test bed and do some testing.

The results so far are to be considered preliminary, but it looks like Circuit 2 is the efficiency winner, by a thin margin. It produces less brilliant light but on a lux per watt basis it wins.

I am running short on suitable toroids so I wound the inductor on a small pot-core setup. This is probably even better than using a toroid, and a heck of a lot easier to wind. Both L1 and L2 are 20 turns of #34 magnet wire.

I couldn't get my power supply to set precisely at 1.5 volts; the voltage monitor showed 1.62 volts for the tests I have run. I checked input voltage and current both with DMMs and with oscilloscope and got essentially the same results. The output ran one LumiLed super-efficent LED in my lightbox, with the ExTech LT300 lightmeter, with sensor 18 inches away from the LED. As you can see from the image of the test circuit below, all I had to do to change between the circuits was to flip the LED connector over and attach it to the other output pins. The actual position of the LED in the lightbox is exactly the same in both cases, there is absolutely no difference in the two setups except how the LED is connected to the board.

So, Circuit 1 ran at an average input power of 90 mW and produced 63.9 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 710 lux per Watt.
Circuit 2 ran at an average input power of 40 mW and produced 30.0 lux at the sensor, for an efficiency of 750 lux per Watt.
By eye, there was little difference in the brightness of the LED, even though in real terms #2 was half as bright as #1. Both circuits ran at a little over 12 kHz, but with very different waveforms (Collector wrt Emitter). I'll show the waveforms later on, perhaps also with a video of the testing.

So the efficiency winner in these preliminary tests is Circuit 2, by a thin margin. Brightness winner is #1 but will definitely drain the battery much faster.

Quote from: tinman on July 06, 2016, 01:04:01 PM

(snip)
For instance,the schematics below.
You say !your! JT circuit(1) is the most efficient,and i say circuit 2 is more efficient
(snip)

Brad

TinselKoala · « **Reply #314 on:** July 09, 2016, 11:27:00 PM »

A second set of results at a lower input voltage of 1.52V:

Circuit 1 gave 49.3 Lux at an average input power of 54.6 mW for an efficiency of 903 Lux/Watt.
Circuit 2 gave 26.1 Lux at an average input power of 28 mW for an efficiency of 932 Lux/Watt.
Operating frequency is between 10 and 11 kHz.

Again, Circuit 2 is more efficient on an electric power to light basis, while Circuit 1 is brighter.

ETA: I've used 20 turns for both windings in the inductor. If anyone has suggestions as to different turns/turn ratios which might give different or better results, please let me know and I'll wind up a new coil set. The pot-core makes this easy as it has an internal bobbin that is easily replaced.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues? (Read 147020 times)

tinman

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

ramset

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

poynt99

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

MileHigh

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

MileHigh

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

tinman

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

poynt99

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

poynt99

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

tinman

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

tinman

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

itsu

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

MileHigh

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

MileHigh

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

TinselKoala

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?

TinselKoala

Re: A Perspective On The B Type EESD - Robert Murray-Smith - Any issues?