2015 ENERGY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE  ENERGY CONFERENCE

EXTRA SEATING AVAILABLE! Energy Conference

 Energetic Forum Joule Ringer!
 Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Eric Dollard Magnetizer Products Tesla Chargers 2015 Energy Conference Energy Science Forum Donate Energy Times Advertising

 Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

#1351
06-08-2012, 12:55 PM
 Jules Tresor Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 364
LEDs, future source of free energy ?

Today with commercial products :
LED bulb 100 lm/W + Solar cell 24% efficiency (Solar Cell Efficiency World Record -- SunPower Solar Cells)
For 100,000 lm/W (sun light equivalent), we need Pin=1,000W of LED, and we get Pout=240W from the solar panel. So we lose 760W.

Today with the Lab material :
LED 265 lm/W (White LEDs with super-high luminous efficacy could satisfy all general lighting needs) + solar cell 34% (Solar startups set new power records | Cutting Edge - CNET News)
For 100,000 lm/W, we need Pin= ~380W of LED, and we get Pout= 340W. So we lose 40W

Tomorrow ?!
If we reach the maximum theoretical efficiency for LED at 300 lm/W, then we will have electricity for free with Pin=333W and Pout=340W => +7W free.
Any further improvement in solar cell efficiency will increase the free lunch
Something must be wrong with these numbers I suppose, but it was fun !
cheers,
Jules
__________________

 Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets
#1352
06-08-2012, 03:24 PM
 Stephen Brown Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 117
Quote:
 Originally Posted by minoly Ok so now I'm curious, and find myself w/o the means to satisfy. What happens when you take 4 or so of those LED bulbs put them in a box, light them with conventional AC, measure the the lumens/watt? Does the addition of each bulb lower, raise, or keep constant - the lumens/watt? In other words, is there another light measuring problem here? Does the addition of 4 or so bulbs quadruple the lumens output in that little box? Maybe someone already measured this and I missed the post? sincerely, Patrick - MRN
And, what if you put each of those bulbs in the light measuring box individually.
Are we not allowed to multiply that amount?
Each room of my house would receive a percentage from each bulb?
The fine art of light measurement?
Stephen
__________________
Potential, is a terrible thing to waste.
#1353
06-08-2012, 04:21 PM
 Jules Tresor Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 364
Photons ?

Isn't the problem about photons, and how many we get ?
How many photons per second is one Lumen? - Physics
Perception of the Visual Environment - Ronald G. Boothe - Google Books
__________________

#1354
06-08-2012, 05:01 PM
 PhysicsProf Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 229
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lidmotor This is the same trap that Bill (Peanutbutter) fell into. You have to measure this carefully using a light box and a lux meter to really tell what is happening. It boils down to lumens per watt. Dr. Jones is right. I'm not trying to be a "too good to be true" guy like Nick mentioned. It is just that you can be decieved by a bunch of bulbs lighting up on an AC circuit. You have to carefully look at the numbers. Lidmotor
Lidmotor is correct. It is rather easy to "trick the eye" but not so easy to trick the lux-meter.

When you put 1 bulb into the box and run on the mains, you can MEASURE the lux with your lux meter and then calibrate for the RATED lumens (based on the packaging in the US -- I don't trust on-line lumens advertised by Chinese outlets for the reasons stated above).

When you put in FOUR bulbs, you re-calibrate the box for four bulbs because the lux output varies somewhat due to the positioning of the bulbs. No problem. With the same 40-watt bulbs putting out 500 lumens each (for example, running on the mains), you calibrate for four bulbs -- likewise for 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc bulbs.

4 such bulbs running on the mains will put out 4X500 = 2000 lumens, but will require 4X40 = 160 watts, so the actual lumens per watt does not change with the addition of more bulbs (although the calibration factor will vary due to positioning factors).

It works out in my box that there is a variation in calibration factor due to the positioning of the bulbs, and I suppose one bulb "shades" the bulb next to it to some extent.
__________________

#1355
06-08-2012, 05:04 PM
 PhysicsProf Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 229
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jules Tresor Bill has gone above that in his latest video, with 104 Lumen/Watt

Jules -- where is the vid where PB sees 104 lumens/watt? that is great; but I'd like to see the vid to see how he accomplished this. The best I've achieved so far with my little Lasersaber-2.0 replication is 72 lumens/watt.
__________________

#1356
06-08-2012, 05:26 PM
 LaserSaber Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 77
Quote:
 The best I've achieved so far with my little Lasersaber-2.0 replication is 72 lumens/watt.
I have always had better results with a larger ferrite E core, metglass toroid or large air core using heavy gauge wire. I just listed the little E core on my website because it works fine. It makes a good starting point.
__________________

#1357
06-08-2012, 06:20 PM
 b_rads Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Alabama, South East U.S. Posts: 207
Could they be the same circuit?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lidmotor I think that it is just an overdriving situation. I use the 10K pot on mine to get the Utilitech 7.5 W bulb to come on bright then I turn it all the way down and the bulb stays on bright. Bill talks about the circuit inside the bulb in his latest videos. It is what I figured--- that the bulb's internal circuit is a major player in how the main circuit works. Lidmotor
I have several of the FEIT LED bulbs. Last night I purchased my first dimmable Utilitech 7.5 watt bulb. Noticed in very fine print that the bulb is distributed in the U.S. by FEIT Electric Corporation out of California just like the FEIT bulbs. Both are made in China. Is it possible that they use the same internal circuitry?

