PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > Joule Thief Circuits > Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?
2024-11-26, 15:31:40
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22
Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?  (Read 342656 times)
Topic Options img
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #425 on: 2011-01-25, 15:44:36 »
Group: Guest
Let us try to understand the waveforms objectively

I am using the screen shots on reply 106 from the better prototype.  With the better prototype, the resulting voltages, current and power are much higher.  We did not operate at the noise level as some claimed.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 1 (top curve on the top LHS diagram) first.  That measurement was taken across the battery terminals.  Most people would expect to see a flat DC value.  What was actually observed was a pulsing curve.  In the FLEET prototype, the battery should be considered as part of the pulsing circuit.  The pulsing voltage across it might imply that it was being recharged at the same time.  The feedback element was there.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 2 (last curve on the top LHS diagram).  That measurement was across a one ohm resistor in the circuit.  Note that the wave cut across the zero axis with the negative component higher than the positive component.  This implied that the current was definitely not DC in one direction.  Obviously, the shape was not sinusoidal.  The large negative values implied that the back EMF might be responsible for part of the current.

Let us now focus on the Input Instantaneous Power (Middle Curve).  It had both positive and negative values.  The negative value should not be treated as “meaningless negative power”.  It should be treated as Power measured when the current was in the opposite direction.  The correct Input Energy measurement for one cycle should take both the positive part (above zero axis) PLUS the negative part (below zero axis).   The actual area values should be used. The integration method taking into account only the numeric value of the area was the accepted scientific measurement as explained to me by the Hong Kong University Professors.

If their explanations are correct, and we want to get a quick value without the integration, the rms value of the Instantaneous Power Curve should be used.  In other words, PhysicsProf and his colleagues are CORRECT in displaying the rms of the Instantaneous Power!

Poynt99, I believe we can easy get the mean, the average, the mean cycle or the rms values of the Instantaneous Power Value easily once we have the raw Instantaneous Power Curve.  It is easy to list all these values for comparison and learning purposes.

In research involving unexpected phenomenon (electron motion energy entering the system), we have to be open-minded and accept ALL explanations that do not violate the Laws of Physics.  Do the necessary experiments to eliminate some of them until the best one survived. 

There will be more and better FLEET prototype experimental results in the near future.  But the ones in replay 106 and reply 350 are worth deeper analysis while we wait.

May God open our eyes and minds!  Amen.
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #426 on: 2011-01-25, 16:19:41 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-01-25, 15:44:36
Let us try to understand the waveforms objectively

I am using the screen shots on reply 106 from the better prototype.  With the better prototype, the resulting voltages, current and power are much higher.  We did not operate at the noise level as some claimed.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 1 (top curve on the top LHS diagram) first.  That measurement was taken across the battery terminals.  Most people would expect to see a flat DC value.  What was actually observed was a pulsing curve.  In the FLEET prototype, the battery should be considered as part of the pulsing circuit.  The pulsing voltage across it might imply that it was being recharged at the same time.  The feedback element was there.

Let us focus on the Input Channel 2 (last curve on the top LHS diagram).  That measurement was across a one ohm resistor in the circuit.  Note that the wave cut across the zero axis with the negative component higher than the positive component.  This implied that the current was definitely not DC in one direction.  Obviously, the shape was not sinusoidal.  The large negative values implied that the back EMF might be responsible for part of the current.

Let us now focus on the Input Instantaneous Power (Middle Curve).  It had both positive and negative values.  The negative value should not be treated as “meaningless negative power”.  It should be treated as Power measured when the current was in the opposite direction.  The correct Input Energy measurement for one cycle should take both the positive part (above zero axis) PLUS the negative part (below zero axis).   The actual area values should be used. The integration method taking into account only the numeric value of the area was the accepted scientific measurement as explained to me by the Hong Kong University Professors.

If their explanations are correct, and we want to get a quick value without the integration, the rms value of the Instantaneous Power Curve should be used.  In other words, PhysicsProf and his colleagues are CORRECT in displaying the rms of the Instantaneous Power!

Poynt99, I believe we can easy get the mean, the average, the mean cycle or the rms values of the Instantaneous Power Value easily once we have the raw Instantaneous Power Curve.  It is easy to list all these values for comparison and learning purposes.

