EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: MrZwing on January 21, 2015, 11:52:15 am
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSDy6QXyeyE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSDy6QXyeyE)
I'm curious how this snake oil work's, I'm guessing some kind of joule thief.
I'm guessing the brass tube inside the ferrite core is some primitive coil.
what do you guy's think? I'm still new to electronics so I'm just wildly guessing.
/MrZ
-
No magic there - LEDs will light with much less than 20mA
an AA battery will give at last 3 watt-hours.
Or 62mw over 2 days.
a low-current LED will light as brightly as those shown on 1mA, =approx 2mW
So lighting 23 LEDs on an AA battery is entirely plausible.
-
what do you guy's think?
The guy's doing it without understanding what he's doing.
-
::)
Back of envelope time:
An alkaline AA has a capacity of about 2500mAh at low currents
high efficiency LED's can easily operate at that level of apparent brightness @ 1mA or less, even 0.1mA I've done before (brightness is pretty linear).
23 red LEDs in series at maybe 1.6V drop at that current is say 37V, so @ 1mA that's 37mW total.
Say 1.2V average for the cell is 3Wh capacity, divide that by 37mW and you get 81 hours.
Add some loss in efficiency for whatever step-up converter you use, and Bob's Your Uncle, 52 hours is no problem at all.
-
They are using a joule thief which is powered by itself once it starts up (that is, the oscillator power is supplied by the transformer.) This will mean it can oscillate down to ~0.3V. These circuits have been around for ages and without actual power measurements no claim to extracting more than the batteries' energy can be upheld.
-
oh I know it's humbug but want to know why and how the thing "works" but interesting answers. shows that knowledge is power.
the black taped thing is apparently A brass tube surrounded by ferrite cores.
-
Hey guys,
A buddy just let me know about your little discussion, so I thought I'd enter the thread and help you along with some of your doubts, guesses and questions.
OK, let's do 'em in order.
- "I'm guessing some kind of joule thief."
It's not a Joule Thief, differing in a few ways; since it has no coil/step up method of modifying the voltage/taking the voltage up from an average of 1.1 V DC up to something higher in order to meet the demands of the LEDs.
The switching is also different from the typical basic Joule Thief circuit in that it uses a PNP as well as an NPN. The PNP is used because it has a nice 'n' low gate voltage of .7 to .9 V DC, which means that the AA can handle the job until it drops below that value, as seen in the video when I take readings near the end of the test.
As well, the Joule Thief hits the light bulb end of the circuit with a fairly A/C shaped wave form, all of which is typically directed (undioded) at a light type that makes use of A/C power.
This is an LED setup for a reason.
And that reason is that the LEDs are connected in opposite polarity to the battery.
So the battery simply isn't the thing that is powering the LEDs.
- “No magic there - LEDs will light with much less than 20mA. An AA battery will give at last 3 watt-hours. Or 62mw over 2 days. A low-current LED will light as brightly as those shown on 1mA, =approx 2mW. So lighting 23 LEDs on an AA battery is entirely plausible.”
These LEDs are clearly wired in parallel.
A shitkicked year old alkaline Costco issue Kirkland will NOT 'give at least 3 watt hours'.
Check the independent quotes from others online who have published their testing of many kinds/brands of AA battery. You will find that this grade of Alkaline give out something much closer to the value I suggest in the video - around 2,184mAh, times the average of 1.1 V, gives you a total output of 2,310 mWh. That is exactly how you would expect this thing to drain if there were no LEDs connected at all.
What I don't show in the video, and I kinda wish I had in hindsight, is the mA draw without and then with load. At the top end, when we're talking fairly fresh battery, around 64mA, the load drives the draw up by around 4 or 5mA.
And no, you can't get an LED to near full brightness on 1.4 V and 1 mA. That's just crap talk. Sorry.
- “The guy's doing it without understanding what he's doing.”
Dude. I didn't ask the question at the end because I don't know the answer.
And I didn't end up with those 5 particular cores, with the correct permeability/saturation value required to exhibit this phenomenon, by happy accident.
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Pretty sure I understand what I'm doing, thx.
-”Back of envelope time:
An alkaline AA has a capacity of about 2500mAh at low currents
high efficiency LED's can easily operate at that level of apparent brightness @ 1mA or less, even 0.1mA I've done before (brightness is pretty linear).
23 red LEDs in series at maybe 1.6V drop at that current is say 37V, so @ 1mA that's 37mW total.
Say 1.2V average for the cell is 3Wh capacity, divide that by 37mW and you get 81 hours.
Add some loss in efficiency for whatever step-up converter you use, and Bob's Your Uncle, 52 hours is no problem at all.”
OK. They're not in series. And you can clearly see that in the video. If you own a breadboard, you know the two rails on each long side of the board. They're colour coded red and blue.
These are not high efficiency LEDs. They are the dime a dozen kind, bought literally as a bag of 100, for a few bucks.
I think I'll also put up a video showing what their diet is in terms of conventional DC. Because they're hungry little buggers compared to the order of magnitude of the rest of what's going on in this circuit.
It's certainly a lot more than 37mW. That's just silly.
And there is no step up converter, here.
That is actually why I put in the two quotes from the Matrix. Back when I was still putting the video together, right after the test was done, I was using that reference when talking to another buddy of mine elsewhere in the world (who I have been mentoring in various technologies for a few years), in describing how this simply isn't a Joule Thief, because there is no coil (“there is no spoon”).
-”hey are using a joule thief which is powered by itself once it starts up (that is, the oscillator power is supplied by the transformer.) This will mean it can oscillate down to ~0.3V. These circuits have been around for ages and without actual power measurements no claim to extracting more than the batteries' energy can be upheld.”
Nope. No JT, here, dood. Just check the two schematics side by side and you can clearly see that, assuming you are fluent in schematic. This video is not so typical of my regular output on that channel. Check out a few of my other ones and you'll quickly see a higher production value. I typically do high detail custom schematics and diagrams for my output, always each symbol and part from scratch, using software like Inkscape instead of the expected prefab circuit software options currently out there.
It won't oscillate below the PNP's gate threshold voltage, which you can confirm is between 0.7 and 0.9 V DC per the datasheet - part # 2SA949, Toshiba. And this is why you see the test last for only a short while after the 0.905 V point had been reached.
And I gave you power measurements at the start and at the end. Don't know what you're talkin' about there, dood.
- “I am very dubious about the identity of that large round component at the top cleverly covered in black tape.
It looks like 5 battery cells in series to me. The video is long on hype and mystery and pretty devoid of hard facts.
I say humbug. Move on, nothing to see here.”
The part # for that component, on DigiKey, is 495-3867-ND - Ferrite Toroid 38.1mm OD.
They're pretty big. And there's simply no room in there for anything else. Besides, CapIndRes has already done the 'taking the thing apart at the end of the demo' thing, to take this whole issue into the Land of the Moot.
This isn't a deception. It's a REPLICATION. I'm suprised that more of you haven't taken the time to check out the output of both Larskro and CapIndRes regarding this technology. Your comments would drammatically change, should you take the time and show some respect.
I s'pose I could have glued the 5 toroids together in order to get rid of some tape and expose the outside paintjobs of the pretty cores, but the naysayers would still try to point out that I could have hollowed them out and snuck a small battery inside each one.
But if you took the time to really attempt this circuit, you'd find that it really does work, just like I did.
- “the black taped thing is apparently A brass tube surrounded by ferrite cores.”
If you pay attention while watching the video, I describe in detail what they really are.
I also detail that you could substitute what I used for a brass tube and get the same result. It was a point about how the resistance of whatever connects the part of the circuit going through the core set is essentially zero when the battery is pushing current though during the ON phase.
I use 4 8 foot lengths of 28 gauge EM wire, soldered at each end.
That results in a 4 X 28 gauge parallel Litz wire. And the final length, after twisting the wires together, is closer to 5 feet. So it's the conventional resistance of a single 5 foot length of roughly 18 or 16 gauge. But you get a better magnetoelectric skin effect transfer toward the dielectric using what I use. That is coiled up into around 8 or 10 turns on its way through the cores. Do I still not sound like I know what I'm talking about?
But again, you can just use a straight ol' piece of brass - or a few other things; just check out their videos to see that as well.
- “It looks like just another stupid amateur ad-hoc YouTube video. There are millions of them out there.”
OK. That is just ignorant. And quite trollish.
Seriously, guys. I am known by many in the community.
Endorsement (most recent one) by Matt McMahon, in his review of some of my recent output:
"Stone, this is yet another beautiful creation of yours. You're one of the smartest guys I know and there can really be no value put on the quality of your work. Great job. Beautiful contribution to the HHO community."
By all means let me know if you have any other doubts, questions, respectful comments.
Thanks for taking a look,
Stone
-
That is just ignorant.
It is nothing more than an oscillator. You don't have to have a physical coil to have inductance.
Endorsement (most recent one) by Matt McMahon
No reason to appeal to authority.
-
The LED in this photo was drawing 170uA (10k series to 3.3V, assuming 1.6V LED drop, 1.7V resistor drop and apply a bit of Ohm's sauce). Given the right ambient lighting an LED can be made to "look" bright. And that was a crappy $0.02 0603 LED.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/photobucket391/4360/P1040297-Copy_zps8e74622f.jpg) (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/photobucket391/media/4360/P1040297-Copy_zps8e74622f.jpg.html)
-
I use those ultra bright LED's as mains indicators, driving them at under 1mA, which is still bright. I made the first using a 5mA drive, and it was bright enough to use as a night light in the room it was in. It cast a red shadow even in daylight on the far wall. Last ones are bright enough to see but will take around 5 years to use a single unit of electricity, most of which is dissipated in the series resistors. 0.4W dissipation in 2 0.5W resistors will not harm them, and as they are carbon composition ( I know, they will drift high with time, they already are at +10% of nominal value, and it will probably get to 20% in another 50 years or so) they will survive.
-
With bits from stock, no fancy inductor, just a 100uH designed for SMPS and a bunch of crappy LEDs. I also re-wrote the schematic into a more conventional format. Note that the collector on the NPN is about 3.8Vpp at 62kHz with Vin=1.5V with the inductor I used.
It's a slightly modified boost converter, in that the rectifying components are the LED themselves, and to limit the voltage and therefore current across them rather than going to ground from the collector they go to V+.
LEDs were still visible (just) down to 0.6V, but I had to go into engineer mode, with the lights switched off to see anything.
