Joule Ringer!

[Jules Tresor]

Light-box evolution 2

Hi guys,
To measure accurately the total flow of electrons from the bulbs, I would put them in a light box, spread regularly in front of a large solar panel, and then I would measure the total Pout with a load. No more guess, real Pout measurement and comparison.

@PB Don't stop experimenting and sharing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are excellent !!!!!!!!!!!! I think you appreciate compliments, that's why you're always asking for more
Don't you want to give a try to the PSEC, no one as ever shown it working, except its inventor. I see you as qualified and smart enough to replicate it, if it's even possible !? (that's a great compliment, believe me)
Keep on the great work man, you brought the all tinkering to a higher level, with PhysicsProf light-box and your rigorous systematic measurements !!

Until you we were just playing like kids, to satisfy our kiddy egos, "my circuit gives a lot of light, wooooow". From now on we'll have to measure it

[totoalas]

Super Joule Ringer Endurance Test 290512

Super Joule Ringer Endurance Test 290512 - YouTube

Transistor @ 33 deg Transformer @34 Deg C @ 29 deg room Temperature 24 hrs/7 days operation 8 pcs led bulbs 5 watts @ 27 deg C 250 mA input@12 v dc

totoalas

[Slider2732]

***Forehead slap***
I have a digital temperature sensor, just sitting in a box from years ago. Think of all those burnt up transistors in past experiments
Thanks totoalas

[PhysicsProf]

I have continued experiments with the SJR 2.0 using an air-core xformer (my thanks to LynxSteam -- good air-core design!). Note that this is the straightforward 2.0 of Lasersaber and Lidmotor -- there is no bias from the + rail to the base. Yet it generally starts right up and runs well.

I need to note that since my last report on this air-core 2.0, I managed to short something out and thus I fried a transistor. This happened while I was trying to light a bare CFL (i.e., guts removed, just the lamp). So I had to replace the 2n3055.

PS -- the bare CFL did light up, but not brightly. I much prefer the LED lamps and I've tested a bunch. Of these, I still prefer the 1-watt "corn-cob" LED lamp from T-mart that I delineated earlier. That's what I used today (first one bulb, then two).

When I replaced the transistor with another 2n3055 that I have, I could no longer get the 53 Lumens/Watt that I discussed earlier. It is possible some else changed, like connection - resistances; but I tried to keep things constant while I swapped out the 2n3055. But, by moving the primary windings around a bit, I found today a maximum of 48 Lm/W, which is pretty good I think.

The experiments today were run mostly at 10 Volts input from a PS. I had already determined with this set-up that I got optimal light from about 8.5 to 11.5 volts. 10 V DC input makes calculating the input power easy...

The photo shows 12-gauge wire on the primary concentrated at both ends of the tube. I had taps on the red wire where I had removed some of the insulation. I counted the windings and tapped the + voltage in at winding 31, 35, etc. Note that with fewer windings on the primary, the output current (and voltage) are higher as expected, but the ratio Lumens out/Watts-in = Lm/W is not necessarily larger. My goal remains to increase Lm/W.

I'm using the calibrated light-box for measuring Lumens, with the calibration factor 0.08 Lumens/observed-Lux for my box as delineated in an earlier post.

Here are salient results from today's experiments:

One LED bulb, with wires concentrated at left end, tapping at winding number

14 0.8A 2000 lux --> 160Lm, 160 Lm/8W = 20 Lm/W
31 0.60A 2030 lux--> 162 Lm, 162 Lm/6W = 27 Lm/W
40 0.19A 720 lux--> 58 Lm, 58 Lm/1.9W = 30 Lm/W
45 0.10A 310 lux--> 25 Lm, 25 Lm/1.0W = 25 Lm/W

I'm going to shorten the straightforward part, now that you see the pattern, to save typing time...
One LED bulb, with wires concentrated at both ends as in the photo attached, tapping at winding number