In research involving unexpected phenomenon (electron motion energy entering the system), we have to be open-minded and accept ALL explanations that do not violate the Laws of Physics.  Do the necessary experiments to eliminate some of them until the best one survived.  

There will be more and better FLEET prototype experimental results in the near future.  But the ones in replay 106 and reply 350 are worth deeper analysis while we wait.

May God open our eyes and minds!  Amen.


I agree with you Lawrence - but with some caveats.  I do not think that you can apply an RMS voltage value to your load.  The RMS value as I understand it is V^2/r.  If R keeps changing as it does at high frequencies, then you can't get the true value unless you also know what R has changed to.  But you can measure the work done.  Check the temperature rise and the amount of power in lighting diodes. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not sure why you're using a 1 Ohm resistor to establish current from the battery.  Isn't that unnecessarily high?  I would have thought 0.25 Ohm or thereby would have been preferable.  I agree that your instantaneous product of volts x amps will give you the net output from the battery.  And I also agree with the value shown - assuming, as Poynty has pointed out - that your scope/probes and what have you are up for the job.  I wonder if you can't perhaps tune it better to show a net negative voltage?  We've managed this but it takes time to find those values.  Then I suspect your argument will be conclusive.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #427 on: 2011-01-25, 16:21:35 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
This is beginning to test my patience Lawrence.

I have clearly outlined what must be done to obtain a proper measurement using an oscilloscope. There is no argument that can refute this method.

A MEAN or INTEGRAL computation of the instantaneous power are the only two processes that are valid for obtaining the real power or energy content in the input and output circuitry. In cases where the traces are clearly periodic, the integral computation is unnecessary, and clearly the JT operates in a periodic manner.

It's time to be scientific and refrain from ambiguity. Perform the tests as I described please, and let's then look at the results.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #428 on: 2011-01-25, 16:42:06 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-25, 13:45:36


So to summarize again:

1) calibrate the scope channel prior to measurements.
2) obtain the instantaneous power using the multiply function in the scope to multiply channel 1 voltage by channel 2 current.
3) use the "mean" or "average" function in the scope on that instantaneous power trace to obtain the running average power.
4) compare the average input and output power values.


.99

  I am happy to do this when I get back up to the university.  I do think that data-taking is much more useful than petty personalized attacks.  To the science rather than to the person (ad hominem) please.

  Meanwhile, I will try to boost the output power of the DUT as I indicated.  I'm planning to try an air-core as Lawrence suggested, today.
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #429 on: 2011-01-26, 00:40:57 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-25, 16:42:06
 I am happy to do this when I get back up to the university.  I do think that data-taking is much more useful than petty personalized attacks.  To the science rather than to the person (ad hominem) please.

  Meanwhile, I will try to boost the output power of the DUT as I indicated.  I'm planning to try an air-core as Lawrence suggested, today.

I am not attacking anyone with my statements. I am being firm because Lawrence and yourself seem to be attempting to re-direct the focus from where it should precisely lay, and that is on the correct procedure for obtaining the measurements.

You can eyeball the waveforms all you wish, but you can not derive a true quantitative value of power from that observation....that's why we are using test equipment. The goal is to use this equipment properly, and thus far I have pointed out a few flaws that require correction before things are proper.

So I would strongly suggest that until someone comes forth with measurements made as I outlined, they be reserved in their "subjective" assessments. The only thing that matters are properly obtained numbers. Of course I am referring only to oscilloscope measurements in these discussions.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #430 on: 2011-01-26, 04:37:11 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-25, 03:00:11
Here is a perfect example where knowing the scope and its limits is important for critical measurements. Not your fault Professor, but please take careful note of the following:

Close examination of the picture will reveal that the CH2 blue current trace falls mostly below the zero mark, clearly showing about a -4mV offset in the scope. The signal acquisition is in error and will therefore produce erroneous results for the multiplication.

In all Tek scopes there is a Signal Path Compensation (SPC) which needs to be run prior to critical measurements because of this inherent "problem" in the scope channels. The offset is quite significant relative to the signal peak to peak level, and therefore will grossly skew the current measurement. It is wise to allow the scope to stabilize for 20 to 40 minutes, then run the SPC. This is mainly to compensate for DC offsets in the signal path so that 0=0. Info about how to run the SPC can be found in the TDS3032 manual on pages 1-4 and 3-77. keep in mind that the SPC should be run any time the ambient temperature varies more than 10ºC. I would try to take your input and output measurements within a few minutes of each other to ensure drift is not a significant factor.

