How does this snake oil really work?

[BravoV]

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 ... 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.   

[Excavatoree]

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 ... 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.   

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.......

[Terabyte2007]

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! 

[EEVblog]

Coming to a theatre near you...

[pickle9000]

Coming to a theatre near you...

I have popcorn and jelly tots standing by.

[EEVblog]

I have popcorn and jelly tots standing by.

You'd better have lots, it's 32min of waffle + some testing.

[ManOfStone]

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.

[EEVblog]

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.

[ManOfStone]

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

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.

[ManOfStone]

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.

[EEVblog]

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.

[oPossum]

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.

[EEVblog]

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 

[Yago]

Wow.
What a huge bandwagon.

What an execrable, knuckle-dragging sufferer of childhood iodine deficiency you are.

[ManOfStone]

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.

[Yago]

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.

[tom66]

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.)

[tom66]

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.

[MrZwing]

Coming to a theatre near you...

I'm really going to look foward for that video, will keep my eyes open for it.

[MrZwing]

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.

Ps. And I bet we all are eagerly awaiting the video now.

[SeanB]

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.

[Howardlong]

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.

[Yago]

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

[Macbeth]

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:

Great video. Really interesting - subscribed!

[dannyf]

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.