31 0.54A 152Lm, 28 Lm/W
35 0.45A 132Lm, 29 Lm/W
37 0.23A 78Lm, 34 Lm/W
40 0.25A 86Lm, 34 Lm/W

One LED bulb, with wires EVENED OUT along the length of the secondary coil; tapping at winding number

31 0.66A 240Lm, 36 Lm/W
37 0.61A 290Lm, 48 Lm/W 154 Khz on the DSO, 58 Vrms (output)
40 0.45A 169Lm, 39 Lm/W

Note the difference in Lm/W with the number of windings (tap) on the primary coil.

TWO LED bulbs, same type, 1W 220V-AC bulbs, with wires EVENED OUT along the length of the secondary coil; tapping at winding number

31 0.74A 276Lm, 37 Lm/W
37 0.66A 291Lm, 44 Lm/W 72 Khz on the DSO (output)
Note the drop in resonant frequency with 2 LED bulbs instead of one. Lm/W drops a little/roughly the same with 2 bulbs.

40 0.48A 192Lm, 40 Lm/W
45 0.39A 144Lm, 37 Lm/W

Conclusions: windings spaced roughly evenly on primary is best; tapping at winding 37 for this set-up provides maximum, 47 Lm/W (at least as high as winding 45 -- I did not test higher as the Lm/W was dropping).[/b]

[Peanutbutter29]

"Light box"....mmmmy precious!

Got a video uploaded, I had trouble spitting out words a couple times and a bit long (you know me), but I tried to cover a LOT of stuff. Tried to also look at "What this is" and what we are doing. Finally I show some new numbers......you'll have to wait on those (at end of vid, if bored).

Note, I suppose I'm just showing max efficiency here; I'll do another for the Efficiency / Max Light balance.

@Totoalas, Now I have to pee! and Nice with temp!

@ Jules, gosh I hope it doesn't seem as if I look for compliments? I always encourage, welcome and want input ....good or bad . Heck, the good thing about a bad comment, It has a higher probability of being honest; at times.

@Skywatcher. Excellent report! I feel there are a lot of uses where these can work. We just have to get the best output.

When we compare this, sort of, direct inverting; to a regular Inverter, I think we can find many situations where direct is better.

@PhysicsProf, Nice work too! Ya, oppositely I had to use a new 3055 to get more current for the 1.0 "real" numbers. The one I had, wouldn't go over 1a; I remember that the 3055 wasn't the best, but should've been closer to 1.56 I ran. The new transistor drew the 1.3A or whatever it showed; so closer. I suppose if a transistor is run in a "rough" sounding area, then that could affect transistor long-term.

About winding. When first asked that from CK at OU; I talked about pattern and that full coverage would be best. This was when Lynx had the 3rd coil (now gone). I believe, since we don't have high inductance and no relative reluctance from core; we can benefit from and need a higher coupling. Similar to why I proposed opposite windings. The 1 E-core (my friend wrapped) is done with 4 oppositions. (P1-P2, S1-S2, P1-S1, P2-S2). I show efficiency values in the new vid from this E core also, but I get within 1Lu/W with a "shack".
Oh, that reminds me too! Ty for the mail!! I just saw today as I haven't logged there until today.

I suppose that's it for now,
Thanks,
PB

EDIT: @ Physics professor.....how many lumens was that rated for? seems like a lot of lumens....is that over the rated?

[Jules Tresor]

@PB,
Great latest video ! With ~5V x ~0.3A for the 4 LED bulbs, you could run them for several hours at night from this USB battery 1,800mAh http://www.thepowerpot.com/lithium-battery-1800
May be 4-5 hours x 300mA = 1,200-1,500 mAh, then at day time you can charge it with a small 5W solar panel, or the powerpot http://www.thepowerpot.com/powerpot-v

Thank you for going in such a useful direction !!!

