Hi, Yes, it's free energy time. Oh goodness. Normally I wouldn't touch these things. You no doubt seen all these videos on YouTube of people.

They've built up a circuit, a machine, whatever, and they're claiming free energy over unity. and they're getting basically more power out than what they put in there. Against the laws of physics, they're bending the laws of physics, whatever they want to call it. Some people use quantum vacuum, blah blah blah.

Doesn't matter what it is, they're all the same kind of fruity nut flavor and well, normally. yes, I wouldn't touch this sort of thing. but somebody mentioned it on the V V blog forum. they pointed to a video and not only that, but the author of the video actually came on the forum and tried to explain himself, explain what he was trying to do, and explain the circuit and how it works and all that sort of stuff.

And yes, you're pretty much guessed it. it got pretty done. Hilarious. link down below.

So yeah, I think it's actually worthwhile taking a look at this thing. No, no, it's trivial to debunk these kind of things, right? But I thought that actually it's this one is actually quite a valuable lesson in terms of how you can delude yourself into thinking that this there might be something to this a free energy, or where does the energy come from? It looks like we're getting more energy out than what we're put in. and of course, it always comes down to basic laws of physics and in this case, some very basic engineering fundamentals. That the people who build these circuits are not following.

And so I think there's a few lessons to be learned here in what happens when you don't follow basic engineering principles and just assume that it's some ridiculous thing instead of it having a nice, simple engineering explanation. So let's take a look at it. Now in this specific example, we'll take a look at a video from a Youtube user called Man of Stone 604 and I'll link it in down below. It's five minutes long, but if you want to save five minutes, your life.

Well, the United sup to you if you're watching Anyway, it's my son various claims on this video and demonstrates a working circuit of how he cannot power 23 LEDs in parallel for 52 hours from a single double-a battery. No. I'm sure there's absolutely no trickery going on here. I'm sure the circuit he built up actually works, but he's giving the wrong reasons for why it works.

He's not doing the basic engineering principles to see where the energy is coming from. So after we go through and sort of debunk and work out what's happening in the circuit, then we'll go on over to the bench, build it up, see if we can replicate it. So we'll go through the claims one by one and see how you don't even have to build the thing up to debunk this. It's really easy.

So what he claims is that there's more energy out than in that's in the title. The description of the video the title of the video is bending the laws of physics. So yeah, Red Flag right there. Now said as I said Power 23 parallel LEDs for 52 hours from a single double a alkaline battery.

Okay, fair enough. Now, he also claims in the video in the text that each LED needs 20 milliamps for it to operate. Ok, that's your typical operating max a sort of maximum operating current for a typical regular run-of-the-mill junk box. LED right? And he also claims that there's no coil in his circuit.

We'll take a look at that and he also claims, and this is very important that the battery was depleted before he started the test. It was just some old junk bin battery he had from wherever. and crucially that he shorted it out for one whole minute as well. So he's claiming that it actually had less capacity than what it was supposed to.

And on the Artforum he started mentioning Quantum that Hume and all that sort of stuff. and that he's been studying quantum vacuums for 16 years. So you think this would be a fantastic circuit, right? And oh, is 16 years where the study is mounted to this? Just wait and see. Now to be fair, he doesn't claim he actually came up with this circuit.

He's just doing a Rivera fication of what other Youtubers has done. And yeah, they're kind of a big circle jerk of free energy people who like to Pat each other on the back. Anyway, this is the basic circuit here. I've redrawn it because it was really sort of confusing the way it was originally drawn in the video.

but it's exactly the same with a single double a alkaline battery here. excuse the smaller t of it I Wanted to leave it just over to one side so we might draw a bigger later if we have to analyze it. But anyway, it's a two transistor circuit. It's got a capacitor and a resistor and he claims no inductor.

Okay, but I So I've drawn it there as a wire and a bit of tube and here is a shot of what he's got. He's basically got a bunch of towards there which he bought from Digi-key and he used the Digi-key part number. we can have a look at that with. He claims he's using Litz wire and all sorts of things going through, but basically he says it works with just a bit of copper going straight through the thing.

so he's got one straight bit of wire going straight through some toroid. well look at that and the LEDs just all in parallel. There's actually 23 of them in parallel across that coil there. and yes, it is a bloody coil so that's the first thing let's He claims there is no coil here and he actually gives a value.

He says that it has an Al value of 16 nano. Henry's I'll explain that in a second. Or for starters, he's got that completely wrong. It's 16 micro Henries, not nano.

Henry's at 16,000 nano here. And here's the datasheet. Look at the value of Al there. He's just got it completely wrong from the get-go Basic engineering and double check, Read your datasheet.

Now he says he's using three of these digi-key toroids here. as I said, sort of like stacked together like that. So I've only drawn one here, but there's actually three just pushed together like that. and he's basically got a single wire going through.

and he claims that this is not an inductor. It's not a coil because there is no loop of wire. Ah, this is Inductors 101. stuff.

You don't need to actually wrap the wire around the ferrite material for it to be a turn. When you've got a toroid like that, simply passing the wire through and looping with your circuit, because otherwise, your circuit doesn't do anything if you have, Unless you have a loop for the current to flow, you've got current flowing through there. That is one turn. One freaking turn.