__________________

#1358
06-08-2012, 06:42 PM
 Allen Burgess Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 328
Lux meter.

I just bought a Lux meter from the web. It'll be here next week. What I need to do is measure the brightness of the first bulb before and after the cluster's added, and multiply the lower lumens times six, then factor the input comparisons. Let's be patient.
__________________

#1359
06-08-2012, 06:44 PM
 NickZ Silver Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 894
Minoly, Allen, and All:
Minoly:it makes all the sense in the world, to me. Thanks for mentioning it.
As some guys like myself are really interested in real practical uses, lighting a house, shed, tent, or whatever. I see the point of the light box, but also of your example. Both are worth noting...
Totoalas is showing a lot of light output, also being portable, and consuming practically nothing (no cost, free light), once the low cost affordable solar panels, lights, and transformer is purchased. That means a whole lot to me.
So, thank you all for keeping up with this, doing the numbers, and LS for his great suggestions on which transformer(s) and circuit to use. I know he has put some time into this. The world is watching, or at least will be, as this all will spread like a wild fire. Sometimes in just seconds...

NickZ
__________________

Last edited by NickZ; 06-08-2012 at 06:48 PM.
#1360
06-08-2012, 09:13 PM
 Slider2732 Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Muskogee, Oklahoma, USA Posts: 1,006
Yeah, and the fire won't burn a hole in your pocket
__________________

#1361
06-08-2012, 11:39 PM
 Peanutbutter29 Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 37
Clarify

@ Lidmotor, thanks for remembering that multiples lost Lu/W efficiency!!

-Here, with stock transformer; Each bulb lost appx 1 Lu/W, however the total light was higher, marginally. I believe around 2200 Lux with one and 3500 Lux with 6; but at a 6 Lu/w efficiency loss. Again the same paradox as with a single bulb; getting the most lumens for best efficiency.

-Note though that the v1.0 "tuned" overcame that loss and recovered back to starting 30 Lu/W. So, it is possible to "offset" this in certain configurations and to some extent.

@Minoly, I did talk about this a few pages ago when I first tested. YES, multiple bulbs DOES introduce a "theoretical discrepancy" of total light (e.g. from light hitting objects that absorb). In the case of the stock v1.0, if 1 bulb showed; say 2000 Lux. Now then, 4 bulbs in the same enclosure would be around 2250 Lux (e.g. bulbs corresponding light cut in half, which follows parallel circuit laws). Now, take that same setup, but place 3 bulbs OUTSIDE as you suggest; leaving only a single bulb in the light box. Here we are to assume an "even" light across all bulbs, while testing one. In this case; the single bulb will show 569 Lux appx. This works out to 27 Lux discrepancy per 3 extra bulbs. This was repeated for 1 IN and 6 OUT with a net doubling (52 Lux).
However this relates to about 8 lumens of variation and is most likely, indeed, from light loss from object blocking. Again this is small though.

** Conversion factors WILL change relative to 1 bulb or 6; so as PhysicsProf DID state, you must develop calibrations for bulb number. I prefer to also calibrate for bulb type as well for greater accuracy.

@ PhysicsProf and all to clarify here.
-My highest with a Lasersaber Super Joule ringer circuit; is the last shown (previous page). This is Highly viable and cheap.
*Using PhysicsProf preferred method (same calibration):
Shown setup was 76 Lu/W max @ 455 Lumens. Error of 5% though, as I don't have an 8% number to draw from.

*Using My preferred method (each bulb calibrated as well as number) We get a more realistic 59 Lu/W @ 354 Lumens. This is within 1/2-1% accurate. So, efficiency of whole circuit is ABOVE any inverter.

**If we applied PhysicsProf preffered method to the High power mode; we would assume 583 Lumens (100 over rated) and 62.3 Lu/W. Since factory is 65 Lu/W here, this would be well into overunity and NOT the case.

I suppose it's up to each person to take which numbers they prefer. I show both since we have 2 standards ATM.

About the 100+Lumens. a quote from the video description: "I decided to start from scratch and go totally in new ways with things. This is a tiny aspect of the whole and final."
I don't want to detail as I mention, but in starting from scratch ;I believe these are rather Inverse of each other, but really apply to totally different areas.

I feel both of these have their place, function, and viability. The utilitech mod with a radio shack, makes this totally viable and cheap; however many places cannot get these components. So even a viable circuit in the US may not be other places.
This Super Joule Ringer and following Lasersaber started will go long and far, i believe. You can't ever remove viability using common transformers to get light if you have none otherwise; and I feel this is the wonder of it!