Here we have an even larger battery + solar panel at 1/2 price (~12 USD) ! Wholesale - discount 2600MAH Silicon Solar Energy Charger Portable Battery For Cell phone MP3 MP4 MP5, $11.33-14.03/Piece, 20 pieces/Lot | DHgate.com
2600MAH Silicon Solar Energy Charger, Charging time for the NI-MH battery inside using the solar panel: 12 - 14 hours (might need a larger solar panel)

[PhysicsProf]

...

EDIT: @ Physics professor.....how many lumens was that rated for? seems like a lot of lumens....is that over the rated?

The experiment showed a lot of Lm/W, but it gets better and gives me hope... The rating on most LED bulbs is approx 60-65 Lm/W typically.

Here's the latest, giving me hope. First, I went to 9V instead of 10, got nearly the same as at 10 V -- 49 Lm/W @ 170 KHz on the output.

I had two FERRITE RODS lying around, 20 cm long and approx 9mm diameter. I simply placed these inside the air-core xformer, laid them in there. Result:

One LED bulb, with wires EVENED OUT along the length of the secondary coil; tapping at winding number 37; 2 ferrite rods lying INSIDE the inner tube:

9V 0.22A 128Lm, 64 Lm/W 111 Khz on the DSO (output)

Taking my dear wife to airport -- gotta run!

[Peanutbutter29]

Nice results Professor!!! I think you missed my intention with the question. Are you using those 1.5w 252 lu bulbs you showed @165 Lu/W? Are you using similar to my last shown of 2w@150Lu or 75/Lu/w?

I'm not so worried of the Lu/W your showing, but rather the lumens. This is why I asked if you were getting over rated in terms of max lumens. If the bulb is rated for 150Lu and you are showing 170+....I would first question calibration.

Also, I noted with Daylight compacts, and most LED's so far have a vastly different factor than Inc. and WW PC's.

For instance from my apology video with bulb vertical instead of on 3 ways I show 3160 Lux (still 493 Lumens with ADJUSTED calibration) if I used the initial value for inc.s and compacts of .201......3160 now is 635 Lumens and my efficiency goes up 10 Lu/W to 41 Lu/W; but we know it's bogus. If we applied that SAME ERROR to my last video we end up near 65 Lu/W......hrmmmmmm.

This above is how much the error can be by NOT re-calibrating for every bulb!!! These last 2w bubs are the FIRST out of 8 bulb types to come close to my base of .201; meaning all bulbs should be calibrated differently! (.150-.221 / 7% variation in bulbs!!!)

Another important note is in relation to how light is "normally" figured. This is based of the area the light occupies, relative to the distance of the sensor; divided by the sensor area in mm. Now this means it's entirely possible to get different final results with different sizes.
My box of .201 is "picking up" a much smaller Wattage AND 100% non-direct. I wonder if the lower .08 has a factor from direct. Not sure here, but the wattage apparent at the meter definitely WILL vary with box size.

I've made a smaller box to get closer to your ratio and see if numbers change. I'm curious here. So far it appears to be around .05-.06; much closer in terms of wattage at sensor. If there does prove a change then we may have to use boxes of a standardized size (say Lux ratio) 1 square meter with NO direct. This is similar to what I tried to do already though about 1/2 square meter.

Not calling anything into question, just stating "issues" I'm seeing in my mind. I suppose Lasersaber's Air Cores' are an improvement in some ways. He showed both and was ready to do the air core video before it was robbed. (note the ONLY change Lynx made was removed)

Sigh, never mind.......none of this matters. I've wasted my time, oh well.

Take care all!
PB

I'ma stay where I'm happiest as I find that the top part of life in the end..........in the cave....and brain dead. "Ignorance is Bliss"

[Slider2732]

@PhysicsProf - experiments here with different sized ferrites and air core coils, have shown similar results to crystal radio circuits. By placing a ferrite piece from an AM radio just partly inside the coil, the output will suddenly switch to the higher lumen level.
A tiny round ferrite piece from a screwdriver settable pot, as found on radio circuits commonly, will also work fine...size of ferrite piece is in many ways unrelated to the mere presence of ferrite inside the coil on test - it doesn't have to be a snug fit.