V+ ImA Vpp PmW Est.Hours(2000mAh cell)
0.5 0 0.0 0.0 -
0.6 10 2.4 6.0 200
0.7 15 2.6 10.5 133
0.8 21 2.8 16.8 95
0.9 25 3.0 22.5 80
1.0 29 3.1 29.0 69
1.1 32 3.2 35.2 63
1.2 34 3.4 40.8 59
1.3 37 3.5 48.1 54
1.4 40 3.7 56.0 50
1.5 42 3.8 63.0 48
So no, nothing remarkable here from what I can see.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/photobucket391/LED%20inverter/P1000009_zps9fa8571a.jpg) (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/photobucket391/media/LED%20inverter/P1000009_zps9fa8571a.jpg.html)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/photobucket391/LED%20inverter/P1000007_zpsa3ea71f8.jpg) (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/photobucket391/media/LED%20inverter/P1000007_zpsa3ea71f8.jpg.html)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/photobucket391/LED%20inverter/P1000006_zpsa80871ec.jpg) (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/photobucket391/media/LED%20inverter/P1000006_zpsa80871ec.jpg.html)
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Do I still not sound like I know what I'm talking about?
:-+
-
It's not a Joule Thief, differing in a few ways; since it has no coil
It may not have a coil, but it sure as hell has an inductor. Which is what most people mean, functionally, when they say 'coil'.
/step up method of modifying the voltage/taking the voltage up from an average of 1.1 V DC up to something higher in order to meet the demands of the LEDs.
Sure it doesn't. That's why the LEDs aren't lit. Oh wait.
The switching is also different from the typical basic Joule Thief circuit
Okay, so it's a different sort of boost converter.
This is an LED setup for a reason.
And that reason is that the LEDs are connected in opposite polarity to the battery.
Okay, so it's an inverting boost converter. Or is it? Your schematic doesn't show the LEDs.
So the battery simply isn't the thing that is powering the LEDs.
Okay, so what is?
Dude. I didn't ask the question at the end because I don't know the answer.
Please, enlighten us. I'm sure we're all dying to know.
I mean, clearly it's not the battery, so what's your hypothesis?
Seriously, guys. I am known by many in the community.
Endorsement (most recent one) by Matt McMahon, in his review of some of my recent output:
"Stone, this is yet another beautiful creation of yours. You're one of the smartest guys I know and there can really be no value put on the quality of your work. Great job. Beautiful contribution to the HHO community."
Which community is that, then? And who's Matt McMahon?
-
I didn't know BJTs had gates.
-
Which community is that, then? And who's Matt McMahon?
What? Matt McMahon, self proclaimed Inventor of a Free Energy bike, although as far as I can tell he doesn't appear to have actually invented it yet.
-
Which community is that, then? And who's Matt McMahon?
What? Matt McMahon, self proclaimed Inventor of a Free Energy bike, although as far as I can tell he doesn't appear to have actually invented it yet.
Sometimes it works great, others it's an uphill struggle? :P
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Pretty sure I understand what I'm doing, thx.
Welcome.
But be aware when you come to one of the best engineering forums in the world and start mentioning quantum vacuum, be prepared to have your free energy ideas handed back to you on a silver platter.
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Woah! Get your tin foil hats out for this one everybody!
It was a point about how the resistance of whatever connects the part of the circuit going through the core set is essentially zero when the battery is pushing current though during the ON phase.
That's not how inductors work. At the instant you connect a voltage source to an inductor, its resistance is nearly infinite, and drops over time as the current ramps up and energy is stored in the magnetic field. This is basic Intro to Electronics 101.
Doesn't take a genius to recognize this is a simple joule thief circuit.
-
- “It looks like just another stupid amateur ad-hoc YouTube video. There are millions of them out there.”
OK. That is just ignorant. And quite trollish.
Seriously, guys. I am known by many in the community.
That's like saying that you are well known and respected in the young earth creationism community.
You could be the worlds best young earth creationist researcher, but the fact is you are still wrong.
-
Seems all the comments on that video have been deleted.
I find it sad when people take knowledge as a personal affront.
Sure it can be embarrassing when when your ideas are proven incorrect in the public eye, but a lesson is a lesson and you should take what positives from it you can.
-
The PNP is used because it has a nice 'n' low gate voltage of .7 to .9 V DC
BJTs have bases, not gates
all of which is typically directed (undioded) at a light type that makes use of A/C power.
gibberish
These LEDs are clearly wired in parallel.
A shitkicked year old alkaline Costco issue Kirkland will NOT 'give at least 3 watt hours'.
Evidence? Please show how you measured it to make that assertion
Check the independent quotes from others online who have published their testing of many kinds/brands of AA battery. You will find that this grade of Alkaline give out something much closer to the value I suggest in the video - around 2,184mAh, times the average of 1.1 V,
An Alkaline does not avarage anywhere near as low as 1.1V over its life.
gives you a total output of 2,310 mWh. That is exactly how you would expect this thing to drain if there were no LEDs connected at all.
...er if there were no LEDs connected, it wouldn't drain
And no, you can't get an LED to near full brightness on 1.4 V and 1 mA. That's just crap talk. Sorry.
Define "full". There are LEDs that will light as bright as those in the video at that current level, They're called "low current LEDs" and they cost a few bucks per hundred.
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
I pity you for wasting so much of your life on nonsense. stop now while you still have time to do something more useful.
OK. They're not in series. And you can clearly see that in the video.
Makes no differnce to efficiency figures.
These are not high efficiency LEDs. They are the dime a dozen kind, bought literally as a bag of 100, for a few bucks.
Part number? Datasheet? How can you assert anything about them?
It won't oscillate below the PNP's gate threshold voltage,
Again, BJT's don't have a gate threshold voltage. Of course if you had even half a clue you'd know that.
The part # for that component, on DigiKey, is 495-3867-ND - Ferrite Toroid 38.1mm OD.
..erm I thought you said there was no inductor....
A wire through a bunch of ferrites is, let me think.... oh yes, a FRIKKIN' INDUCTOR DICKHEAD!
Just sit back in your chair while we plug it in.....
:palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm: :palm:
-
Seems all the comments on that video have been deleted.
I find it sad when people take knowledge as a personal affront.
Sure it can be embarrassing when when your ideas are proven incorrect in the public eye, but a lesson is a lesson and you should take what positives from it you can.
In most cases, not all, but in most cases, a clear indicator that someone is full of :bullshit: is when they refuse to engage in dialog, or flat out disallow it, such as disabling YouTube comments. It takes a disciplined mind to wholeheartedly accept critique, and engage in dialog. Flat out refusal is indicative of an immature mind.
-
-”Back of envelope time:
An alkaline AA has a capacity of about 2500mAh at low currents
high efficiency LED's can easily operate at that level of apparent brightness @ 1mA or less, even 0.1mA I've done before (brightness is pretty linear).
23 red LEDs in series at maybe 1.6V drop at that current is say 37V, so @ 1mA that's 37mW total.
Say 1.2V average for the cell is 3Wh capacity, divide that by 37mW and you get 81 hours.
Add some loss in efficiency for whatever step-up converter you use, and Bob's Your Uncle, 52 hours is no problem at all.”
OK. They're not in series. And you can clearly see that in the video. If you own a breadboard, you know the two rails on each long side of the board. They're colour coded red and blue.
My mistake. You are correct. Doesn't at all change any of the consumption or efficiency calculations. The fact is the battery has enough energy to do this, so to think it's some magical quantum vacuum or other such magic is just silly :palm:
Just learn how to do proper engineering and you will see where the energy comes from and how it's used.
These are not high efficiency LEDs. They are the dime a dozen kind, bought literally as a bag of 100, for a few bucks.
Have you got data to prove what sort of brightness vs current characteristic they have?
I've taken ordinary junk bin red LED's and got them quite bright at 1mA, and even less, no problem. And that was 25-30 years ago.
You have made zero attempt to quantify the brightness, nor even measure the LED current.
I think I'll also put up a video showing what their diet is in terms of conventional DC. Because they're hungry little buggers compared to the order of magnitude of the rest of what's going on in this circuit.
What sort of gibberish is that?
It's certainly a lot more than 37mW. That's just silly.
Prove it.
-
Ahh... fresh meat for the Trolls...
that's all you see, isn't it?
You've all been down this road with so many fake devices with hidden batteries that you're psychologically prepared only to see fakeness in anything else offered down the road. The perception of many of you is simply polluted by a constant flow of negativism from your 'peers', backed up by a thorough brainwashing of that ubiquitous perpetration known as contemporary mainstream physics dogma.
You guys are an impediment to progress - in such a hurry to argue semantic, eyes totally off the prize of success through positive collaboration.
This is the main reason why I've stayed away from the 'best engineering forum(s) in the world' for this long. I see what happens to those who offer something. Terms like Snake Oil are quickly lofted.
I was just pointing out to the world how they can improve their residential lighting energy budget, through more efficient design than in what you find mass produced at the ol' Home Depot - that this might deserve a closer look in comparison to what corporations currently hand us in terms of product and cost to operate it.
More responses:
- “It is nothing more than an oscillator. You don't have to have a physical coil to have inductance.”
Alright. That is true that you don't. And I point to the cores, each of which have an A(L) value of 17.6nH.
re. the SMD sized LED/my kewl 3.3V circuit/circuit that uses a coil wound around the ferrite inductor types of responses
Apples and oranges, all round. Check my parts count.
- “It may not have a coil, but it sure as hell has an inductor. Which is what most people mean, functionally, when they say 'coil'.”
OK. Count the cores themselves as the 'inductor'.
I really don't care what you want to call it.
When 'most people' speak of the inductor in their circuit, you can be pretty sure there's at least a few loops of wire, usually wound around some core material. That's where the induction takes place, like in the buck/boost converters of which others here speak, in their circuit. This circuit doesn't necessarily have any of that type of geometry/long length of loopy wire (although I did technically use an air core Litz wire, as I described in the video, it works without).
Watch the video by CapIndRes and you will more clearly see that no wire is wound around the cores. The 'wire' (conduit) simply goes straight through their centres, once. This why I bring attention to how comparatively low the DC serial resistance is on that part of the conduit - low compared to the resistance of a small gauge wired inductor you typically find at this scale.
- “Okay, so it's a different sort of boost converter.”
I s'pose you could call it that, yes. Very different. I'm good with that.
- “Okay, so it's an inverting boost converter. Or is it? Your schematic doesn't show the LEDs.”
Apologies. This was just a quick video I threw together in a couple of hours; not my typical output style or level. The schematic you see in my video is directly extracted from CapIndRes' video. Just take a quick look at his and you'll see that they connect at the two points either side of the core set, in opposite polarity to the battery. That way, when the switch is in ON phase, with battery power flowing through those two points, the LEDs don't light up.
