NP,

Hmmm,  i would of thought that you would be pleased with my average results as according to me they present
exactly what you were saying (or do i understand you wrong?).

My average values are:

Isupply = 4.07mA,
Iin        = 4.74mA,
Ifb       = 0.80mA

so indeed like you say, "Ifb as the difference between Isupply and Iin"  well, almost.

Itsu

QUESTION2: Do the capacitor supply draw-down tests support the general comparison seen on this circuit when using another method (eg. scope math)?
ANSWER: Yes they do...

the 1F (nominal) supply capacitor was identified as having an actual capacitance of 1.111F, using the draw-down time for a 681 ohm resistor (and then using online calculation)

the start and end values for charge on the 1.111F cap for the tests was as follows:-
4.0V  4.444Coulombs
3.4V  3.777Coulombs

The total value of charge transferred was:
  (4.444 - 3.777) = 0.667Coulombs = 667mCoulombs


runtime for circuit WITHOUT FEEDBACK: 68.4s
667mC => 667mAs / 68.4s = an average Isupply of 9.75 mA for 68.4s

runtime for circuit WITH FEEDBACK: 90s
667mC => 667mAs / 90s = an average Isupply of 7.4mA for 90s


the CSR traces show that charge transferred from the supply is comparable for both cases:
WITH FEEDBACK: positive pulse (14.6mA for 9.6us) = 137.24uC
WITHOUT FEEDBACK: positive pulse (10.6mA for 12.72us) = 134.8uC

BUT in the 'WITH FEEDBACK' case, 24.4 uC are ALSO transferred BACK to the supply to be re-used;
whereas in the 'WITHOUT FEEDBACK' case, NO charge is recycled

the result is that the runtime of the 'WITH FEEDBACK' lasts around 20-30 % longer, with the same average power delivered by the supply to the circuit throughout - ie. some of the total energy converted is recycled to perform approx 20-30% more work

it appears that this 'WiThFeedback' circuit is able to gather energy which would otherwise have been dissipated and lost, and re-use it to do extra work

energy is conserved - work is not!


np

thanks Itsu, appreciated

i understand what you're saying


before i reply, i should make it clear to other visitors that although i'm saying this whole arrangement is > 100% efficient, that relates to total work done (which is one or more kinds of conversion of energy) - all the usual losses apply (I^2R loss, heat loss, etc)

no laws of physics are broken here  - energy is not (and cannot be) created

god might disagree! 


i agree that the dissipation of the 'packet' of energy which was temporarily stored within the circuit (without feedback) is doing work (ie. it is still converting that part of the energy which was supplied) - this part of the energy, however, is not being converted into work as part of the circuit - and, at the moment, we don't know by what route it is leaving the system. my guess is that it is converting to heat, or other radiation

the WithFeedback circuit is also storing this part 'packet' of the total energy supplied, just the same, but because the coil field collapse is trying to maintain its original current flow when the transistor switches off the supply, it finds a suitable current path which just happens to be arranged to feedback this current, from the elcap, thro' the secondary, thro' the feedback LED, thro' the battery and back to the elcap

this reverse current is just a standard recharge current for the battery and so some of the recycled energy gets stored in the battery to be available for re-use by the circuit

the value of total work which is done by the 'mysterious', disappearing energy packet, will be the same value as the work done by that packet within the feedback path of the WithFeedback circuit, in the elcap, coil winding. feedback LED & battery

i guess its a bit like using a water-fuelled fuel cell - the fuel supply is water, the cell converts energy from water into Work, Heat, and... water

we could collect the water output and feed it back in with the water input supply and increase the efficiency of the whole system


...but hey, i'm just this guy called nul-points - what do i know? 

np

Your circuit analysis is incorrect due to your misunderstandings of AC circuits.
Just want to make sure no one is mislead here. All the best.

hi Void, welcome back

i'm happy to let the members here make up their own minds about the behaviour of this circuit

i find it intriguing that you think this unbalanced biphasic waveform, where the 1st pulse is generated by the draw of the circuit on the DC battery supply, and the 2nd pulse is generated by the action of the coil field-collapse and stored energy in the connected elcap (generating recharging current back through the battery) would be best treated by AC circuit analysis

you're welcome to your opinions, of course - and everyone else is welcome to theirs, too


np

Your circuit analysis is incorrect due to your misunderstandings of AC circuits.
Just want to make sure no one is mislead here. All the best.

this is the quote of yours i was addressing - don't try to change the subject please!

you said my circuit analysis is incorrect due to my misunderstandings of AC circuits

i say this circuit generates its own unsymmetric biphasic pulses

 - its not driven by an externally generated AC waveform

 - its not necessary, or appropriate, to use AC analysis

but then you ought to know that, based on your "understanding and quite a lot of prior experience in making [your] own measurements on similar types of circuits with similar types of complex waveforms"

Sigh... 

...and don't think you're going to get round me with that crazy, whispering in my ear, trick!

it's the 'nul and Void' Show

Good one.