Sorry Professor, but these measurements are not useful at all. Please for future measurements, run the SPC calibration prior to taking any critical measurements. And also of great importance; use the MEAN computation on the instantaneous power wave form.

.99

It's a pity that we should trash the data, besides, it seems like alot of work to get the scope to be perfect. I have a suggestion.

If P(t) = I(t) * V(t)  and V(t)  is offset by example, -4mV
then, P(t) = I(t)V(t) - 4mV*I(t)

All we have to do is take that -4mV * I(t) out and we will get the correct P(t).  We can create a separate power waveform of 4mV * I(t) and add that to P(t).  The math seems ok. 
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #431 on: 2011-01-26, 05:16:32 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
  Glad to get back to data-taking, even if it is with my colleague's BitScope lap-top oscilloscope (home-town, not at the University).

  I decided to look at the phase relationship between the input voltage and the output voltage in the Tseung circuit.  Straightforward and simple, right?   the scope says otherwise, and I still don't understand the 2nd result.  Conditions as follows, using Lawrence's Prototype A which he sent me.  All voltages and currents are RMS.  The only change between the two runs was the resistance of the output-circuit resistor, which was in series with the output LED.  Incidentally, we found that the resistance of the output LED was approx. 200 ohms (from the voltage drop and current).

Output R  Input V (AA battery)  Input V across 1ohm  Output V  Output current (using 100ohm OR 1ohm)  Frequency of oscillation
100 ohm     1.48 V                        0.119 A                3.35 V            9.7 mA                                                69 KHz

   1 ohm      1.48 V                      0.112 A                  2.96 V           26 mA                                                  61.5 KHz

These voltages/currents are shown as a way to make comparisons with a "small" change in the circuit (output resistor).

Note that with the change in output R, the major change was in the output current while the input V and input current did not change much, and the output V changed by about 10% while the output current went UP by a factor of about THREE.  Strange...  We've noticed this before while trying to "tune" the Tseung device.  Who can explain this??

Notice that the frequency of oscillation dropped with the drop in output R from 100 to 1 ohm.
Conclude:  The most sensitive indicator of change in the circuit is the output current, along with the frequency.  

But even more striking is the change in phase relationship between the input oscillation (measured across the input resistor, always 1 ohm in this test) and the output oscillation (measured across the output resistor, 100 ohm {left} or 1 ohm {right} ) -- which we see in the attached.  I have juxtaposed the signals from the input resistor (yellow trace) and output resistor (green).  

We see that the voltage spike in the output circuit (see left traces) begins when the current across the input resistor drops rapidly.  This is what I expect from the inductive coupling in the toroid.  On the right, we see the traces for the case where I replaced the 100 ohm output resistor with a 1 ohm output resistor.
Strangely, the output current rise appears now to LAG SIGNIFICANTLY behind the current-drop in the input R.  I don't understand how this change in output R could have such a large effect in the phase relationship; and I'm wondering about our scope here.  But it seemed to check out... could not find a problem in the scope.  Would still like to re-test with a different scope.

Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone?  

Again, I find that this is a most educational circuit, and intriguing.  (Thank you, Lawrence, for sending the prototype to study.)
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #432 on: 2011-01-26, 05:39:02 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
    Data are important, are they not?  The above data show the changes that can occur in this "simple circuit" with change in a resistor, changes that need I think to be understood at some level.  With the surprises and the re-checking, I did not get to the air-core transformer today.

    This afternoon I did one other test that is interesting.  I put a 1000 Kohm resistor in parallel with the 1000 Kohm R already in place, leading to the base of the transistor.  I measured the resistance of the pair at 495 ohms.  Here are the changes observed:


Output R  Input V (AA battery)  Input V across 1ohm  Output V  Output current (using 1ohm R)  Frequency of oscillation

   1 ohm      1.48 V                      0.112 A                  2.96 V           26 mA                                                  61.5 KHz
   1 ohm       1.48 V                     0.142 A                  2.93 V           32 mA                                                  47   KHz
   
img  humbugger
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #433 on: 2011-01-26, 05:42:00 »
Group: Guest
Quote
We see that the voltage spike in the output circuit (see left traces) begins when the current across the input resistor drops rapidly.  This is what I expect from the inductive coupling in the toroid.  On the right, we see the traces for the case where I replaced the 100 ohm output resistor with a 1 ohm output resistor.
Strangely, the output current rise appears now to LAG SIGNIFICANTLY behind the current-drop in the input R.  I don't understand how this change in output R could have such a large effect in the phase relationship; and I'm wondering about our scope here.  But it seemed to check out... could not find a problem in the scope.  Would still like to re-test with a different scope.

Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone? 


Could it be that the reactance of the leakage inductance of the transformer is negligible compared to 100 ohms but significant when compared to 1 ohm?  Current lags voltage as the inductive reactance becomes more dominant.  Anyone else?
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #434 on: 2011-01-26, 08:08:46 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
  Your explanation seems quite reasonable, humbugger.  It has been a few years since I taught E&M at the university level...

@Lawrence, you speak of a prototype with higher output, here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9952;topicseen#msg9952

  Would you be willing to do as I have done four posts earlier, to show the waveforms for your device by taking the voltage across the input resistor and the output resistor SIMULTANEOUSLY, and showing the two traces on the same scope-shot.  I am very curious about the phase relationship between the input and output voltages in your device -- also the frequency at which it runs.  And any "hints" you have as to why your device may perform better than Prototype A would be appreciated.
   
img  BEP
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #435 on: 2011-01-26, 12:20:28 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-26, 05:16:32

Can you explain the phase shift, MH or anyone?  [/b]


Prof,

I will agree with Humbugger that leakage inductance can cause some phase shift. Another cause can be the use and loading of the third winding. Without it, the phase shift should reflect that of a common transformer. With it, and variation of load upon that third winding, you are introducing some effects related to a three phase system. The phasor sum may appear to be upwards of 30 degrees.

More common examples of the process is the VFT (variable frequency transformer) and the phase shifting transformer.

You will hear that the phase difference is always 180 or zero. In reality, this is not always accurate.
You should be able to replace that resistor with a rheostat and control the phase shift displayed on the scope.

This may also explain your factor of three.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #436 on: 2011-01-26, 13:41:44 »
Group: Guest
I think I have a possible explanation, it took a lot of thinking.  I don't think it has anything to do with leakage inductance.

In the left case example where the resistor is 100 ohms, this higher load resistance will result in the core discharging it's energy quickly through the high resistance and everything stays in phase.  So the excitation of the core when the L2 is energized by the transistor switching on causes standard transformer action on the secondary winding.  When the core is energizing, the secondary winding is at a negative potential and current is not flowing in the secondary winding.  The excitation of L2 by the transistor and the increasing magnetic flux are in phase as shown by the negative potential on the secondary winding being perfectly lined up with the increasing current going through L2.  Then when the transistor switches off, you see discharge of the magnetic flux energy in the core through the secondary winding consisting of the 100-ohm resistor and the output LED.  A small amount of energy is also discharged through the the input LED.  This decreasing magnetic flux in the core causes the positive potential on the secondary winding and current flows through the secondary winding and everything is in phase.  So in this case the setup is acting like a transformer where L2 pumps energy into L3 in phase.

In the right case example where the resistor is 1 ohm, things change.  The root cause is fairly simple, now that the load on the secondary winding is just an LED and a 1-ohm resistor, this does not put the same type of load on the core when it wants to discharge it's stored magnetic energy.  In this case it's a very light load and it will take much longer for the magnetic energy stored in the core to discharge through the very low resistance.  The net result of this is the setup changes from looking like a transformer, and starts to look like a lossy inductor.  So like in any inductor, you have a situation where the current (or energy stored in the magnetic core) lags the voltage excitation by 90 degrees.

In the 100-ohm case, when the transistor switches on, the magnetic energy in the core is at a minimum because it just finished the discharge cycle.  In the 1-ohm case, when the transistor switches on, the magnetic energy in the core is shifted by 90 degrees and it's at a maximum.  The magnetic energy in the core actually starts it's discharge cycle when the transistor first switches on.  So this 90 degree phase shift is telling you that the setup is now acting like a lossy inductor.