- “So the battery simply isn't the thing that is powering the LEDs. Okay, so what is?”
The collapsing (yes, induced) field inside the core set. ; ]
This is all about spending a very small amount of forward voltage from the battery on establishing a field inside the cores and turning the battery off as soon as it is established. As the field decays to zero, starting up that oscillation, polarity snaps in the other direction for a brief instant (very high voltage spike, as they say).
The circuit capitalizes on that snap in the opposite polarity - the one that mainstream academia teach us to filter, attenuate, dissipate, insulate or otherwise ground out, citing it as a dangerous and/or destructive to the physical materials used in the making of the circuit's components (which it very well is in most cases).
All I'm trying to show is the assymetric/offset nature of the oscillation. Spend a little (postive polarity) going in, put lots of stuff in the way that can harness lots (negative polarity) coming out.
And it's coming out so many times per second, the LEDs appear to be receiving DC at that brightness.
- “(I didn't ask the question at the end because I don't know the answer.) Please, enlighten us. I'm sure we're all dying to know. I mean, clearly it's not the battery, so what's your hypothesis?”
I forgot to mention in my original post about who's work I think that this is similar to.
And that would be Tariel Kapenadze. Not exactly like. Slightly similar to.
Totally reminds me of his work in how the conduit is brought through the centre of his composite coil set. Very high voltage setup... quite different geometry to the dilectric flow... but I see similarity.
- “Which community is that, then? And who's Matt McMahon?”
OK. Screw the endorsement altogether. Call it testing the water. He's a fellow Canadian living in Ontario; I'm now in NZ. I was merely implying that I'm not completely unknown/some NSA paid shill purposefully planting yet another bullshit laden distraction for people to spend futile hours trying to replicate/develop something with no potential for any success whatsoever. I was trying to bring focus to my intent, which is stricly honest and positive, just like Matt's, as misguided, poorly planned and/or unsuccessful as his may be. At least he's going for it with everything he's got. Our pathetic excuse for a race needs a lot more of that.
- “I didn't know BJTs had gates.”
Base, Collector, Emitter. Gate, Drain, Source. Tomato, potato, sphincter.
I'm just talking about another, efficient way to skin the cat here, guys.
Never claimed I was breaking physical law, just bending it. Ya?
Yes, I used the term quantum vacuum and the term free energy - both loaded with buzz.
The first one I used because I find it a succinct term to describe the 'force of nature' that handles EM inductive dynamic in the universe. I'm sure you have a pet term of your own. Feel free to substitute it if it makes you feel better. It's the thing that causes the negative polarity snap/spike to occur.
The second one I used in one context. I asked whether people were tired of looking at those fake 'free energy' devices, 'because this is real', as a keyword vehicle so that people would find the video and watch it. I don't think I did use the term 'free energy' in the actual video.
I do agree that the term 'free energy' is widely abused and has picked up a massive steaming load of stigma. But it's still the term used to attract the attention of the lay masses to new ideas. I guess there is a little dirt on my hands in that very limited respect.
But again, what you're seeing in my video is what is really happening. No snake oil. I'm trying to be transparent, here. And am open to endless legit, constructive, educationally purposed questions.
For example, I've had some very deep conversations about just what the conventional meter is saying about the battery's power consumption during the test with a few people. And that opens up a whole other barrel of fish as well, to do with just how correct that cheapy meter is. I do realize that brings about sufficient cause to break out the oscilloscope probes and measure the legit wave form that the battery experiences when draining that apparently slowly. But that can wait. Perhaps someone here would like to take the time to replicate this thing and publish their own, either validating or damning, results. Perhaps not.
I was just trying to provide some clarity to those who, by their own admissions, were just guessing about what this circuit is about.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Stone
-
As a post script, I'd also offer how I think that there was one other factor lost during this whole process.
And that is how the increase in 'load' to the battery, from when lighting up one or two LEDs to when lighting up 23, is about the same (within a mA or two) according to the meter.
These may not be burning 20mA each, and I do plan to meter that and will volunteer to post that quantification, but I'm pretty sure that they also aren't pulling a fraction of a mA each.
I think the 'load' of the circuit is limited by the permeability, and the inductive value, of the core set.
-
But again, what you're seeing in my video is what is really happening.
I don't think people are disputing that.
No snake oil.
That's not so clear. What you are observing is fairly mundane - you have constructed an oscillator, nothing more and nothing less. Certainly no bending the laws of physics here, and not even close.
The fact that you don't realize that is a little bit disappointing.
-
These may not be burning 20mA each,
They would be consuming far less than 20ma.
I think the 'load' of the circuit is limited by the permeability, and the inductive value, of the core set.
[/quote]
A core has no inductance. A coil does.
-
Perhaps someone here would like to take the time to replicate this thing and publish their own, either validating or damning, results. Perhaps not.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. Prove your "findings". Then, people will give you the respect you so desperately want.
-
Seems all the comments on that video have been deleted.
I find it sad when people take knowledge as a personal affront.
Sure it can be embarrassing when when your ideas are proven incorrect in the public eye, but a lesson is a lesson and you should take what positives from it you can.
Actually, it's a newly posted video, and no one has taken the time to comment.
Comments aren't disabled, they're by approval. And, looking at many of the comments found here, I feel fairly justified in that decision.
I don't disallow comments that disagree or may seek to disprove. But I will disallow ignorance, pointless inlfammation and abuse.
Trolls have spoiled for you that previously wide open avenue. Sorry.
OK. More measurements are in order before anyone here will consider this analysis to be complete when it comes to claim.
Alright. The crowd has spoken. Mundane it is, then.
Feel more than free to move on to torching the next house.
-
Never claimed I was breaking physical law, just bending it. Ya?
Yes, I used the term quantum vacuum and the term free energy - both loaded with buzz.
The first one I used because I find it a succinct term to describe the 'force of nature' that handles EM inductive dynamic in the universe. I'm sure you have a pet term of your own. Feel free to substitute it if it makes you feel better. It's the thing that causes the negative polarity snap/spike to occur.
As someone having a MSc in Physics, specifically having spent my time in graduate school on quantum computing, I died a little reading this. Don't just throw around terms that have an actual meaning. Vacuum energy can been see experimentally through things like the Casimir effect and has NOTHING to do with anything you are doing here.
-
You've all been down this road with so many fake devices with hidden batteries that you're psychologically prepared only to see fakeness in anything else offered down the road.
No one is saying it's fake.
We are saying you have no idea how to do basic engineering measurements nor learn basic engineering theory to understand what is happening here.
-
At the instant you connect a voltage source to an inductor, its resistance is nearly infinite, and drops over time as the current ramps up and energy is stored in the magnetic field. This is basic Intro to Electronics 101.
Er, no. Its impedance is nearly infinite. Its resistance doesn't change. Try not to be so sloppy when responding to a believer. It sustains them.
-
These may not be burning 20mA each, and I do plan to meter that and will volunteer to post that quantification, but I'm pretty sure that they also aren't pulling a fraction of a mA each.
So you know admit they aren't running at 20mA, congrats, you are on your way to learning.
Even at 1mA each, that's still 37mW total @ 1.6V, well within the capability of your measured AA battery life time.
Even at 2mA each the ballpark calc is still very close to your claimed number of hours.
BTW, 1-2mA is a very common design current for LED's in low power circuits, they are more than bright enough.
-
Mundane it is, then.
You may find that description offensive but it is precisely what it is - a mundane oscillator. You can even simulate it on paper, without actually building it, to see how it works.
-
At the instant you connect a voltage source to an inductor, its resistance is nearly infinite, and drops over time as the current ramps up and energy is stored in the magnetic field. This is basic Intro to Electronics 101.
Er, no. Its impedance is nearly infinite. Its resistance doesn't change. Try not to be so sloppy when responding to a believer. It sustains them.
K, I'll try and be more careful. I was specifically saying "resistance" in response to his use of the term "resistance", but you're right, it's impedance.
-
BTW, I don't see in the schematic where the LED's are connected?
-
BTW, I don't see in the schematic where the LED's are connected?
Ok, I see in the video they are across the coil.
-
K, I'll try and be more careful. I was specifically saying "resistance" in response to his use of the term "resistance", but you're right, it's impedance.
Not sure. I rather think it's semantics...
-
Seems all the comments on that video have been deleted.
I find it sad when people take knowledge as a personal affront.
Sure it can be embarrassing when when your ideas are proven incorrect in the public eye, but a lesson is a lesson and you should take what positives from it you can.
In most cases, not all, but in most cases, a clear indicator that someone is full of :bullshit: is when they refuse to engage in dialog, or flat out disallow it, such as disabling YouTube comments. It takes a disciplined mind to wholeheartedly accept critique, and engage in dialog. Flat out refusal is indicative of an immature mind.
Indeed Greg.
Thing is, the guy "Stone", clearly likes electronics, and has certainly landed at the right forum to learn from the best (not me!).
He could improve his lighting circuits, and help to stop the spread of "free energy" bullshit that has effectively lied to him.
He could help stop being done to others what has been done to him (that sounded something like a "fart of god"!:P).
Swallow your pride Stone, it does you no good, it is preventing you from learning from these very intelligent and nice people here (again I am just about nice sometimes... my intelligence is still in question:P)
-
Apart from J-FET, MOS-FET and etc, now we have this around this forum, YA-FET
... (Y)et (A)nother - (F)ree (E)nergy (T)hread .... :palm:
-
That's like saying that you are well known and respected in the young earth creationism community.
You could be the worlds best young earth creationist researcher, but the fact is you are still wrong.
Agree!
Well.... this thread exploded in an unanticipated way.
though I am learning a bit more about LED's, inductors and other tasty thing's so not complaining.
And I'm glad I recognised a circuit for once, even though it's a basic one it's a start but I did mistake the inductor for a coil beginner mistake I guess. :P
and a bit honoured to see Dave in here avid watcher of his channel, probably as the rest in here. :D
/MrZwing
-
- “So the battery simply isn't the thing that is powering the LEDs. Okay, so what is?”
The collapsing (yes, induced) field inside the core set. ; ]
This is all about spending a very small amount of forward voltage from the battery on establishing a field inside the cores and turning the battery off as soon as it is established. As the field decays to zero, starting up that oscillation, polarity snaps in the other direction for a brief instant (very high voltage spike, as they say).
The circuit capitalizes on that snap in the opposite polarity - the one that mainstream academia teach us to filter, attenuate, dissipate, insulate or otherwise ground out, citing it as a dangerous and/or destructive to the physical materials used in the making of the circuit's components (which it very well is in most cases).