@Lasersaber finally. Nice to see you post!!! been a while!! I've been waiting to see all those air core coils you showed with the SJR 2.0 video!! Several looked really interesting too! Hope things are going well for you.

Finally, ya. MASS CELL is not being categorized here and does not / should not be based against the Lasersaber super joule ringer 2.0 designs. It is wholly different (appx 13 circuits). I'm still debating on what to do with it, when completed. Guess this is more tailored from ground up for what I personally wanted.

So still my best with the SJR 2.0 is 76 / 59 Lumens per watt.

Just wanted to clarify
thanks
PB
*poof*
__________________

#1362
06-09-2012, 02:13 AM
 totoalas Silver Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 615
Super Joule Ringer Light Output

Hi PB and all

as the lumens quest is improving
WE @3RD WORLD COUNTRIES WILL SETTLE FOR ANYTHING
ONE CANDLE FOR 2 HOURS IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE NOODLE PACK FOR ONE FAMILY MEAL
SJR BY LASERSABER STARTED IT ALL NOW ITS LIFESAVER

THANKS TO ALL

TOTOALAS
__________________

#1363
06-09-2012, 05:07 AM
 NickZ Silver Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 894
Wait, one moment... it's late at night but let me get my calculator. Ok, now. "One candle for two hours = one noddle pack for family meal" this works out to... oh, I'm lost can you please explain. Ok, I got it now, I get it... no problem.
__________________

#1364
06-09-2012, 06:00 AM
 Billxx Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 26
Transformers...

I made an interesting discovery with the circuit using the fuji transformer. The primary has about 6.5 turns and the secondary with the trigger windings on the end is 1765 turns. I'm using a 3v battery pack.

Knowing the windings I multiplied it out and the secondary winding is not at a multiple using 1.5v or 3v so I wound an air core coil using a .5" coil core and a piece of 20ga magnet wire 72.15" long ( this gives .75 leads on both ends of the coil) and the coil measured at 1.7 ohms (same as the reading I got for the trigger windings from pin 2 and 4 on the transformer). I think there are 45 turns on the coil. I connected the coil between pin 3 on the transformer and a .474K cap that connects to the CFL.

What's interesting is that this doubled the brightness of the CFL.

I have a 120 to 6v ct transformer that I'll be experimenting with LaserSaber's new SJR 2.0 circuit, but, I'll need to increase my battery pack to 4.5v just to power it up using the center tap because upon plugging this transformer in the wall I discovered the output voltage is not 6v and 3v at the CT, the reading I got was 7.5v and 4.5v so I guess, unless you wind your own transformer, these various transformers can be something other than what they claim to be rated.

Anyway, there is another circuit that was highlighted on the 'other' forum where the circuit shows the trigger coil wound on the primary side of the transformer? Interesting circuit, not as simplistic as LaserSaber's SJR 2.0 circuit, but, it adds possibly a new means to control the base of the transistor and possibly control the temp? I don't know, I'm just the student in this looking to learn. Here is a link to that circuit...

A simple inverter for flourescent lamps
__________________

#1365
06-09-2012, 06:05 AM
 Jules Tresor Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 364
PB new channel

@PhysicsProf
We see on his notes that he has 104lm/W, but below we can read 124lm/W too
Lidmotor says here Simple --Super Joule Ringer 2.0---Boxed - YouTube that PB is modifying the caps on the light bulb itself. That's very interesting, and I suppose that's how he gets 124lm/W, but this video is private i suppose, and he sent the link only to friends for preview or something like that ... his right anyway
I think taking out the resistors in series with the LEDs (inside bub) improves brightness too, as SkyWatcher showed with his camping lamps ...

love and light,
Jules

PS: Totoalas has the ultimate reason for all this research = bringing cheapest light to those in need of it We can't expect big companies or patent oriented researchers to do that
__________________

Last edited by Jules Tresor; 06-09-2012 at 06:15 AM.
#1366
06-09-2012, 03:21 PM
 PhysicsProf Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 229
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jules Tresor @PhysicsProf PB has a new youtube channel Bill Mckraken - YouTube We see on his notes that he has 104lm/W, but below we can read 124lm/W too Lidmotor says here Simple --Super Joule Ringer 2.0---Boxed - YouTube that PB is modifying the caps on the light bulb itself. That's very interesting, and I suppose that's how he gets 124lm/W, but this video is private i suppose, and he sent the link only to friends for preview or something like that ... his right anyway I think taking out the resistors in series with the LEDs (inside bub) improves brightness too, as SkyWatcher showed with his camping lamps ... I noticed already your attention disorder dear Prof, please read care-fu-lly love and light, Jules PS: Totoalas has the ultimate reason for all this research = bringing cheapest light to those in need of it We can't expect big companies or patent oriented researchers to do that
PB was kind to already answer my question, Jules -- and he said:

Quote:
 @ PhysicsProf and all to clarify here. -My highest with a Lasersaber Super Joule ringer circuit; is the last shown (previous page). This is Highly viable and cheap. *Using PhysicsProf preferred method (same calibration): Shown setup was 76 Lu/W max @ 455 Lumens. Error of 5% though, as I don't have an 8% number to draw from. *Using My preferred method (each bulb calibrated as well as number) We get a more realistic 59 Lu/W @ 354 Lumens. This is within 1/2-1% accurate.
If you wish to disagree with what PB himself has written in response to my question, you will need to explain your disagreement with PB.