I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

MileHigh
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #437 on: 2011-01-26, 14:08:25 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-26, 08:08:46

@Lawrence, you speak of a prototype with higher output, here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9952;topicseen#msg9952

  Would you be willing to do as I have done four posts earlier, to show the waveforms for your device by taking the voltage across the input resistor and the output resistor SIMULTANEOUSLY, and showing the two traces on the same scope-shot. 

I am very curious about the phase relationship between the input and output voltages in your device -- also the frequency at which it runs.  And any "hints" you have as to why your device may perform better than Prototype A would be appreciated.

Dear PhysicsProf,

Please go to my bench for the explanations:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg9289#msg9289

I have not completed the explanations and have not started on analyzing your particular results yet.  Thus that thread is locked.  After I have presented my thoughts fully, I shall welcome comments.  Please send me email if you have important thoughts to share in the meantime.

Lawrence
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #438 on: 2011-01-26, 17:44:26 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
    Alright, thank you -- and I will watch your bench thread for further information also.

With regard to the JouleRinger, Xee2 at EnergeticForum noted yesterday:

Quote
Read through the Joule ringer thread and you will see that there is no "how to". LaserSaber said he would post a video showing how to make one, but that has not happened yet. Many of us have gotten a few minutes of run time, but he is the only one able to get 20 to 40 minutes that I recall and he can only do it with one type of transformer.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7051-joule-ringer-12.html#post127766

 
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #439 on: 2011-01-26, 19:26:49 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Lawrence,

What core model (part number) did you use for the prototype A you sent the professor?

Also, what is the part number of the LEDs?

Thanks, .99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #440 on: 2011-01-26, 20:03:22 »
Group: Guest
Poynt99,

When I bought my leds and toroids, I experimented with different ones from the Electronic Market Place in Shenzhen.  There were many hundreds of small stalls selling components.  I did not have the particular part numbers but I had their business cards so that I could purchase from them again.

I googled the Internet and examined similar products.  Here is what I found for LEDs:
The one that most similar to my LEDs is 93906 5MM White LED.
American Science & Surplus:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm/subsection/15/category/147

93906 5MM WHITE LED'S***   $1.95 EACH 


For toroids, I found the following:

http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206

The two photos most similar to the one I used are shown below. (My guess is the T106-26 but that is only a guess.  PhysicsProf has three of them.  He may be able to help to identify the exact model.)

Hope that helps.

Lawrence
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #441 on: 2011-01-27, 04:08:14 »
Group: Guest
Hm....

Seems like the 1 Ohm is in phase, the 100 Ohm is 180 degree out of phase. 

When the yellow current rises, it induces a voltage accross the the secondary.   This voltage soon meets the LED forward bias and start a current through the LED.  Induction soon fades out and LED stop forward bias flow in the secondary.  A bit after that the transistor shut off as indicated by the fall of yellow curve.  This induces a reverse voltage in the secondary.  Since the LED blocks current flowing backward, everything starts again on the next cycle. 

180 degree out of phase is a bit challenging. 
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #442 on: 2011-01-27, 19:47:29 »
Group: Guest
Comparison of Mindsets

Poynt99 was right in saying that he, PhysicsProf and Lawrence had different purposes and mindsets.  The following is what I believe are the key differences.

Lawrence: He worked on ‘kinetic energy of gases in motion’ at University when he was around 20 years old.  His first successful prototype on using energy from still air was in 2002 and he brought a prototype to Aeronautical University of Beijing.  On Dec 2004, he worked out the mathematics of the pulse-pushed pendulum together with Mr. Lee Cheung Kin.  They met Wang ShenHe and took the Wang prototype apart and explained its operation according to the Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory.  The first COP > 1 prototype was done in Hong Kong with Mr. Tong Po Chi and demonstrated at the Inno Tech Design Expo 2009.  The first successful FLEET prototype was completed on July 13, 2010.  Dozens of FLEET prototypes have been produced including an over 280 index value by a Student, Felix, at Hong Kong University on Oct 9, 2010.

With that background, Lawrence is totally convinced of his Lead-out/Bring-in Energy theory.  That is ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY to him.  He believes that it is a God Granted Truth and is prepared to defend it with all his mind and intellect.

As for sending the prototypes for testing and confirmation, he treats that as a mere formality.  The COP > 1 result cannot be wrong. 