All I'm trying to show is the assymetric/offset nature of the oscillation. Spend a little (postive polarity) going in, put lots of stuff in the way that can harness lots (negative polarity) coming out.
Congratulations, you've just admitted the energy comes from the changing magnetic field.
Now, where do you think that energy came from for that?
(HINT: You have this thing called a battery, that just so happens to have the total energy capability required, which also just happens to drain to zero in the time you can ballpark calculate is required for the LEDs, fancy that)
::)
-
Here is a quick simulation.
The blue trace is for current going through the led.
Very low duty cycle -> long battery life. It relies on your eyes to work.
-
Essentially, you have something that's not what you think it is, and it is precisely what you think it is not.
That tells a lot about the OP.
-
This is all about spending a very small amount of forward voltage from the battery on establishing a field inside the cores and turning the battery off as soon as it is established. As the field decays to zero, starting up that oscillation, polarity snaps in the other direction for a brief instant (very high voltage spike, as they say).
The circuit capitalizes on that snap in the opposite polarity - the one that mainstream academia teach us to filter, attenuate, dissipate, insulate or otherwise ground out, citing it as a dangerous and/or destructive to the physical materials used in the making of the circuit's components (which it very well is in most cases).
OK. This irks me. All you have described is the operation of a boost converter. That's not novel or new. Energy is stored in the coil in the form of a magnetic field when the switch is on. When the switch turns off, the field collapses and a higher voltage is developed across the coil. That spike that "mainstream academia" tells you to dissipate is fundamental to the operation of a boost converter - which is all this is! You'd get the same effect connecting LEDs across a relay coil (in reverse bias) - when the coil is switched off the coil will induce a voltage across the LEDs making them glow.
-
Thing is, the guy "Stone", clearly likes electronics, and has certainly landed at the right forum to learn from the best (not me!).
He could improve his lighting circuits, and help to stop the spread of "free energy" bullshit that has effectively lied to him.
He could help stop being done to others what has been done to him (that sounded something like a "fart of god"!:P).
Swallow your pride Stone, it does you no good, it is preventing you from learning from these very intelligent and nice people here (again I am just about nice sometimes... my intelligence is still in question:P)
My most optimistic hope for this thread is that the reader, in this case, the guy who made the DC booster circuit, will learn not to come into a situation thinking they're absolutely right, and everybody else is wrong. That doesn't help anybody. I've learned that the most productive mentality is to consider, "How can I possibly be wrong in my assumptions, and does anybody (who might possibly be smarter than me) have any valid points to bring up, and how do those points challenge my assumptions?"
At the end of the day, you are free to reject others' critiques and criticisms, but only after you've carefully evaluated them and weighed them against the evidence and historical research. But if in the end you change your mind, then be grateful for the positive experience you've had benefiting from others' expertise! It's never shameful to be proven wrong! All real scientists will tell you that they hope to be proven wrong! That's how advancements are made!
Apart from J-FET, MOS-FET and etc, now we have this around this forum, YA-FET
... (Y)et (A)nother - (F)ree (E)nergy (T)hread .... :palm:
I've also observed that the only truly perpetual thing about perpetual energy machines is that the number of wacko's trying to achieve perpetual energy will perpetually continue indefinitely!
-
I know Greg, me being a soft arse as us "poms" say. :)
The guy cannot run away screaming hate when encouragement was there for him to take up.
-
They are using a joule thief which is powered by itself once it starts up (that is, the oscillator power is supplied by the transformer.) This will mean it can oscillate down to ~0.3V.
Thank you for learning me something today. I looked it up on wikipedia.
I knew about buck/boost, this is a nice variant of it.
-
As I was reading through this thread I was thinking that there was something familiar about this circuit. Then I remembered that Alan posted a video last month showing a simple relaxation oscillator that was used to charge/discharge an inductor to light an LED using a "spent" battery. It looks to me like Mr. Stone's circuit does basically the same thing. Here's Alan's video if you missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfgX93o8HzY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfgX93o8HzY)
-
This was very entertaining. Reminds me when I discovered, I could switch a transistor by touching the base. I seriously thought, I was creating current out of nothing. I had broken conservation of energy! I was so proud of myself. Then I thought for a while, and realized it must have been due to different ground potentials. Very disappointing. I was eleven then.
-
Really eager to wait until someone from this crowd use an old germanium transistor, that has lower forward voltage 0.3 Volt vs Silicon 0.7 V.
This means squeezing more out from the battery's power ... bigger free energy source :palm: ... as the circuit has lower cut off voltage, although not much energy left, still the difference can be clearly measurable.
I guess they will shout out loud, a major breakthrough among themselves. :-DD :bullshit:
-
Really eager to wait until someone from this crowd use an old germanium transistor, that has lower forward voltage 0.3 Volt vs Silicon 0.7 V.
This means squeezing more out from the battery's power ... bigger free energy source :palm: ... as the circuit has lower cut off voltage, although not much energy left, still the difference can be clearly measurable.
I guess they will shout out loud, a major breakthrough among themselves. :-DD :bullshit:
It's difficult to get germanium transistors - many audiofools have convinced themselves that they give a sweeter smell and spicier taste to the sibilants while retaining the vanilla like mellowness of the low tones.......
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Pretty sure I understand what I'm doing, thx.
Welcome.
But be aware when you come to one of the best engineering forums in the world and start mentioning quantum vacuum, be prepared to have your free energy ideas handed back to you on a silver platter.
Nice! 8)
-
Coming to a theatre near you...
-
Coming to a theatre near you...
I have popcorn and jelly tots standing by. :-+
-
I have popcorn and jelly tots standing by. :-+
You'd better have lots, it's 32min of waffle + some testing.
-
Wow.
What a huge bandwagon.
Just can't let it go, can you, Dave?
I see bullet points on your board that suggest you're going to misquote me. But if you feel you really have to put this video out, so be it.
I never used the term 'zero resistance' when talking about the conduit going through the core. I did use the terms 'essentially zero' (meaning very near zero) and 'comparatively low', effectively zero and negligible. And I was addressing the phenomenon only in terms of DC flow, as LEDs are rated.
I also didn't 'claim' "lots more energy out than in".
I did say "All I'm trying to show is the non symetrical/offset nature of the oscillation", and that the goal was to "Spend a little (postive polarity) going in, put lots of stuff in the way that can harness lots (negative polarity) coming out."
Again, this isn't MY circuit. It's just a replication.
Sorry my incomplete report on the test data doesn't make par.
I have taken the time to do a number of tests/comparisons/etc. since, should you be interested at all.
Looking at the image you just posted, I'd guess not.
I even subsequently agreed with others here about their assertion that this could be called a boost converter variant.
Neither am I the OP, here. I was shown the thread by a friend. So, against my better judgement, I tried to help to clarify for some people who, at the outset, appeared to be guessing and doubting.
Seems you elite gurus have our technological future well in hand.
Large chill pill.
-
Just can't let it go, can you, Dave?
You post bullshit, you get called on it, that's how it works.
And I think the video is interesting from a point of view of how to do basic engineering on this sort of stuff, and that is my main aim.
I also didn't 'claim' "lots more energy out than in".
Yes you did, those exact words. It's right there in your video description. How can you deny this?
And don't think you can remove it now, I have a screen cap in the video.
Again, this isn't MY circuit. It's just a replication.
I noted that.
I have taken the time to do a number of tests/comparisons/etc. since, should you be interested at all.
Looking at the image you just posted, I'd guess not.
I even subsequently agreed with others here about their assertion that this could be called a boost converter variant.
Doesn't matter what it's called.
You are the one who mentioned quantum vacuum and it has been pretty darn clear that you thought not all the energy comes from the battery.
"NO COIL. NO TRICKS. Just lots more energy out than in."
Are you now willing to admit that ALL the energy powering the LED's comes from the battery?
Your video and inference of something mysterious happening here is demonstrably wrong.
If you change your mind and admit your misunderstanding of what is happening, hey, that's cool, people will give you props for that, and the whole point of what people are trying to do here.
-
OK... I did use that 'lots more energy' tag in the title. Guilty on that count, as I mentioned before when addressing even using the term 'free energy' (which I mentioned in the context of being tired of seeing them).
Just found the LED .pdf, for those still interested.
http://www.mode-elec.com/pdf/LED/5mm%20LED%20Specifications.PDF (http://www.mode-elec.com/pdf/LED/5mm%20LED%20Specifications.PDF)
Top line. 552. 2.0V typical, 100mA max, 45 degree viewing angle. And 5 measely mcd.
That's why I mentioned the 20mA figure as 'a proper level of brightness' current rate. That was just a common sense call.
Yes, you can get them to light up on 1mA. But they're not at a useful level of brightness.
-
I dunno, Dave.
When I look at the scope and see what's happening in the dielectric world, and I do a quick area relation between the energy flow in each polarity...
I see a fair bit more on one side.
I guess you could say the jury's still out on that one on my side of the fence.
I'm open to how you see that happening.
-
I dunno, Dave.
When I look at the scope and see what's happening in the dielectric world, and I do a quick area relation between the energy flow in each polarity...
I see a fair bit more on one side.
That looks like the voltage at the NPN collector relative to ground. How is that telling you "what's happening in the dielectric world"?
And what are you talking about when you say "dielectric"? What's that got to do with the main claim of getting out more energy out than you put in?
You are talking gibberish again.
I guess you could say the jury's still out on that one on my side of the fence.
So you still think something mysterious is happening here and you are getting out more energy out the system than you put in. Got it.
You are wrong, demonstrably and massively wrong.
But please continue to entertain us with your thoughts on all this.
-
When I look at the scope and see what's happening in the dielectric world, and I do a quick area relation between the energy flow in each polarity...
I see a fair bit more on one side.
I'm open to how you see that happening.
You are measuring only the voltage. To measure power (energy) you also have to measure the current.
If you properly measure power in and power out you will always see that there is a loss of power.
-
OK... I did use that 'lots more energy' tag in the title. Guilty on that count, as I mentioned before when addressing even using the term 'free energy' (which I mentioned in the context of being tired of seeing them).
Just FYI, my video will have free energy in the title, and I do acknowledge that you don't like that term. But this video is not just directed at you, it's supposed to be a commentary on these free energy/over unity/quantum vacuum/whatever you call it circuits. Your video did however provide a nice baseline example of the misinformation that is out there, so thanks ;D
-
Wow.
What a huge bandwagon.
What an execrable, knuckle-dragging sufferer of childhood iodine deficiency you are.
-
Mkay, I thought that forum rules prohibit unsolicited personal attacks. (Yago, lastly)
Not impressed.
Actually, the probes are on each end of the copper pipe in that scope shot.