PS -- I don't think I have an attention disorder; it was not kind of you to make a condescending and unsubstantiated remark about "your attention disorder dear Prof, please read care-fu-lly".
__________________

Last edited by PhysicsProf; 06-09-2012 at 03:34 PM.
#1367
06-10-2012, 12:05 AM
 Allen Burgess Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 328
JR 2.0 & Hertz

I finished boxing my Jr 2.0 with the addition of a 12 volt bank of AA's, an on off switch and an 8 watt 120 volt LED bulb like Lidmotors.

I lit the 8 watt 120 volt LED bulb with my 12 to 120 volt 1500 hertz 3 amp, glopanel "E-Driver" inverter. The bulb drew 1.4 amps. The same bulb drew 100 milliamps from the 350 Kilohertz JR 2.0. 1/14 the draw at 233 times the frequency.

The bulb looks to be equal in brightness, I'll have to wait for my lux meter to be sure. It looks like for now that multipling the hertz by around 20 cuts the amp draw in half each time!

Someone with a signal generator ought to be able to confirm wether or not there's any real correlation between hertz and power pretty easily. This relationship appears occluded by routine oversight.
__________________

Last edited by Allen Burgess; 06-10-2012 at 12:25 AM.
#1368
06-10-2012, 03:29 AM
 Jules Tresor Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 364
@ PhykicsProf : oops sorry prof, I was just kidding about the attention disorder, it's a forum, a friendly one, I thought we were happy guys. Sorry if you felt a different perception, I apologize !
Cheers, JT

PS: don't take life too seriously, it's just an illusion !
I mean, as you are Physics Professor you must have realized that it's all empty. Atoms are 99.999999999999 % empty, 100% in mathematical statistic.
Just a projection, nothing real, just animated emptiness.
And this comes from Physics School Books, not from me .... But it's another story, of course
__________________

#1369
06-10-2012, 05:37 AM
 Lidmotor Gold Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,001
Led circuits

[QUOTE=b_rads;196958]I have several of the FEIT LED bulbs. Last night I purchased my first dimmable Utilitech 7.5 watt bulb. Noticed in very fine print that the bulb is distributed in the U.S. by FEIT Electric Corporation out of California just like the FEIT bulbs. Both are made in China. Is it possible that they use the same internal circuitry?

I don't know what circuit is in any other bulbs. The one Utilitech that PB took apart and showed is the only one that I have seen analysed . I have not taken any of my led bulbs apart yet to see what is inside.

@ Dr. Jones and PB

I have been doing some basic lumen / watt testing just to see how my Ringer build stacks up to other lights. The most surprising find was a 5 watt 12volt DC led bulb I bought on ebay that appears to pump out about 70 lumens / watt. That is with the bulb hard wired straight to a 12 volt battery. I used the 7.5 watt AC Utilitech as a gauge for the 450 lumens and compared other bulb's lux meter readings vs amp draw. I am wondering now if maybe we should divert from the AC bulb idea and try kilohertz "blinking" a DC bulb. It would call for a whole new circuit probably.

Cheers,

Lidmotor

PS---I ran a test last night with my boxed unit using plain old AA zinc carbon batteries. You can get 8 for \$1 at the dollar stores. It ran the 7.5 w Utilitech for 4 hour and then the light turned off. The battery pack voltage had dropped from 12v to about 6v. I thought that it was done but for fun I installed the 2.5w Lights of America bulb and the device ran that little light ALL NIGHT and it was stlll on this morning with battery pack sitting at 6 volts. That is what I call a great bang for the buck. At this low voltage that little light is on part way but the amp draw is only about 15 mA. I'm running it again tonight to see if it will go until the morning. It makes a nice night light. All that fun for \$1.
__________________

Last edited by Lidmotor; 06-10-2012 at 05:57 AM.
#1370
06-10-2012, 03:00 PM
 PhysicsProf Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 229
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lidmotor @ Dr. Jones and PB I have been doing some basic lumen / watt testing just to see how my Ringer build stacks up to other lights. The most surprising find was a 5 watt 12volt DC led bulb I bought on ebay that appears to pump out about 70 lumens / watt. That is with the bulb hard wired straight to a 12 volt battery. I used the 7.5 watt AC Utilitech as a gauge for the 450 lumens and compared other bulb's lux meter readings vs amp draw. I am wondering now if maybe we should divert from the AC bulb idea and try kilohertz "blinking" a DC bulb. It would call for a whole new circuit probably. Cheers, Lidmotor
Good ideas, Lidmotor! I have purchased and tested several 12V DC LED bulbs -- and I agree, some are very efficient in the 60-70 Lumens/Watt range, running on 12 V. The bulb below runs at 0.2W at 12V, and puts out close to 70 Lm/W.