Related, is a coil which is completely the opposite for experiments - fully ferrite, with wire wound over the top. Lasesaber showed such a coil in one recent video. He had a stack of hollow ferrite pieces, as used for putting cabling through in say PC monitors. They are glued together to form a tube.
In my version, a couple of hundred turns of wire from the neck of a CRT monitor were wound on. Gauge is approx 24, the wire is double stranded. I then connected one end wire to one start wire, bifilar style.
That type of coil is very efficient, large but efficient and the reason for my mentioning it.
Here's a pic of that coil powering a blocking oscillator circuit and LED, by human power - a piece of galv steel and a piece of burnt copper. The flash rate is approx 2Hz and it's only a single LED, but in terms of Lumens per Watt, even if 0.000001W, it has to be OU.
In summary, those coils are worth making and I hadn't seen mention of anyone making one

[PhysicsProf]

Nice results Professor!!! I think you missed my intention with the question. Are you using those 1.5w 252 lu bulbs you showed @165 Lu/W? Are you using similar to my last shown of 2w@150Lu or 75/Lu/w?

I'm using the 1.5 W bulbs I described before, "252 Lumens" = advertised, NOT observed by me! I don't trust the Chinese advertisements on this or other bulbs, because when I check in my light box, nearly 100% of the bulbs from China have much LESS Lm/W than what they claim. (They typically advertise Lm and Watts -- so one can divide easily to get the ADVERTISED Lm/W.)

OTOH, the bulbs from the US stores, including incandescent, CFL and LED, provide a nice straight line in my light-box which I have displayed on this forum before. I'll show it once more, but I find that I've used up almost all my "allowed" storage space on this forum for attachments.

Now note this, my friend -- IF this bulb REALLY put out 252 Lumens with 1.5W input, that would be 252/1.5 = 168 Lumens/Watt -- which is GREATER THAN THE WORLD RECORD for light output from an LED. Someone pls correct me if I'm wrong --According to the checking I've done on the world record for EFFICACY, it is about 135 Lm/W. I wrote to a Cree distributor, but they could not answer what the latest MAXIMUM efficacy LED bulb is available from Cree. (Anyone with up-to-date info, would be appreciated.)

If we can exceed 135 Lm/W, that would be great IMO.

Further, I checked this particular bulb in my light box and got about 90 Lm/W with 120V input AC from the mains (I'd have to review my notes for the exact value); which is good, but no where near 168 Lm/W which the Chinese company advertised!!!

The efficiency of an LED device in converting electrical power to visible light is called "efficacy" and is measured in lumens/watt. "http://ledsmagazine.com/features/2/5/4 -- article notes

the US Department of Energy’s solid-state lighting goal of 200 lm/W.

No one has reached that goal yet! but hey, with this research we're doing, we may actually get there... do you think we can exceed 200 Lm/W??

I'm not so worried of the Lu/W your showing, but rather the lumens. This is why I asked if you were getting over rated in terms of max lumens. If the bulb is rated for 150Lu and you are showing 170+....I would first question calibration.

Whoa -- the bulb was putting out 128 Lumens, well below the "rating" -- not that I believe the chinese rating, as I said. But I see no good reason to question the LINEAR calibration of my light box at this stage. (see plot below).

Also, I noted with Daylight compacts, and most LED's so far have a vastly different factor than Inc. and WW PC's.

For instance from my apology video with bulb vertical instead of on 3 ways I show 3160 Lux (still 493 Lumens with ADJUSTED calibration) if I used the initial value for inc.s and compacts of .201......3160 now is 635 Lumens and my efficiency goes up 10 Lu/W to 41 Lu/W; but we know it's bogus. If we applied that SAME ERROR to my last video we end up near 65 Lu/W......hrmmmmmm.