Alrighty, Dave, do what you feel you gotta do.
-
Don't come all butt hurt now.
You never responded to my posts when I was encouraging you and trying to help you.
Typical of a weak mind, cherry picking what you see to suit your twisted view on the world.
You cannot defend your propagation of illogic and BS, and you cannot defend against insult as I was only responding to an insult that YOU threw out first.
Apologise, behave and listen to these very intelligent and CORRECT people here, or leave.
Do not think EEVBlog is a place for trolling.
-
Actually, the probes are on each end of the copper pipe in that scope shot.
Assuming you mean the inductor by "copper pipe" that would mean one end on the B+ and the other on the collector of the transistor. And, assuming you are using a differential measurement (or additive, it doesn't really matter) since there is only one trace, you are essentially measuring the voltage of the collector of the transistor.
If you measure the current through the inductor you will see it ramp up during the low portion and ramp down during the high portion. It looks like the inductor current is continuous (if not I'd expect ringing on the switch node), so calculating the output voltage is easy: Vo/Vi=1/(1-D), so say Vi=1.5V, D=0.33 then Vo=2.27V. Seems quite reasonable, to me (for lighting up an array of red LEDs.)
A boost converter will have an input current > the output current whenever it is switching. If your circuit somehow achieved 100% efficiency, this will be in a ratio of Vout to Vin.
But perhaps you can prove us wrong. Use reasonablely accurate meters to measure input current, output current, input voltage and output voltage. (The meters should be TRMS capable as otherwise they will not measure the correct current or voltage due to the switching waveform.)
-
This circuit has an efficiency of about 88.5%. I had to change the oscillator capacitor because the LEDs are different in this simulation. There is no overunity here.
-
Coming to a theatre near you...
I'm really going to look foward for that video, will keep my eyes open for it.
-
Learned quite a lot from this thread, never thought it would blow up like this.
I have completely underrated going to a forum where people know their stuff and are willing to share their experience this is almost magical.
Thank you everyone that has contributed to this thread. :clap:
Ps. And I bet we all are eagerly awaiting the video now.
-
Absolutely, we have not had a good Dave Rant for a while now. They are informative, often very amusing and very pertinent as to the subject, the errors made and generally a good show all round.
-
This circuit has an efficiency of about 88.5%. I had to change the oscillator capacitor because the LEDs are different in this simulation. There is no overunity here.
FWIW, the cathode of the LEDs appears to be tied to V+ in the video, not ground. I assume this is to limit the voltage and therefore current in the LEDs when it's a relatively fresh battery.
-
I think I owe all EEV members an apology, I lost my temper and let you down.
Sorry, I am trying to keep my crap off the forum, but he got the better of me there and made me angry.
As we all, and I, know, the rules of not feeding trolls.
Sorry :(
-
As I was reading through this thread I was thinking that there was something familiar about this circuit. Then I remembered that Alan posted a video last month showing a simple relaxation oscillator that was used to charge/discharge an inductor to light an LED using a "spent" battery. It looks to me like Mr. Stone's circuit does basically the same thing. Here's Alan's video if you missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfgX93o8HzY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfgX93o8HzY)
Great video. Really interesting - subscribed! :)
-
When I look at the scope and see what's happening in the dielectric world, and I do a quick area relation between the energy flow in each polarity...
I see a fair bit more on one side.
Inductors are very much like capacitors in that they are storage devices for energy. In this case, the npn transistor is essentially a switch: it alternately connects one end of the inductor to ground or to the leds.
When the inductor is connected to ground, its magnetic field is "charged up" -> that's the blue area on your scope.
When the inductor is connected to the led, that energy is being "released" to power the led -> that's the black area on your scope.
The ratio between the two (largely) determines the efficiency of your circuit.
I guess you could say the jury's still out on that one on my side of the fence.
I would say that you have re-discovered a well understood phenomenon. I know that you feel being flamed. However, i think people are looking at your approach to and claims on the whole thing and say "if s/he had just known a little bit more, s/he wouldn't have made a fool out of himself".
Maybe next time, you want to come cross a little bit humbler. Rather than "my circuit bends the laws of physics", you say "hm, this is an interesting circuit. Can someone help me understand it?"
That's not to say that you wouldn't find something revolutionary in your experiment. It is just that the chance of it happening is exceedingly low so it is wise to be humble.
Hope it helps.
-
This circuit has an efficiency of about 88.5%. I had to change the oscillator capacitor because the LEDs are different in this simulation. There is no overunity here.
Yeah, but you are forgetting V1. Does LTSpice have an accurate model of a shitkicked year old alkaline Costco issue Kirkland, used in all kinds of crap, expired March 2014, and had accidentally shorted out for a full minute?
-
But perhaps you can prove us wrong. Use reasonablely accurate meters to measure input current, output current, input voltage and output voltage. (The meters should be TRMS capable as otherwise they will not measure the correct current or voltage due to the switching waveform.)
Even with a TRMS meter, you've got the issue of AC coupling. And if the meter is capable of AC+DC measurement, there's still a crest factor limitation. It always amuses me to see a video with a number of cheap DMMs scattered about some Rube Goldberg contraption putting a surface charge on a battery with some spikes from an inductor (radiant energy, you know.) The numbers are often meaningless and lead to bogus claims. :palm:
-
I probably have one comment and one comment only, and it goes as follow.
"Is an open system overunity ? .. T.Bearden; No, all human creations will wear down, its built into the system. Same goes with energy conversion. 100 units put in can never be 100 units out, some of the energy is lost to heat. But you can have a coefficient higher than 1 or the 100 units. You can have a 100 unit in and 500 unit outs like with a refrigerator or windmill. What people are confused about with more energy out than the operator put in is the COP vs operational efficiency. A windmill might be 75-80 % efficient, so we lose energy, but nature will aid and put in 3-4 or even higher amounts of energy and that is COP higher than one. That is all it is."
I still remember that, 7 years later
So while reading this tread, I noticed that all the debates surround operational efficiency but non (to my understanding) have mentioned or looked at COP. Maybe it does not matter, maybe it does, I don't know. But I felt that the info from T.Bearden was worth posting. Maybe it will contribute or maybe not.
Regards.
Oneminde
-
"Is an open system overunity ? .. T.Bearden; No, all human creations will wear down, its built into the system. Same goes with energy conversion. 100 units put in can never be 100 units out, some of the energy is lost to heat. But you can have a coefficient higher than 1 or the 100 units. You can have a 100 unit in and 500 unit outs like with a refrigerator or windmill. What people are confused about with more energy out than the operator put in is the COP vs operational efficiency. A windmill might be 75-80 % efficient, so we lose energy, but nature will aid and put in 3-4 or even higher amounts of energy and that is COP higher than one. That is all it is."
What is COP?
-
@ Jebnor: COP = Coefficiency of Operation
-
@ Jebnor: COP = Coefficiency of Operation
How does one measure, calculate and make predictions about COP?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)
Interesting. Thanks.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)
Interesting. Thanks.
NP. As a side note, I do remember Bearden mentioning the fact that COP calculations (or similar to that) is a bit different for electronics than heat pumps, but that the over all concept of COP vs operational efficiency is similar. I am searching for the documentary and might include a transcript from it. Unless people want to read his books and documents on the topic - quite a large amount of it ;D
Regards
Oneminde
-
EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoqF3gjLIyI#ws)
-
It always amuses me to see a video with a number of cheap DMMs scattered about some Rube Goldberg contraption putting a surface charge on a battery with some spikes from an inductor (radiant energy, you know.) The numbers are often meaningless and lead to bogus claims. :palm:
In this case his own average current measurements and calculations points to where the energy is coming from, and he annotates this in the videos. He admits the battery has enough energy to light the LED's, but his mistake is in assuming how much energy is left in his "shitkicked costco battery" :palm:
-
Theory debunked & thread concluded! :)
-
That guy got well and trully owned...
-
I have popcorn and jelly tots standing by. :-+
You'd better have lots, it's 32min of waffle + some testing.
Jumbo popcorn and jelly tots, 45 mins and 45 seconds! The pen in the forehead gag works every time. Good job total entertainment. You need to get a foam (soft) pen and have Sagan do it as well.
-
What a thoroughly informative video that was, thank you Dave!
If there is one thing to learn from the EEVBlog forum that is that there are a lot of knowledgeable people in here, and if more than one are saying you are wrong with reason, do not argue with them, take the advice and learn.
-
So funny that this guy's first move is to attack mike from mikeselectricstuff..
That's one big mistake there.. Laughed my ass off to this :D.
Thanks for the entertainment :D
-
if more than one are saying you are wrong with reason, do not argue with them, take the advice and learn.
I would turn that around and say don't believe you are wrong just because others say so, no matter how many there are and how good / knowledgeable / authoritative they are.
Truth is not determined by consensus nor quantity.
Basically, don't give a rat's rear-end about "experts" - there are far more cons among "experts" than among the regular folks.
-
This circuit has an efficiency of about 88.5%. I had to change the oscillator capacitor because the LEDs are different in this simulation. There is no overunity here.
The oscillator design, a relaxation oscillator, apparently appeared for the first time in a Lou Garner book, "Transistor Circuits", in 1960 (http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/michael/blog/0501/index.html#050127). I have seen this topology in many places, including with an inductor forming a current source to drive LEDs, specifically in cheap garden solar lamps. It is many times used with PNP and NPN swapped. I was introduced to this circuit more than 20 years ago in brazillian electronics magazines (by Newton C.Braga) and I can say it was one of the things that fascinated me into electronics. I have even written an article on it (http://embeddeddreams.com/site/2008/10/06/fun-and-easy-to-build-buzzer-circuit/).
Anyways, I found it that people believing this will not take any reasoning; it is always fundamentalism and it is just a waste of time trying to explain things to them. This people just believe in it.
-
if more than one are saying you are wrong with reason, do not argue with them, take the advice and learn.
I would turn that around and say don't believe you are wrong just because others say so, no matter how many there are and how good / knowledgeable / authoritative they are.
Truth is not determined by consensus nor quantity.
Basically, don't give a rat's rear-end about "experts" - there are far more cons among "experts" than among the regular folks.
True, plenty of discoveries throughout history happened despite the so-called experts. I think in this case it’s safe to say this isn’t one of them.
I would say the one thing to take away from this is, if you are going to make claims about something extraordinary and then publish it in a public venue, be sure you have all your ducks in a row.
If a person finds a real effect I'd certainly want to know about it. What I liked about this was the entertainment but the message was clear, test and prove. Dave has his own weird item, the one where he bangs the scope probe and gets a signal. In his channel promo look at the last 10 seconds. He has no problem with anyone (educated or not) just do the work.