One has to be careful in testing bulbs with beam "directional" light output, since if that beam is pointed towards the lux-meter, one can get incorrect (high) results. But I took care with these bulbs to avoid the beam-pointing problem; and you're right, Lidmotor, the efficiency is quite good on some of these.
Running with a joule-ringer and a 12V bulb is a good idea... will try.
Attached Images
 Efficient12VbulbLED.jpg (8.8 KB, 19 views)
__________________

#1371
06-10-2012, 04:06 PM
 Harvester Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher
Hey all,

I have replicated the above circuit, but have some issues with it.
Coil has 6 strands of 22AWG, 60m long.
Not using the input and output caps and only having a 1uF cap instead of the 10uF one.
Charge battery is an old 12V lead acid, currently at 8.4V
Input is from 12V power supply, max 2A.

Problem I got is that either the circuit draws next to no current, or so much that it fries my variable resistor.
The 5KOhm variable resistor does nothing and has to be on 0 Ohm.
With the 1 KOhm resistor in the higher range, the circuit uses 120mA and produces 12.3V at the charging battery and 94V when charging battery is disconnected.
When tuning the resistor in the lower range, the amp draw all of a sudden jumps to 730ma, charging battery voltage goes up to 17V and with disconnected battery, the voltage jumps to 210V.
Problem is that at this stage the 1KOhm resistor starts smoking.
Had a 680Ohm 1W resistor instead of 470+100+100, but started smoking so changed to the ones shown in circuit at 1W.
Have changed all resistors to 1W and all diodes to ultra fast ones, just in case.
Is there a bug in my replication or is the variable resistor just too weak in wattage?
The next jump of input amps is to 1.7A, 25V at charging battery and nearly 700V disconnected.

The changes are right at the beginning, when there is hardly any resistance and they are very close together, as in by turning the resistor maybe 10 deg.
The other coil I used out of CAT5e network cable with shielding removed, was easier in tuning, as the input current would rise in proportion to turning the resistor.
Now it is like using a switch - 0.12A, 0.73A, 1.7A
The coil frequencies also only jump when the amp draw changes - it is not a curve, but steps.

Has anyone got an idea what the problem might be?
__________________

Last edited by Harvester; 06-10-2012 at 04:12 PM.
#1372
06-10-2012, 06:11 PM
 PhysicsProf Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 229
me: "Running with a joule-ringer and a 12V bulb is a good idea... will try."

I used a 12V- DC bulb that drew 0.3 W, about 64 Lm/W in my light box.

Connected to the SJR 2.0, I decided to start at 8 V DC input to see what would happen. It drew 0.76A @ 8V = 9W but only put out 24 lumens, so roughly 3 Lm/W. Also, the bulb would no longer function at 12V DC input. (Don't worry -- I purchased several of these before; not expensive.)

So -- at least for this 12V-DC LED bulb -- running on the SJR 2.0 did not increase the output yield per watt... decreased it significantly.

Worth a try!
__________________

#1373
06-10-2012, 07:02 PM
 SkyWatcher Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,781
Hi folks, Hi harvester, I have been using that circuit to charge batteries very well, though I do not use the 20 kohm resistor from base to collector and also do not use the 10 kohm resistor from base to ground.
Also, the 1n4148 diode from base to ground for additional transistors is an option.
Also, I use a non-polarized 100uf-100volt capacitor in parallel with base resistors and works well.
I have a 24 gauge, 5 strand air core coil that works very well also, though a little thicker gauge would be needed for higher current draw, heat buildup.
I would say with those mentioned parts removed, it is the best self oscillating charger I have used.
Hope that helps.
peace love light
tyson
__________________

#1374
06-10-2012, 07:38 PM
 Lidmotor Gold Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,001
New circuit needed

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsProf me: "Running with a joule-ringer and a 12V bulb is a good idea... will try." I used a 12V- DC bulb that drew 0.3 W, about 64 Lm/W in my light box. Connected to the SJR 2.0, I decided to start at 8 V DC input to see what would happen. It drew 0.76A @ 8V = 9W but only put out 24 lumens, so roughly 3 Lm/W. Also, the bulb would no longer function at 12V DC input. (Don't worry -- I purchased several of these before; not expensive.) So -- at least for this 12V-DC LED bulb -- running on the SJR 2.0 did not increase the output yield per watt... decreased it significantly. Worth a try!
Dr. Jones,
I tried that also and it didn't work. Luckily I didn't destroy the bulb. There is probably a circuit already out there that will do what I am thinking about. A CMOS 555 timer circuit would do it. The trick (as always) is not losing energy in the process and ending up back at square one. A long time ago we worked on a CFL Joule Thief project here where we blinked the whole JT circuit with a seperate timer circuit and it worked. That project end up in a boxed version that I called the "Halo light" (because it used a round bulb) and that is the light I have used on my boat for several years now. Now that we have better led bulbs to work with I might try that whole circuit again.