Hold on -- I don't understand this -- I though you said you had less than 40 Lm/W. How do you "end up near 65 Lm/W" ?

This above is how much the error can be by NOT re-calibrating for every bulb!!! These last 2w bubs are the FIRST out of 8 bulb types to come close to my base of .201; meaning all bulbs should be calibrated differently! (.150-.221 / 7% variation in bulbs!!!)

Another important note is in relation to how light is "normally" figured. This is based of the area the light occupies, relative to the distance of the sensor; divided by the sensor area in mm. Now this means it's entirely possible to get different final results with different sizes.
My box of .201 is "picking up" a much smaller Wattage AND 100% non-direct. I wonder if the lower .08 has a factor from direct. Not sure here, but the wattage apparent at the meter definitely WILL vary with box size.

I've made a smaller box to get closer to your ratio and see if numbers change. I'm curious here. So far it appears to be around .05-.06; much closer in terms of wattage at sensor. If there does prove a change then we may have to use boxes of a standardized size (say Lux ratio) 1 square meter with NO direct. This is similar to what I tried to do already though about 1/2 square meter. - PB

Again, we're learning, but I don't understand the problem. I've explained in detail how I calibrated the light box, I show the data based on "US-calibrated" bulbs (surely you're not saying all these are calibrated wrong, from the factories?) -- and I get a decent straight-line fit to the data. I don't see any reason to "use boxes of a standardized size (say Lux ratio) 1 square meter", but I'm listening.

Not calling anything into question, just stating "issues" I'm seeing in my mind. I suppose Lasersaber's Air Cores' are an improvement in some ways. He showed both and was ready to do the air core video before it was robbed. (note the ONLY change Lynx made was removed) ... PB

What? now this is obtuse and not clear, my friend. Are you saying the air-core was "robbed" by someone like Lynx? If so, I've got to ask for an explanation!

I've been on these forums for approaching two years now and any time someone puts an idea or circuit up PUBLICLY, it is "open sourced" that is, anyone is free to take it and run with it however they wish. And their contributions BACK into the community are much appreciated!

No one owns any "turf" on the air-core or JR or SJR circuit, that I know of.
Please explain???

PS -- I plan to continue working with this circuit including the air-core and adding whatever the heck I want to it and the circuit, in my effort to increase the Lm/W really for humanity as discussed above -- but if this violates some "turf rule" , you'll have to explain!
Aren't we doing OPEN SOURCE here?

Here's my data plot -- I find I don't have enough space to attach it again:
http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...-lightbox2.jpg

[PhysicsProf]

I made some further changes. I'm up to 71 Lm/W, without moving the SAME LED bulb. If anyone is interested --AND if I'm not stepping on someone's "turf" or "robbing", I'd be glad to provide details.

PS -- this is too fun to let egos get in the way of the fun... although, sure, we are human. Faraday and Sir Humphrey Davy come to mind -- but Faraday continued despite the opposition nonsense from Davy.

This is an OPEN_SOURCE forum; we are working together, most of us, to see what we can learn and do. Most have altruistic motives for humanity, I believe, but also just having fun with electronics and discovery.

[Jules Tresor]

Hello Prof,
Mr Tesla was using air-core coils, 100 years ago, how could anyone claim anything about property on air-cores ? I don't understand your doubts !
Jules
PS: and of course if it's posted publicly before patenting, it becomes public domain, for everyone to replicate it.
And thirdly, yes, if it's on a OS public forum, your free to use it !
(But kids will always fight to try to own anything they copied from elsewhere ...)