How to Entertain a Nerd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a-jcaTn170#ws)
-
What I find repulsive in this thread is people jumping on this guy, not for they understand better what's going on but because others are jumping on this guy.
For all his wrongs, the Stone guy experimented and attempted to understand what was going on. The fact that he didn't do it right is no reason for others to step on him.
Tell him why he was wrong, explain to him in clear language, and put your counter examples out there to help this guy understand electronics better.
Spitting on someone, especially when he is in a ditch, is disgusting.
-
the Stone guy experimented and attempted to understand what was going on.
No he didn't. He created a non-technical, sensational "mystery/magic" video espousing his "free energy" superstitions.
His mistake was bringing those superstitions here to a hard-core no-nonsense audience.
Now if you want to see a lot of light from an AA cell, check this out....
http://youtu.be/Q4Qo68HvxoE (http://youtu.be/Q4Qo68HvxoE)
"Running a 240v lightbulb of one AA battery. Very real and very useful. With full how to. 100% real"
Full disclosure: the "240V lightbulb" is actually a CFL, not incandescent.
-
Dave has made video # 708 answering this....
EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-708-free-energy-bullshit (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-708-free-energy-bullshit)!
-
I don't know if someone wrote this already, I can't really read whole thread, but...
First thing that I noticed was that he used simple average for calculating the output current [(62mA+17mA)/2]*52h and came up with figure around 2Ah. However as you get lower voltage on the batt, you will also get decrease in current. So the graph of discharging current (as everybody who designed anything like that powered from battery) isn't in fact linear, but would be exponential decrease. So whole calculation of that 2Ah is almost twice as big as it should be...
-
if more than one are saying you are wrong with reason, do not argue with them, take the advice and learn.
I would turn that around and say don't believe you are wrong just because others say so, no matter how many there are and how good / knowledgeable / authoritative they are.
I would second that. Just because a whole bunch of people say you are wrong, does not mean you are wrong, or that you should stop arguing. But it's a pretty safe bet you might be wrong, and you should probably go understand what they are saying before you go back in and argue ;D You might just learn something.
-
What I find repulsive in this thread is people jumping on this guy, not for they understand better what's going on but because others are jumping on this guy.
For all his wrongs, the Stone guy experimented and attempted to understand what was going on. The fact that he didn't do it right is no reason for others to step on him.
Tell him why he was wrong, explain to him in clear language, and put your counter examples out there to help this guy understand electronics better.
Spitting on someone, especially when he is in a ditch, is disgusting.
I tried Danny, but alas I got ignored and then lumped in as bandwagoner (and unfortunately lost my temper).
-
Endorsement (most recent one) by Matt McMahon, in his review of some of my recent output:
"Stone, this is yet another beautiful creation of yours. You're one of the smartest guys I know and there can really be no value put on the quality of your work. Great job. Beautiful contribution to the HHO community."
If you google that quote (from a "customer" I presume) you can find OP's web site... http://www.inventionaire.ca/HHO/50-50Box.html (http://www.inventionaire.ca/HHO/50-50Box.html)
Somehow, I don't think anything said here can change his mind.
Dave, that video was amazingly entertaining ! Thanks !
-
What I find repulsive in this thread is people jumping on this guy, not for they understand better what's going on but because others are jumping on this guy.
For all his wrongs, the Stone guy experimented and attempted to understand what was going on. The fact that he didn't do it right is no reason for others to step on him.
Tell him why he was wrong, explain to him in clear language, and put your counter examples out there to help this guy understand electronics better.
Spitting on someone, especially when he is in a ditch, is disgusting.
Normally i would agree, however stone guy seems to have a problem with admitting that he is wrong. With replies like "I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years. Pretty sure I understand what I'm doing, thx." he is pretty much asking for it.
I do cringe every time i see an EEVBlog "<thing> is BULLSHIT!" video in my YT feed, i think Dave gets wound up a bit too much. Makes me slightly embarrassed to be an engineer for some reason...
-
I do cringe every time i see an EEVBlog "<thing> is BULLSHIT!" video in my YT feed, i think Dave gets wound up a bit too much. Makes me slightly embarrassed to be an engineer for some reason...
Well I can understand somewhat your point.
But as a newbee I actually learned a great deal from the video even though I new Stones claims was BS from the beginning.
I though that video was a goldmine of information even if you exclude the mythbusting.
Yet again I thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, and a extra BIG thank you for Dave for taking his time to make a video about it. :-+
This forum is really starting to feel like home for me.
/MrZwing
-
Dave, that video was amazingly entertaining ! Thanks !
Glad you enjoyed it, that was the aim, rather than just pure myth busting I could have done in sub 10 minutes.
-
Maybe Dave should do another fundamentals friday, "a free power edition...". Teaching how properly measure energy coming in and energy consumed... ;)
-
Maybe Dave should do another fundamentals friday, "a free power edition...". Teaching how properly measure energy coming in and energy consumed... ;)
No need for complicated energy measurements. Just connect the output to the input and then it should run on its own, maybe driving a motor for some days, without any battery or other external power supply. No one built such a device so far (with independent prove that it works), so all such "free energy" devices are bullshit.
-
A shitkicked year old alkaline Costco issue Kirkland will NOT 'give at least 3 watt hours'.
Check the independent quotes from others online who have published their testing of many kinds/brands of AA battery. You will find that this grade of Alkaline give out something much closer to the value I suggest in the video - around 2,184mAh, times the average of 1.1 V, gives you a total output of 2,310 mWh.
...which is about 80% of 3 watt hours - switching to milliamps doesn't change the value!
(Some of these answers are priceless. :-DD )
-
I'd like to give credit to ManOfStone - if only for 'manning up' to stand his ground and respond in a largely coherent and adult way.
HOWEVER, it can't be ignored that his head is firmly buried in the sand, as he repeatedly refuses to acknowledge weaknesses in the original proposition - despite the facts it's not even his own concept!
All this to-ing and fro-ing has now reached a point of complete and utter irrelevance.
MOS had a novelty video. The underlying theory was debunked and a rational horde would move on to revisit the principals - to see if something valuable could be salvaged from the smoking wreck.
Maybe pigs can fly. Dave - make a video please?
-
No one built such a device so far (with independent prove that it works), so all such "free energy" devices are bullshit.
That's probably a little simpleton.
Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Before someone built an airplane, no one had built an airplane - does that mean "airplane" is BS?
You can easily extend that to thousands of things we take for granted today.
-
If free energy / overunity is to be possible, I would not expect it to come from something as benign as an LCR circuit. Such a circuit is well studied and understood. It would be from the "quantum vacuum" (or insert two other science-sounding words), or some other esoteric, poorly understood phenomenon, probably at the subatomic level. We could use a "zero point module" to extract the energy.
-
Maybe pigs can fly.
I can remove your doubt there: pigs DO fly.
-
If free energy / overunity is to be possible, I would not expect it to come from something as benign as an LCR circuit. Such a circuit is well studied and understood. It would be from the "quantum vacuum" (or insert two other science-sounding words), or some other esoteric, poorly understood phenomenon, probably at the subatomic level. We could use a "zero point module" to extract the energy.
I've always been fascinated by the concept of two parallel spinning disks or masses - mounted on air-bearings or similar - always replacing their own volume as they spin. (Not ignoring the friction effect of surface currents).
Engaging these two identical masses - probably electromagnetically - to transfer motive energy back and forth between driver / driven coils on their facing surfaces.
Pure fantasy, I realise, but this has been in my mind literally for years.
-
Maybe pigs can fly.
I can remove your doubt there: pigs DO fly.
I feel better already. The pills are working.
-
You people are rather cruel to Man Of Stone. You totally disregard his study of the Quantum Vacuum. I too am a student of the Quantum Vacuum.
I can truthfully say here in this forum, that it out performs the Dyson and the Oreck hands down.
Nothing picks up the deep down dirt, even in the deepest shag carpet, like the Quantum Vacuum.
And bags are a thing of the past!. Simply empty, and rinse with ordinary tap water. It's ready to go.
For all your tough cleaning, choose the Quantum Vacuum.
That's about all Man Of Stone knows from his "studies" of the Quantum Vacuum.............
-
A shitkicked year old alkaline Costco issue Kirkland will NOT 'give at least 3 watt hours'.
Check the independent quotes from others online who have published their testing of many kinds/brands of AA battery. You will find that this grade of Alkaline give out something much closer to the value I suggest in the video - around 2,184mAh, times the average of 1.1 V, gives you a total output of 2,310 mWh.
...which is about 80% of 3 watt hours - switching to milliamps doesn't change the value!
(Some of these answers are priceless. :-DD )
Well, he didn't even used those 3 watt hours. Based on video, he had 64mA maximum current and 17mA minimum. He wrongly thinks that the discharging was linear, but because the circuit takes less current as the input voltage drops, the current curve is exponential - Dropping quickly from 64mA and than staying at lower currents... You can even see that at the video, since the first drop over 12hours is to value about 46mA - almost his claimed average, so he is 14 hours off...
The average current was most likely somewhere below 30mA. Take it with average voltage 1,1V over 52 hours, you'll get 1,7Wh. Which is most likely what he actually got from that battery, (as he claimed he used it for powering some projects before); and that could be the problem why he is so crazy about this.
-
ManOfStone neets to buy himself a Mooshimeter! :-DMM
-
No need for complicated energy measurements. Just connect the output to the input and then it should run on its own, maybe driving a motor for some days, without any battery or other external power supply. No one built such a device so far (with independent prove that it works), so all such "free energy" devices are bullshit.
I was about to post something similar. Doesn't even need to be a "power-hungry" motor. A single LED would be sufficient. To decouple (electrically) the output that is fed back to the input, simply use an isolated DC/DC converter. It's quiescent current is very likely to be lower than what his 20+ LED's use. So all that the circuit has to power is the isolated converter and a single LED. Add a buffer cap at the circuits input. Once it is running, flip a switch that toggles the input between the battery and the output of the converter.
If, as that guy claims, the circuit is producing more energy out than in, the LED should stay lit indefinitely.
Also, another good hint that "more energy out than in" is not real: the vast majority of our electricity is produced in fuel burning power plants. If any of that overunity stuff were real, those companies would be all over it. Imagine, they could charge you the same price for electricity, while not having to spend a penny on fuel. Which means way more profit for them. And they are good at scaling things up as well. Doesn't matter if all a single, simple circuit can drive is a few mA at a few volts. They would simply scale it up massively, be it by making the circuit itself beefier, or by simply massively paralleling millions of them.