Lidmotor

PS---The cheap dollar store AAs powered my new "Ringer" light again through the night and it was still on this morning. The loaded voltage was around .6 volts. The question now is ----when will those cheap batteries start leaking. Gotta watch out for that.
__________________

#1375
06-10-2012, 07:56 PM
 Peanutbutter29 Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 37
@ Lidmotor. Ya, I mentioned in one of the first posts, I believe frequency starts to help above 250Khz or so (well can). You can also use PWM to lower duty and have frequency as well. This was what I looked into for Aquarium lighting when they first came out; still need 100w of LED on a tank, so not economical yet. The problems with HF can be many, but transformer loss and transmission may be most common; these "could" offset advantage from Frequency.

Seems like a 12v PWM motor control, tweaked for higher frequency; may be a good start here.

@ PhysicsProf and about my light post......did you feel I posted these incorrectly? Here's some prior to catch up:

You first noted when testing these (168-252-80 Lu/W) Chinese bulbs. Not sure which is the Lu/W you consider as all were used; I note too.....these are 220v bulbs...did you calibrate on 220 then? If not that could easily show incorrect Lu/W
Anyway you first stated:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsProf ....so far, I've found that the Warm light and the "pure white" bulbs give very close to the same lux values with my little meter from Amazon as they are rated, within 3-5%. If we can get +/- 8% values on these tests, I'll be happy --Steven J
Later, in trying to convey the error and that it could be eliminated I stated.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Peanutbutter29 Adjusting for each bulb, CAN cut down to 1% error rather than 5% you state and is shown above. This is why I showed my "proven" variation in bulbs can change 10-15 Lu/W of readings at the end. Well your bulb? It is a daylight.....sooo, it's got a lower ratio than your INC and Compact conversion. By applying the Same you have introduced an error of 5%+ by NOT re-calibrating for that bulb as per mfg.
You then replied with;

Originally posted by PhysicsProf (post 1313)
Now, about the lumens -- I have repeatedly said that my light box calculations have an error of about 7 or 8%, so I have NO PROBLEM with your statement that I have introduced an error of 5%+:
QUOTE:
Well your bulb? It is a daylight.....sooo, it's got a lower ratio than your INC and Compact conversion. By applying the Same you have introduced an error of 5%+ by NOT re-calibrating for that bulb as per mfg.

The error is at least 5% as I have said, probably more like 8% +/- . I still think that this measurement is very helpful.

Okay, here, in all honesty; my mind cannot comprehend how a man of "science" says an 8% error is fine. What confounds me more, is that you want to compare your Error with others Accurate results. This is NOT NOT NOT scientific in any way!! The intention of making a "scientific instrument", is to make it as accurate as possible. I'm still utterly mind boggled here as if CERN applied this; we already would have the "god particle"! Heh, well within an 8% error. If anyone in science has an option of 1% error or 8%; The 8% get's tossed and the 1% is used.

Moving on.....
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Peanutbutter29 @ PhysicsProf and all to clarify here. -My highest with a Lasersaber Super Joule ringer circuit; is the last shown (previous page). This is Highly viable and cheap. *Using PhysicsProf preferred method (same calibration): Shown setup was 76 Lu/W max @ 455 Lumens. Error of 5% though, as I don't have an 8% number to draw from. *Using My preferred method (each bulb calibrated as well as number) We get a more realistic 59 Lu/W @ 354 Lumens. This is within 1/2-1% accurate. So, efficiency of whole circuit is ABOVE any inverter. **If we applied PhysicsProf preffered method to the High power mode; we would assume 583 Lumens (100 over rated) and 62.3 Lu/W. Since factory is 65 Lu/W here, this would be well into overunity and NOT the case.
My post above, PhysicsProf below:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsProf PB was kind to already answer my question, Jules -- and he said: QUOTE: @ PhysicsProf and all to clarify here. -My highest with a Lasersaber Super Joule ringer circuit; is the last shown (previous page). This is Highly viable and cheap. *Using PhysicsProf preferred method (same calibration): Shown setup was 76 Lu/W max @ 455 Lumens. Error of 5% though, as I don't have an 8% number to draw from. *Using My preferred method (each bulb calibrated as well as number) We get a more realistic 59 Lu/W @ 354 Lumens. This is within 1/2-1% accurate. If you wish to disagree with what PB himself has written in response to my question, you will need to explain your disagreement with PB.
I've pointed out above, as I assume you still want to compare my 1% number with your 5%...... Again, I am only posting both, since your "fine" with 5%. So, if you, in your house tested that EXACT same system; you would have reported 76 Lu/W.... I don't understand if you have an issue here.