PhysicsProf: PhysicsProf came from the traditional academic background.  His initial reaction to the Tseung FLEET prototype was – another impossible perpetual motion machine claim that violates the Law of Conservation of Energy.

After more reading of the material from Lawrence and persuasion from his non-technical friends, he was willing to test a Tseung FLEET prototype.  Unfortunately, he is retired and has to drive 140 miles round trip to his University to use the good oscilloscope.

He tried to be unbiased and fair.  He earnestly disclosed his findings.  He admitted that he was new in this field of alternative energy.  He learned much in about 1 month.  His hard work and the scope shots were dismissed as an experimental error.  Obviously he was upset.  His initial tests provided results that seemed to support the Tseung findings and he was willing to spend his savings on a ATTEN Oscilloscope to do further experiments.

He is used to be treated with respect by his students and colleagues.  He was furious at the treatment at overunity.com and decided to join OUR.  I hope that he can remain as an important contributor.

Poynt99: I believe Poynt99 wants to uphold a high standard for his forum.  Any claim of COP > 1 less than 100% proven will not be allowed.  He also believes that he is an expert in using the Oscilloscopes.  His words cannot be wrong (he did admit jumping the gun once).

To his credit, he is willing to accept prototypes from Lawrence and also willing to build one himself.  He is probably the only one in this OUR forum with two good oscilloscopes at his disposal.  He has strong views on how things should be done properly.  This is good and bad at the same time.  It is good because others can have something definite to follow.  It is bad because he is up against someone like Lawrence who has produced dozens of working prototypes and spent months tuning them.

It will be a clash of scientific minds and should be fun for everybody.  Let us hope the “fight” will be in the “scientific ring” and avoid the degrading personal insults as we have seen in other forums.

Enjoy the show and Let us Learn together to benefit the Human Race.  Amen.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #443 on: 2011-01-27, 20:08:56 »
Group: Guest
Lawrence:

I suggest that you send what you consider a working device with COP >1 to Poynt99.  That way there is no room for ambiguity.  I really hope that can happen.  Poynt has indicated that it would take only a few days to make the measurements.  His knowledge and skills are unparalleled based on my observations and discussions with him over the past two years.

MileHigh
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #444 on: 2011-01-27, 21:14:06 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-01-27, 20:08:56
Lawrence:

I suggest that you send what you consider a working device with COP >1 to Poynt99.  That way there is no room for ambiguity.  I really hope that can happen.  Poynt has indicated that it would take only a few days to make the measurements.  His knowledge and skills are unparalleled based on my observations and discussions with him over the past two years.

MileHigh

I am trying to convince a friend in Hong Kong to send one of the high performance FLEET prototypes.  The minimum performance I suggested was TRUE COP > 100 and measured Output Power greater than 20 watts.  That will be one of his better prototypes.

So far, he has not indicated yes or no.  If he says yes, things will be easy.  If he says no, I may have to build one in USA.  The task will be harder because I do not have any oscilloscopes to use for tuning.

I am also working with the vice president of a subsidiary of Tektronics who has expressed interest to support our efforts to benefit the World.  If that works out, I can supply the data from the best prototype in my possession.  That prototype easily has COP > 100 and has measured Output Power greater than 20 Watts.  At the same time, I can build a similar prototype in a few days.  The shipping may shift the high performance conditions but the chance of it dropping to below 1 is low.

I believe poynt99 is ready to build a FLEET prototype himself.  He has all the part numbers and schematics which he drew up initially.  Even if I fail to produce a prototype in USA, he may be able to come up with something.

The actual value is not too important in the first test.  The waveforms are important.  If poynt99 obtains the screen shots himself, he will not dismiss it as experimental error.  That will give us solid ground to carry on additional discussions.

I do not mind waiting a few more days before going into the “ring” and have fun.  It would then be fair game.  Poynt99, PhysicsProf and myself all have working prototypes and DSOs.  The World will learn much from such powerful interactions.

Lawrence
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #445 on: 2011-01-27, 22:18:54 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011-01-26, 20:03:22
Poynt99,

When I bought my leds and toroids, I experimented with different ones from the Electronic Market Place in Shenzhen.  There were many hundreds of small stalls selling components.  I did not have the particular part numbers but I had their business cards so that I could purchase from them again.