[NickZ]

Slider and All:
Thanks for showing that coil, and the comments on the other thread as well, concerning testing for current draw.
I've pulled out from portable Am/Fm radios the tuning capacitors, as well as the ferrite cores, which are about 3/8 inch by 3 inch, still wound with the original very fine wire coils. I placed the ferrite core, into a smaller solder tube of the same size, which had previously been wound on the outside with an L3 coil for an Exciter. Although it does not fit snug, light intensity does go up a bit when using an Av plug to test with. So, this is also converting the air core into a ferrite core. As it looks more and more like ferrite is really where its at, with the higher the permeability the better. Possibly a slit copper pipe can also be placed on the outside of the ferrite wound coil as is done in the kacher devices, but, that I don't know.

Slayer has also shown how the Exciter circuit can be adapted by using the E-cores and can be used on the Ringer type circuits as well. Most likely the larger high perm toroid ferrite cores can also be used, like the MetGlass one used by Lasersaber in his videos. But, not so expensive as that one. $660?
Lots of things to try...

I also noticed that the kachers devices are sometimes tuned using big tuning capacitors, the bigger version of the smaller tuning caps that the portable radios use. I remember my dad had showed me those big tuning caps that were used in his short wave radios 40 or so years ago.
Although these circuits are not working in the RF range, possibly the working frequencies can still be tuned or adjusted by using this type of tuning capacitors, along with other smaller caps to adjust for the useable frequency ranges, to improve performance.
The comment that these circuit are hard on the transistors may not be that far fetched, as the high voltages spikes can take their toll. Possibly a diode or two may still be needed on the base, for protection, as was shown by Lidmotor, and others.
That the source batteries are being feed back some input may also be a possibility, as there is nothing to impeded that from happening, which may be a good thing, but then again, that may also be hard on the batteries.
Anyways, just some thoughts and ideas running through my head.

NickZ

[Slider2732]

*Edit* - heck you fellas are fast, or I type slow lol
Yes, delighted to have helped Nick...after all, the message really is that of cooperation and collaboration, both for us lot and for those who may find uses outside of the posting group.
A variable 512pF capacitor is to sit across the ferrite coil, as one experiment. Caps on input and output of these coils is a very valid thing that PB did and does. We see such things indeed all over Tesla's designs (i'd like to make some small Leyden jars at some point).

I doubt there are ego's at play in the vast majority of confusions.
People perhaps think of a circuit as fresh and it is to them. Many will genuinely not know, unless very well read up on these types of forums or relevant written literature. Some circuits may even look brand new to a person because of the layout and unfamiliarity with creating circuit diagrams or of component operations. To others, they share a 'follow the leader' mindset through lack of time or whatever life brings and quite rightly look to improvements others are showing.


Here's that same coil as shown running from nothing above, now running in a pretty much stock blocking oscillator configuration (Joule Thief lol).
Only changes are the Lasersaber diode to Base, the use of a 1N4148 across the Emitter to Base and the bi-colour tuning LED from coil to Base resistance pot.
The transistor is that same daft one from the cash register circuit board, but I haven't blown it up yet ! From observations, equiv would be a 2N3055 or other NPN power transistor with hFE of approx 50-100.
2W LOA LED bulb across Emitter and Collector.
12V input, 0.5A used, so not spectacular in any regard (though it is at the same brightness as when powered conventionally by 120V)...so just showing it running in that easy to visualise circuit, same as low power single LED circuits. I'm going to take this coil further, with whichever circuits in this thread work

[Lidmotor]

Solar cellphone charger running a Ringer---Thanks Jules

@Jules

We have used the solar cell phone chargers of a number of other projects here so I already had one to try on this circuit. It worked!!

The circuit that I am using now is a mix of people's ideas but I kept it simple by using the Radio Shack 12v transformer. You can find the circuit diagram on my last two videos if anyone is interested. This video is just to show off the cell phone charger in action.

Solar cellphone charger powered AC LED light - YouTube


I agree with everyone here about this being an open source project and it should be a giving thing. Usually when I think that I have come up with something new or original I find out later that someone a hundred years ago already did it.

Lidmotor