A note too. I got a nice laugh out of the psychology behind changing bold. I'm sure Freud would've enjoyed it too! At least your consistent.

Next,

Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsProf One has to be careful in testing bulbs with beam "directional" light output, since if that beam is pointed towards the lux-meter, one can get incorrect (high) results. But I took care with these bulbs to avoid the beam-pointing problem;
Okay, uhm did you make a new box? Mine is 12" ABOVE and perpendicular to light....... I would like to draw attention to Exhibit A: Ecore10V45LpW.MPG - YouTube
Here we see your box and meter with your (80-168-252 Lu/W) bulb.
-The sensor is mounted low in the box AT bulb level
-The sensor is mounted in "partial" parallel to light
-The sensor is DIRECTLY pointing at a minimum of 9 LEDS
-We see a 1/2 Cu. Ft. box with little to no reflection!!

**Also, please professor you try this and anyone else with these LED's. If you get to 150 Lumens.....the camera will not show exact LED outline as in your video. Also, if you compare a "line run" 150 Lumen bulb to those dim LEDs; it is OBVIOUSLY no where near 150 Lumens. You are in fact closer to 100 there. Again I am the one with the "scientific box", to be blunt.

Finally then, have you gotten a normal transformer to run in SJR design yet? I know the first failed, but since most seem to be using that; I wondered if you've tried again?

With the DOME light, I'm not sure that an SJR is best for 12v bulbs? Maybe with a 1-2v input....might be interesting.

Last then from OU forum, since it was asked

Quote from Lynxsteam OU post #85
Here is my latest test with the Utilitech LED warm 7.5 watt bulbs. The watt reading off the house grid was done through a watt meter and it is calibrated. Please try this yourself and see that these bulbs consume more power than stated on the package, note that my grid voltage is 120 v and that may cause a higher amp draw.

First, I'm pretty sure normal line is 120v as that's what the bulbs are rated for; so I'm not sure "higher amp draw" will apply. I have 13 of these Utilitech bulbs that range from a couple weeks old to 8 months. I double checked them all to be sure with my Kill-A-Watt (tm) meter. They all show rated 90ma of draw and 7.5w.
1 Bulb- 7w
2 Bulb -15w
3-Bulb -22w
4-Bulb -30w
5-Bulb- 37w
6-Bulb- 45w
7-Bulb- 52w
8-Bulb- 60w
9-Bulb- 67w
10-Bulb-75w
11-Bulb-82w
12-Bulb-90w
13-Bub-98W

Note, 2 are WW and 11 are daylight. So, I'm not sure how you get 16w for 1 and 35w for 2???? Maybe the meter is bad? Possibly the bulbs are bad, but from knowing the circuit; that SSL chip would have to be fried at the very least for this to happen. Testing 13 and all being the same would not suggest a large variance in rated.

Finally @ ALL. I personally am not trying to attack ever, BUT if you (I / we) are representing Science; we are bound to respect THAT above our person. If we are trying to make scientific advancement, we ALL must adhere to common practice as much as possible. This should not be about numbers as much as viability and what good it can do. If we do not go about this accurately and correctly; then we may not accomplish anything. The only thing in all this that gets damaged with errors, is science and "opportunity" for less fortunate.

E.G-
"If I'm going to tell a guy to trade this set of batteries for his family noodle pack to light his house; I'm going to be DAMN sure it does!!!!" I feel VERY strongly about this

Sorry to rant again!
Thanks
PB

PS @ lidmotor, just saw your last post.
Yes 12v prolly have a CC circuit, see above for 1-2v option?
Nice run times with your light box too!!
Also, batteries can leak if they are pulled down too low; maybe try a Zener across battery for Low Voltage shut off or something?
__________________

#1376
06-10-2012, 08:44 PM
 Allen Burgess Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 328
Hertz

Peanutbutter29,

Running the Hertz up from 250k on a bulb linked to a lux meter, showing increased brightness with no increase in input power would make a landmark video!
__________________