That none of these two things ever happened is a very, very good indicator that this "overunity" stuff is bullshit. No small scale demo that runs for a year without any battery, nor any electricity companies increasing their profits that way.
Greetings,
Chris
-
Okay, that's not that good an argument because just scaling up might not be so easy. If the efficiency is close to but still above unity you might have losses else where. It might not be economical to scale up.
But it's not that a lot of people UNSUCCESSFULLY looked for such processes for A LONG TIME. We can detect stuff that's 12 billion light years away. We can see the weirdest, most energetic events in the universe. NEVER have we seen energy being created out of nothing on any scale including "quantum vacuum". That should be enough to be very sceptic. If it involves two transistors, a coil, a bit of wire, LEDs and an AA battery, chances are at least one of the seven billion people on this earth has tried it.
-
Maybe pigs can fly. Dave - make a video please?
I have, 38 seconds in:
How to Entertain a Nerd (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a-jcaTn170#ws)
-
ManOfStone, Please repeat the experiment with a tiny watch battery instead of an AA. That will be more convincing than saying the AA is depleted.
-
I think you will love this other video by man of stone, would appear that he is worried about nano tube particles ans semiconductors turning him into a human RFID chip.
http://youtu.be/KY-NZP3de08 (http://youtu.be/KY-NZP3de08)
From his you tube video. "ALUMINUM OXIDE, BARIUM AND STRONTIUM -THAT'S NOT ALL
There is new evidence out, from several highly accredited sources/people, that chemtrails contain:
-nano tube sized threads (to carry the rest of the evil to you)
-semiconductors (to communicate/turn you into a human RFID chip)
-red blood cells, containing GNA/PNA (simpler forms of DNA, that are easier to manipulate) that will change YOUR DNA
-virii and bacterium to mess with your physiology (pathogens) and kill you sooner
Yes, the truth is out - they are moving to cause a DE-evolution of our species."
:-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
I do cringe every time i see an EEVBlog "<thing> is BULLSHIT!" video in my YT feed, i think Dave gets wound up a bit too much. Makes me slightly embarrassed to be an engineer for some reason...
It makes me ashamed as an engineer that other engineers stand BULLSHIT without any problem when it's sugared enough, and cant't stand anyone debunking it with facts. Whatever the kind of language used.
-
Dave, that video was amazingly entertaining ! Thanks !
Glad you enjoyed it, that was the aim, rather than just pure myth busting I could have done in sub 10 minutes.
For me, there was no need to prove that there's no quantum vacuum or overunit etc involved, nor led and volts and currents,
but I absolutely like the way it is explained in the video.
Very fundamentally founded facts, simple explication, and a great way to put everything together.
-
No one built such a device so far (with independent prove that it works), so all such "free energy" devices are bullshit.
That's probably a little simpleton.
Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Before someone built an airplane, no one had built an airplane - does that mean "airplane" is BS?
You can easily extend that to thousands of things we take for granted today.
Sort of. On the other hand, if someone at that point in time said 'I built an airplane!', the burden of proof would be on them, not everyone else. And being something revolutionary, it had better be pretty thorough.
-
And then there's this, his own HHO water resonance cracking device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSj37yB1x0k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSj37yB1x0k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421914688)
http://www.inventionaire.ca/HHO/50-50Box.html (http://www.inventionaire.ca/HHO/50-50Box.html)
So please tell me what exactly is the frequency of H2O when it is to be cracked?
Damned if I know.
It seems you don't know either.
The device is variable over a frequency range of 9.5 Hz to 256 KHz to crack your local water supply, into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
All of us know of course, that the exact water "crack spot" will vary in frequency do to the sunspot cycle and moon phase.
And so cheap. Only $997 to purchase such a fine bit of handmade shit kit.
-
About the reason behind to use the crappiest red LED's - see attachment. 30 years old soviet red LED on a single AA. I tried to build the circuit using MPSA 92 (pnp) and 13002 (npn) and it was a fail. Then I found this.
-
13002 (npn) and it was a fail.
13002 isn't fast enough.
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Wow, what a wasted time...
...and wasted energy...
-
About the reason behind to use the crappiest red LED's - see attachment. 30 years old soviet red LED on a single AA. I tried to build the circuit using MPSA 92 (pnp) and 13002 (npn) and it was a fail. Then I found this.
Funny to see that the Soviets didn't use Cyrillic writing on their batteries. Tried to make it look more western :)
(Batteries meant for export?)
-
About the reason behind to use the crappiest red LED's - see attachment. 30 years old soviet red LED on a single AA. I tried to build the circuit using MPSA 92 (pnp) and 13002 (npn) and it was a fail. Then I found this.
Funny to see that the Soviets didn't use Cyrillic writing on their batteries. Tried to make it look more western :)
(Batteries meant for export?)
Battery is not soviet :-DD :-DD :-DD quite opposite - american brand, indonesian made. Only a red LED with odd semiconductor that lights up with that low voltage.
Although some things were with English writings (made in ussr) that was meant for export outside soviet union including fluorescent light bulbs (lb-40).
-
I've been an avid student of the quantum vacuum for 16 years.
Not trying to attack the author here, as I am genuinely curious as to the answer to this question:
Where and how have you been studying this?
-
A bit offtopic but :
Does anyone know how I could make those leds pulsate (as an addition to the circuit)? It would make an interesting project for a novice electronics hobbyist like me, like a DIY bike flasher or something like that.
Thanks!
(P.S.: I've been watching Dave's videos for about 2 years now but this is the first post I ever made here. I finally got the courage to register among you guys ! ;D)
-
Depends on what you mean by "pulsate"?
There are a great many implementations of things like the Larson Scanner and micro-controller circuits/code that implement fade in/out.
If you want to BOTH operate a large number of LEDs from a single AA cell AND add "pulsing" functionality, that will not be a simple thing.
But if you want to use a more conventional power source (>= 3V) there are endless possibilities.
-
A bit offtopic but :
Does anyone know how I could make those leds pulsate (as an addition to the circuit)? It would make an interesting project for a novice electronics hobbyist like me, like a DIY bike flasher or something like that.
Thanks!
(P.S.: I've been watching Dave's videos for about 2 years now but this is the first post I ever made here. I finally got the courage to register among you guys ! ;D)
They will be pulsating, but what you want for a blinker is a lower RC time constant. Or in this case a lower LC time constant. I think you will be better off starting with a different circuit to learn this though.
-
Battery is not soviet :-DD :-DD :-DD quite opposite - american brand, indonesian made. Only a red LED with odd semiconductor that lights up with that low voltage.
Although some things were with English writings (made in ussr) that was meant for export outside soviet union including fluorescent light bulbs (lb-40).
Damn, i am so stupid. :-DD
It is so obvious that the LED is a Red ... erm... i mean a Soviet... :-DD :-DD :-DD
-
This man is going places... not college/university, but places. |O
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=JI7kwXtavWc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=JI7kwXtavWc)
:palm:
-
Hi everyone been very busy then i seen Dave's rant about this, i feel very scared that people believe in such crap especially after been debunked so well, I honestly feel scared in this twisted world where we live in, the other day i seen religious nuts at Bella Vista from that cult church you know the one where the head guys dad was outed and the son known all about it "Bobby huston or something like that... and now this......i am not joking i really felt worried been in the same shop as them after they finished with there Cult worship.............I could not believe how many of them there where now, I not been near that place in years then people wonder why many people like my self stay away from Sheeple oh i meant people.
Thanks Dave and everyone else for debunking another sheeple, so we can get on to some real engineering and science.
-
i feel very scared
After that rant, it is clear that the only thing you need to be scared about is yourself.
-
i feel very scared
After that rant, it is clear that the only thing you need to be scared about is yourself.
Hmmm yes, it was a little close to the margin - and as if I can talk!
-
Hi everyone been very busy then i seen Dave's rant about this, i feel very scared that people believe in such crap especially after been debunked so well, I honestly feel scared in this twisted world where we live in, the other day i seen religious nuts at Bella Vista from that cult church you know the one where the head guys dad was outed and the son known all about it "Bobby huston or something like that... and now this......i am not joking i really felt worried been in the same shop as them after they finished with there Cult worship.............I could not believe how many of them there where now, I not been near that place in years then people wonder why many people like my self stay away from Sheeple oh i meant people.
I see these young kids daily flocking out of Hillsong, and it makes me kinda sad :(
I live and work within a cooee of this place.
-
A bit offtopic but :
Does anyone know how I could make those leds pulsate (as an addition to the circuit)? It would make an interesting project for a novice electronics hobbyist like me, like a DIY bike flasher or something like that.
Thanks!
(P.S.: I've been watching Dave's videos for about 2 years now but this is the first post I ever made here. I finally got the courage to register among you guys ! ;D)
Look at something with a 555 timer in it.
That will get you that blinking light that you want!
Easy, cheap and a quick project!
Greetings
-
A bit offtopic but :
Does anyone know how I could make those leds pulsate (as an addition to the circuit)? It would make an interesting project for a novice electronics hobbyist like me, like a DIY bike flasher or something like that.
Thanks!
By "pulsate" I assume you mean that the individual LED changes in intensity to create a pulsing effect?
The easiest I can think of is to do this with Pulse Width Modulation via a microcontroller like an arduino. Simple circuit to create, can be powered entirely from the arduino (when only using a few LED's...) and the code is already in the built-in help library.
(P.S.: I've been watching Dave's videos for about 2 years now but this is the first post I ever made here. I finally got the courage to register among you guys ! ;D)
Like you, I've been a long time follower of Dave's youtube videos. This is my first time posting here, as I wanted to read how the whole debate went down on the message board.
It was very entertaining!
Also, Dave's video breaking down the circuit and designing his own was very interesting, thanks Dave!
-
Also, Dave's video breaking down the circuit and designing his own was very interesting, thanks Dave!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Welcome to the forum!
-
I do cringe every time i see an EEVBlog "<thing> is BULLSHIT!" video in my YT feed, i think Dave gets wound up a bit too much. Makes me slightly embarrassed to be an engineer for some reason...
It makes me ashamed as an engineer that other engineers stand BULLSHIT without any problem when it's sugared enough, and cant't stand anyone debunking it with facts. Whatever the kind of language used.
No, i just feel that there is no need to 'shove it in the face' of the uneducated, rant and rave when engineers have logic and reason to back up their argument.
I can completely understand why Dave makes such videos. "Solar roadways is bullshit" obviously reaches a much wider audience on youtube than a 7.5digit multimeter teardown. I hope i am not the only one on here who would rather watch the latter and it would be a damn shame for EEVBlog to turn into a 95% condescending rant channel like Thunderf00t's.