I googled the Internet and examined similar products.  Here is what I found for LEDs:
The one that most similar to my LEDs is 93906 5MM White LED.
American Science & Surplus:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm/subsection/15/category/147

93906 5MM WHITE LED'S***   $1.95 EACH  


For toroids, I found the following:

http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206

The two photos most similar to the one I used are shown below. (My guess is the T106-26 but that is only a guess.  PhysicsProf has three of them.  He may be able to help to identify the exact model.)

Hope that helps.

Lawrence


Thank you for the information Lawrence.

A couple questions:

1) How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
2) Did you buy and use the Iron Powder Cores for power conversion at that site? Positive that the core is Iron Powder?
3) Have you or the professor measured the collector voltage? What is the peak to peak voltage?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #446 on: 2011-01-27, 22:59:58 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-27, 22:18:54
Thank you for the information Lawrence.

A couple questions:

1) How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
2) Did you buy and use the Iron Powder Cores for power conversion at that site? Positive that the core is Iron Powder?
3) Have you or the professor measured the collector voltage? What is the peak to peak voltage?

.99

Some answers:

1)   How do you know the LED is a 3V forward voltage?
The first experiment we did was to use a 1.5 AA battery to light it and show that it will not light.  We had to use two and the two would have to be in a certain direction.  Then we showed that we could light it easily with the Joule Thief Circuit.

2)   Did you buy and use the Iron Powder Cores?
I am not 100% sure on that point.  I did ask for toroids to do power conversion at that shop.  I also asked for the cheapest.  The price I paid for was US$1 for 7.  I got 20 in the initial round.  My friend then got 50 when the prototypes were successful.

3)   Initially, I used only the Joule Thief basic.  The  peak to peak I found was 2.5 volts which was large enough to recharge another AA battery.  Once I had success with the secondary circuit, I ignored the JT basic part.  In the overview diagram, I refer to that as zone Z.  I focused on zone Y.

Lawrence

Edit: I did try to use the Joule Thief basic to demonstrate COP > 1.  That effort was NOT successful.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #447 on: 2011-01-28, 10:00:14 »
Group: Guest
Making the best of the scientific discussions

Many good threads turned sour.  Many got so huge that learning from them became impossible.  Many got hijacked into talking about something else.  Many got into personal insults and heated non-scientific exchanges.

I now propose an improved format to make our scientific discussions more productive and truly benefit the World.

The improvements are as follows:
1.   A topic is clearly identified.  A brief description will be presented first.
2.   A small number of “fighters” are invited into the “ring”.  The number should be between two to five.  These fighters are responsible for thoroughly discussing the topic.  The eyes of the World will be on them.  They must vow to focus on the topic and avoid all personal insults or deliberate diversions.
3.   These fighters will fight in a moderated thread.  Only they and a moderator (referee) are allowed to post.  That will help to keep the fight focused.  The moderator cannot be a fighter in this ring.
4.   So that all others can voice their opinions, there will be an associated thread allowing all to post.
5.   After a certain time to be determined by the moderator, the fight will stop and the thread locked.  If necessary, a new fight can start on the same or similar topic. 

We can start with a trial fight.  We can invite members to become fighters or moderator.  The first topic can be as follows:

If an invention uses X units of supplied energy and it can lead-out or bring-in Y units of existing energy from the surrounding, the effective total input energy to the system is X+Y units.  If there were no loss, X+Y units will appear in the output.

If the invention can loopback X units of energy back to input, that X unit can again lead-out or bring-in Y units of energy from the surrounding, the invention can keep itself running and have Y units of energy continuously to use.

Such a machine is NOT the impossible perpetual motion machine.  It does not violate any Laws of Physics.

Now I would like to invite forum members to become fighters and moderator.  Once we have these volunteers, we shall set up the threads for them and for the on-lookers.  The above topic will be thoroughly examined and discussed in depth to the benefit of the World.  They can PM me for this trial fight.

*** This particular post will appear in the ltseung888 bench and in a number of threads in this OUR forum.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #448 on: 2011-01-29, 04:18:56 »
Group: Guest
From the Joule Ringer Thread in Overunity.com (Reply 182)

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg272131#msg272131

Quote from: Mk1 on 2011-01-24, 21:21:30
@itseung888

Ok now it seems you managed to get others to see the potential of the Joule thief

Good work ! But now we need to address the real issue here .