#1377
06-10-2012, 10:57 PM
 totoalas Silver Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 615
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Harvester Hey all, I have replicated the above circuit, but have some issues with it. Coil has 6 strands of 22AWG, 60m long. Not using the input and output caps and only having a 1uF cap instead of the 10uF one. Charge battery is an old 12V lead acid, currently at 8.4V Input is from 12V power supply, max 2A. Problem I got is that either the circuit draws next to no current, or so much that it fries my variable resistor. The 5KOhm variable resistor does nothing and has to be on 0 Ohm. With the 1 KOhm resistor in the higher range, the circuit uses 120mA and produces 12.3V at the charging battery and 94V when charging battery is disconnected. When tuning the resistor in the lower range, the amp draw all of a sudden jumps to 730ma, charging battery voltage goes up to 17V and with disconnected battery, the voltage jumps to 210V. Problem is that at this stage the 1KOhm resistor starts smoking. Had a 680Ohm 1W resistor instead of 470+100+100, but started smoking so changed to the ones shown in circuit at 1W. Have changed all resistors to 1W and all diodes to ultra fast ones, just in case. Is there a bug in my replication or is the variable resistor just too weak in wattage? The next jump of input amps is to 1.7A, 25V at charging battery and nearly 700V disconnected. The changes are right at the beginning, when there is hardly any resistance and they are very close together, as in by turning the resistor maybe 10 deg. The other coil I used out of CAT5e network cable with shielding removed, was easier in tuning, as the input current would rise in proportion to turning the resistor. Now it is like using a switch - 0.12A, 0.73A, 1.7A The coil frequencies also only jump when the amp draw changes - it is not a curve, but steps. Has anyone got an idea what the problem might be?
HI
using same circuit and sjr load the lamps are brighter @150 mA as compared w/ sjr only with less brightness@ 250 ma freqncy and caps as they say makes it brighter

totoalas

PS added to a noodle pack are the children studying at night
__________________

#1378
06-11-2012, 01:36 AM
 Harvester Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 22
Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher I have been using that circuit to charge batteries very well, though I do not use the 20 kohm resistor from base to collector and also do not use the 10 kohm resistor from base to ground.
Have tried that as well, removing the B-C resistor and changing the E-B resistor with a diode, like the other ones.
Same behaviour.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher Also, the 1n4148 diode from base to ground for additional transistors is an option.
So you are leaving those out..... that is something I have not tried yet.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher Also, I use a non-polarized 100uf-100volt capacitor in parallel with base resistors and works well.
Are you talking about exchanging the 10uF one, or each 100 Ohm resistor to each base?

The largest non-polarized cap I have is the 1 uF one.
Have tried a trick I read somewhere, where I took 2 polarized 80 uF 330V capacitors,
soldered the + together and attached the pack to the circuit.
The frequency was sooooo low, that when going over the air coil with a magnet,
I could feel the frequency that the magnet was drawn towards the coil.
It feels like 4Hz or so and the pulls are quiet strong.
Using the 1uF capacitor, no pull is noticeable.
Maybe I should play around with smaller values?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by SkyWatcher I would say with those mentioned parts removed, it is the best self oscillating charger I have used.
Will give that a go, thanks.
Getting the close to 700V is scary as well, I recon...

Quote:
 Originally Posted by minoly the "trick" w/ the cap is really just using it to tune for freq, pulse width, and voltage to the base. So experiment with several size caps so you can get the feel for it. the small cap you have + the impedance of your trigger coil could be the cause for the small window you are seeing while tuning.
Will give that a go, thanks.
The CAT5e coil had the same dimension, but only weight about 300g, whereas the one I am using now is easily >1Kg

Quote:
 Originally Posted by minoly Furthermore pay real close attention to how PB is tuning his ckts. PB's video "Explainaintion for operation of Super Joule Ringer, Bias resistor and SJRC" was the best light shedding explanation I've ever seen/heard.
Unfortunately the video does not exist any more - account closed.
@PB
If sent via PM, then I will not pass on.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by totoalas using same circuit and sjr load the lamps are brighter @150 mA as compared w/ sjr only with less brightness@ 250 ma freqncy and caps as they say makes it brighter
Interesting.....

Thanks again to all.
__________________

#1379
06-11-2012, 02:01 AM
 Allen Burgess Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 328
120 volt LED bulb circuit

I disassembled a damaged 120 volt 2 watt "Lights of America" LED bulb. There is indeed a circuit inside the base. I spotted what looks to be a rectifier, and several tiny transformers in metal caseings.

I tested my boxed Jr 2.0 on the sailboat too. The 8 watt bulb lasted one hour running on a 9 volt AA bunch. I'm conducting an endurance test now on a 2 watt bulb on 12 volt AA.
__________________

#1380
06-11-2012, 04:55 AM
 SkyWatcher Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,781
Hi folks, Hi harvester, yes, I am not using the 1n4148 diodes and I am just exchanging the 10uf capacitor for a 100uf.
I am using 6 resistors in parallel with that 100uf capacitor, 3-1kohm resistors in parallel and in series with another 3-1kohm in parallel, think they are 1/2 or 1 watt, so about 666 ohms total going into the main base diode, then I have 300 ohm resistors going to each transistor base.
peace love light
tyson
__________________

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

 Choose your voluntary subscription \$5 : \$5.00 USD - monthly \$7 : \$7.00 USD - monthly \$10 : \$10.00 USD - monthly \$25 : \$25.00 USD - monthly \$50 : \$50.00 USD - monthly \$75 : \$75.00 USD - monthly \$100 : \$100.00 USD - monthly \$175 : \$175.00 USD - monthly \$250 : \$250.00 USD - monthly

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:04 PM.