-
No, i just feel that there is no need to 'shove it in the face' of the uneducated
It depends. For people feeling self inadequate, "shoving it in the face" of the uneducated / under-educated, many times themselves included, may feel therapeutic.
I suspect that's why so many "engineers" feel superior - driven internally by their inferiority syndrome.
-
No, i just feel that there is no need to 'shove it in the face' of the uneducated, rant and rave when engineers have logic and reason to back up their argument.
These are not innocent uneducated beginners, quite the opposite in fact. They are people who obsessively research this stuff, are deliberately ignorant of any facts presented to them outside of what they want to hear, have a genuine unwavering delusion of biblical proportions, and they have an agenda.
I can completely understand why Dave makes such videos. "Solar roadways is bullshit" obviously reaches a much wider audience on youtube than a 7.5digit multimeter teardown.
True. And yet I rarely make videos like this, why do you think that is?
I hope i am not the only one on here who would rather watch the latter and it would be a damn shame for EEVBlog to turn into a 95% condescending rant channel
You really think that's going to happen? A handful of debunking videos in over 700 videos is hardly evidence of a trend.
I very famously lack tack, so you know what to expect in my rant/debunking videos, yet you still watch them and complain, why?
That's a rhetorical question BTW, if you don't like my rant videos, don't watch them.
I expect a certain percentage of people not like what I say, or the way I say, that is in fact inevitable regardless of what I do.
If you expect me to change just because you, who is 0.0005% of my audience don't like the way I say thing things, I wouldn't hold your breath.
-
No, i just feel that there is no need to 'shove it in the face' of the uneducated, rant and rave when engineers have logic and reason to back up their argument.
These are not innocent uneducated beginners, quite the opposite in fact. They are people who obsessively research this stuff, are deliberately ignorant of any facts presented to them outside of what they want to hear, have a genuine unwavering delusion of biblical proportions, and they have an agenda.
Not everyone watching the videos is one of those obsessive wackos. The confronting tone of the videos probably only winds them up more, and scares off the genuine newbies.
-
I think I have found a great explanation of the quantum vacuum phenomenon mentioned early in this thread:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/vacuum.png (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/vacuum.png)
:-+
-
Another one from XKCD ;-)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png)
-
No, i just feel that there is no need to 'shove it in the face' of the uneducated, rant and rave when engineers have logic and reason to back up their argument.
These are not innocent uneducated beginners, quite the opposite in fact. They are people who obsessively research this stuff, are deliberately ignorant of any facts presented to them outside of what they want to hear, have a genuine unwavering delusion of biblical proportions, and they have an agenda.
Not everyone watching the videos is one of those obsessive wackos. The confronting tone of the videos probably only winds them up more, and scares off the genuine newbies.
This sounds like concern trolling more than anything else. I doubt Dave's tone is going to scare away anyone with a genuine interest.
-
It is still free energy if you believe in it hard enough. :scared:
I'm just waiting for a free energy device to make its way to kickstarter. Maybe the Missouri depart of transportation will invest in it. If I lived in that state I would be pissed at my congress people for wasting money on that.
-
Reviving an almost 3 years old thread?
-
Reviving an almost 3 years old thread?
Its new to me and very interesting. I wonder what the "inventor" is doing now. TED talks about how all engineers are linear thinkers and how they told him it wouldn't work and raising VC money? Remember they told the Wright brothers it wouldn't work... and also told the Jones brothers ... and the Smith brothers and 1000 other idiots who tried to make bird wings attached to a bicycle.
-
Reviving an almost 3 years old thread?
Its new to me and very interesting. I wonder what the "inventor" is doing now. TED talks about how all engineers are linear thinkers and how they told him it wouldn't work and raising VC money? Remember they told the Wright brothers it wouldn't work... and also told the Jones brothers ... and the Smith brothers and 1000 other idiots who tried to make bird wings attached to a bicycle.
You know, the explanations how it works and what he has really "invented" are on the first page of the thread.
And there is also a difference between claiming that something isn't gonna work only because nobody has done it before or people don't believe it can be made to work based on the state of technology or past experience (your examples above) and something that is physically impossible to make to work because it violates the known laws of nature (all the "free energy" BS).
When talking about "engineers being linear thinkers" - are you citing Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of Theranos that tried so hard to be the next Steve Jobs that she even dressed like him, black turtlenecks and all? I believe she has said that in one of her (many) TED talks. Now she is being sued for scamming her investors because it so happened that those "linear thinker" engineers were right and all her miraculous innovation was only hot air. If she avoids prison she can consider herself lucky.
Oh no, I think I am wrong - that was Meredith Perry, the CEO of uBeam, the famous ultrasonic phone charging company. Another investor darling, blonde girl that single-handedly solved a problem that others are unable to.
She said that in 2012:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/women2/2012/05/02/ubeam-founder-and-ceo-meredith-perry-on-how-to-be-a-technology-innovator-tedx-video-talk/#b8bf735777d0 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/women2/2012/05/02/ubeam-founder-and-ceo-meredith-perry-on-how-to-be-a-technology-innovator-tedx-video-talk/#b8bf735777d0)
Unfortunately, I have yet to see an ultrasonic charger from this company. (uBeam has been analyzed to death on this forum). They haven't been even able to show an actually working demonstration, despite all the tall claims and millions of USD spent.
And those two example didn't even go against the laws of nature, they were just scams (the former) or totally impractical because of the physics involved (the latter). Go figure ...
This "engineers being unable-to-think-out-of-the-box idiots" argument is really tiring (and insulting), especially when no evidence of the gizmo being promoted actually working is given (an obviously faked Youtube video is not evidence). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In most cases it only shows that the person making that arrogant argument has absolultely no clue what they are talking about. I have met many arrogant fools like that - they rarely made it far in life.
-
Just be aware that snake oil isn't a very good contact cleaner.
-
Just be aware that snake oil isn't a very good contact cleaner.
Just be aware that snake oil isn't a very good contact cleaner.
It does make good lubricant. They even make it for your engine. The best engine smake oils is: NOS octane booster that comes in a "five hour energy" bottle. I don't know whats in it but I suspect its just a ethyl or isopropyl alcohol maybe even toluene or a Sulphur compound but that would cost more. Adding 2oz of ANYTHING to boost the octane in a 16 gal tank will increase the octane by about 0.000001%. Best part is even if it did increase the octane by say 6 points your cars ECU is not mapped to advance the timing enough to even use at more octane points. So it does nothing and I can't do anything. But does cost $5.00. Lets say it was tolulene in it. To get 93 gas to 100 you would have to add FOUR gallons of it to a 122 gallon tank with 93 already in it. Cost would be $36 = 12 gal of 93; $60 for four gal of tolulene= $96.00 For 100 Oct gas you car won't be able to use abouve 87 or 91 in a luxury/sport car.
So how much does it cost to get 100oct using NOZ fie hour energy for your car? $36 for 12 gal of 93; 256 bottles of NAWZ @ $5.00=1280
So 36 +1280 = $1316.00 for 100 octane gas your engine can't use. BUT lets assume it was alcohol you would have 96 grade gas but a performance DECRESE since your injectors wont be able to keep up with the increased fuel required to keep the stoichiometry.
I highly recommend using NOZ brand octane booster in every tank! The company should keep a list of people who buy that so they know a list of customers who will buy and dumb scam product they come up with and not complain.
-
Yes I know I'm 2 years after the last response but I have only just discovered EEV blog and am currently working my way through Dave's 'back catalogue' and reached the debunking video and thought the thread would be interesting if nothing else. It's been extremely entertaining and I have read every single post in the thread.
One of the reasons I like the youtube video's is simply because Dave has an almost identical personality to me in that we both lack tact and say things as they are, occasionally bein extremely un-political correct turns of phrase. Unfortunately for me, this is where the similarity ends. I did gain a qualification in electronics here in the UK, City & Guilds 224 parts 1 & 2 but circumstances (or Murphy) conspired against me and I didn't keep in touch or practice the craft. After watching Dave's & Big Clives channels my interest was once again kindled.
I don't have the thorough understanding that most of the members of the forum posess and likely will never catch up but even I could see the folly of the claims made by the creator of the video that sparked this entertaining thread. The reponses to ManOfStone were in the beginning polite and generally pointing out the misconceptions he had. It was only after ManOf Stone responded with condescending remarks and tried to baffle people with his unsubstantiated remark that he had studied 'the quantum vacuum' for 16 years did things start to get slightly confrontational yet still humerous and very entertaining.
I'm going to have to start reading similar threads to boost my re-learning of the many things I have forgotten during my 30 years of abstinence from the world of electronics. I am naturally a mechanicaly minded person but I have a greater interest in electronics but still struggle in immediately understanding how a circuit works even with schematics in all but the simplest of circuits while even fairly complex mechanical devices seem pretty obvious to me just by looking at them.
I now intend to read and try to digest the information contained on this forum and the videos to help me get more enlightened. Thanks for the great info you guys'girls provide.
-
Yes I know I'm 2 years after the last response but I have only just discovered EEV blog and am currently working my way through Dave's 'back catalogue' and reached the debunking video and thought the thread would be interesting if nothing else. It's been extremely entertaining and I have read every single post in the thread.
One of the reasons I like the youtube video's is simply because Dave has an almost identical personality to me in that we both lack tact and say things as they are, occasionally bein extremely un-political correct turns of phrase. Unfortunately for me, this is where the similarity ends. I did gain a qualification in electronics here in the UK, City & Guilds 224 parts 1 & 2 but circumstances (or Murphy) conspired against me and I didn't keep in touch or practice the craft. After watching Dave's & Big Clives channels my interest was once again kindled.
I don't have the thorough understanding that most of the members of the forum posess and likely will never catch up but even I could see the folly of the claims made by the creator of the video that sparked this entertaining thread. The reponses to ManOfStone were in the beginning polite and generally pointing out the misconceptions he had. It was only after ManOf Stone responded with condescending remarks and tried to baffle people with his unsubstantiated remark that he had studied 'the quantum vacuum' for 16 years did things start to get slightly confrontational yet still humerous and very entertaining.
I'm going to have to start reading similar threads to boost my re-learning of the many things I have forgotten during my 30 years of abstinence from the world of electronics. I am naturally a mechanicaly minded person but I have a greater interest in electronics but still struggle in immediately understanding how a circuit works even with schematics in all but the simplest of circuits while even fairly complex mechanical devices seem pretty obvious to me just by looking at them.
I now intend to read and try to digest the information contained on this forum and the videos to help me get more enlightened. Thanks for the great info you guys'girls provide.
All of the posters in this thread are long gone and don't check their old threads anymore.
They need to invet a 5hour free energy drink.