You showed poor judgment in changing the name of the JT to your fleet shit , this doesn't give you the right to steal work from others and get the credit for it .

I personally think you did a good job , because no one would have done what you have done , lets clarify that you did not invent the fleet because it was already there and called the Joule thief , thousands of people put there efforts together for a common goal , and that goal was not to provide you with retirement money , we are in this mess because of people taking advantage of others , to prove you are not one of those , stop calling the JT something else then a JOULE THIEF .

I must say i feel cheated by the fact that you try to steal the JT from the people that  conceived it , i personally put 2 years of my time in this project , and that was a gift to the world not to you , you are part of the world and deserve access to it but not to take it as your own , you may think you did great by proving what most of us know , the only problem in doing that is that you removed our anonymity , now we will be a target , more work for everyone fighting all the trolls , our relative peace in conducting our experiment may be a thing of the past .

Now you know why others did not pursue the cop verification , but since you are simple man you did not catch that , i tried to tell you !

All and all , thank for helping the JT cause .

Dear Mk1,

You gave a reason for the Joule Thief and Joule Ringer people not pursing the COP verification.  I accept that.

However, I hold a totally different view.  I believe that we should conclusively demonstrate that COP can be greater than 1 to benefit the World.  We should invite the established academic establishment (e.g. PhysicsProf) to verify and confirm that.  The resulting publicity will provide much more support and funding to this kind of research.

Poynt99 is probably the only one in the OUR forum with two good oscilloscopes at his disposal.  I thought that I was deprived when I had two oscilloscopes in my bedroom in Hong Kong.  The working space was less than 50 square feet.  Now I realized that it was a luxury compared with the researchers in USA.  Many of the outspoken forum members do not even have one oscilloscope and they claim to have years of experience! 

If you traced the history of FLEET (from the Pulsed DC transformer with Embedded Magnets Thread) in the overunity.com forum, you will find that the term was coined even before I used the Joule Thief as the oscillating power source.  The original oscillating power source was the cheap signal generator from China!

You can use a different term such as LT-JT instead of FLEET.  The LT-JT is different from the standard JT with a secondary because the COP must be tuned to be greater than 1 to be qualified as FLEET.  As PhysicsProf have confirmed – not every JT with a secondary can have COP greater than 1.  He lowered the input power and the COP dropped to below 1. 

Sorry that I blew away your collective cover and anonymity.  Ask Stefan to watch out for the trolls and kick them out.  I regret that I did not do that.  Now I enjoy my moderator privilege at my OUR bench.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #449 on: 2011-01-29, 13:33:50 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Lawrence,

I really don't understand Mark's problem. He seems to think that just because he put two years of his time learning about and tweaking the JT design, that he somehow has control over who else can take a JT and make something slightly different from it. I had this to say to the very same post here:

Quote
With all due respect Mk1, there is nothing new, novel, or unique about LT's (or whomever) version of the JT. The same goes for the JT itself. The blocking oscillator (BO) was "invented" before you were probably even born, so reality is that no one of recent times has any claim to the concept actually. Sure, there have been 100's of variations (LT's) and improvements over the years, but fundamentally the circuit is the same.

You spent two years tweaking, learning, and improving on the basic JT and that's great. No one is ever going to be able to take that away from you. However, how can anyone lay claim to what is and always has been fundamentally a BO, designed many many years ago?

What precisely did Lawrence 'steal'? The addition of a secondary? That's actually quite basic for all that know transformer theory. The truth is, the device could be made more efficient without that secondary, and the output taken from the 'primary'. One only need dig into some modern buck/boost converter designs in order to learn about the best circuit configurations.

ION has been designing and working with BO circuits for about 50 years, and he has indicated that LT's design exhibits an efficiency of only about 75% or so, maximum. There are more advanced techniques (and better components) which were developed over the last 10 to 20 years that can allow for efficiencies as high as 95%.

.99

Folks need to remember that the Joule Thief is simply a Blocking Oscillator repackaged in a small form-factor, and given a catchy new name. Mark really needs to get over himself, imho.

I also don't understand this concern about anonymity.  ???

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 15:31:40