Okay, it's a one turn coil now. I Mentioned this characteristic of magnetic cores like this toroid and it's in the datasheet. Here is the value here and it gives you a value in it's an inductance value in in this case no, No. Henry's 17600 and other Henry's As I said, he got the you know, he's out by three orders of magnitude there and al what this value means if you use in the if the course not saturated using it in the linear region for example, this is what the formula is.

You can actually calculate the inductance if you wind this thing yourself. You can actually calculate the inductance of that based on N squared times. Il Il is the value they give you in the datasheet for that magnetic material and N squared is the number of turns. In this case, it's got one turn through it.

If we actually wrapped it around the core like that, we'd have two turns and so on and so on. So you can actually calculate the inductance. So we've got 1 turn, 1 squared times Al. We've got 17 17 point, 6 micro Henries for this one term.

But because he's got three core materials stacked like that, you actually add these three together so you actually might. you work out the final value. Even with a single wire passing through like that is still got in the order of 50 micro Henries Inductance: It's Huge. That's a pretty decent sized inductor for a switching oscillator like this, so that's just right there that is done and dusted.

He claims there is no coil. There is some pretty damn decent one. You cannot debate this. It is not.

It is Basic 101 engineering and if he actually had an LC I mean he could go ahead and measure that. but he hasn't bothered to. just jumping to all these conclusions. And it's free energy and can't even do well measuring Doctor goodness sake.

Now let's take a look at the battery issue. The battery capacity now. Oh, we've got a datasheet here for a typical alkaline double-a battery from Energizer you know, fairly top of the range one and it's got a nominal capacity of 2,200 milliamp hours at 100 milliamps discharge. The capacity is going to change with the discharge current, but we're probably talking average so that's not a bad value to actually take and is pretty ballparking factor.

Probably about double ballpark to what we're talking about here. and then we have to look at the average voltage. So we look at the discharge curve there. I'm going to be a bit generous and say that the average voltage is around about 1.2 volts over that discharge curve there.

So now we can calculate the capacity in the battery. We already have the capacity up here, but see milliamp hours. It's a bit better in this case when you're dealing with these sorts of things because you need power to power these LEDs So it's better to actually talk about your total battery capacity in hours so they can go well. How much power are we consuming in our LEDs Well, how much power capacity do we have in our battery? So in this case, we want it in what else? So we take our average voltage and multiply it by our capacity in milliamp hours.

and that gives us around about 2.6 watt hours. And somewhat contrary to popular belief, the real, like the no-name kind of alkaline batteries you get out there aren't that far off the really good energize. In fact, some case they can meet or even exceed them. So you're depending on what the discharge current actually is because the characteristics change for little variations in the battery chemistry.

All that sort of stuff. Anyway, for the ballpark engineering calculations we're doing here, we're going to say they're pretty darn well equivalent. And now for the very big crucial claim in the video. Right at the end of it, you've got to scroll through and there's some overlays.

He says that he shorted the battery out for one solid minute and he's employing their that I'll that's sucking out a lot of capacity. Well, in engineering, we can calculate that. Once again, let's go back. Look at the datasheet, our internal resistance of our battery for a fresh sell.

normally 150 to 300 milliamps. It's when you're sure Delta is. it's probably going to be on the upper limit there. so let's take 300 milli ohms there.

That's our internal resistance of the battery. So when you shorted out, it's the battery chemistry generating that voltage across the three hundred milli ohms there. So we'll take our average value. There will be a bit generous because if you shorted out at the beginning of the battery life, well, it's going to be a bit higher.

Anyway, let's work on our average voltage. Be generous so that is 4. and so 1.2 volts are divided by 300 milliamps for one minute and you think I suck in 4 amps? That's a lot of capacity. Well, is it.

Once again, we can calculate that if you take that 4 s, multiply it by our 1.2 Volt Everage That means that you are sucking out 4 or using 4.8 watts for one minute. Once again, sounds like a lot, but remember, it can deliver this battery 2.6 watts for a whole hour continuously. It's only done it for one sixtieth of that. So let's divide that figure by 60 and we can find that it's used eighty million watt hours of our two point six one hour capacity.

It's bugger-all So you end up with the hilarious conclusion this guy has drawn. That is his quantum energy more and energy out than what you put in. One of his main reasons for believing that is because he thinks that this battery had lost a very significant amount of its capacity. But we're showing that it's only three, around about three percent of its capacity.

And yeah, he said like the battery was a year old. What do you know? It mighta lost another 5% It's like like we're down in the noise that still got most of its capacity left, even if you shorted out for a full minute. This is basic and and instead of jumping to conclusions that the energy must come from somewhere else and then laws of physics have been bent. no just basic engineering, look at the datasheet, read the values, do a couple of simple calculations, or using Ohm's law.

Nothing more complicated than that. Oh I think this is going to be a lot longer than I expected to be. Anyway, hopefully people are learning something from this, including the guy who did the video. So look, we can scratch that.

one battery was depleted before start of the test. Yeah, it was, but not by any significant margin. And when you're doing something like this, especially when you're making extraordinary claims like you know the energy is coming from the quantum vacuum and you're bending the laws of physics. Skol Sagan Said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

but in this case, you didn't think you know to make these extraordinary claims to actually go in there and kind of do it scientifically and actually use a fresh battery instead. No, you're whacked up a YouTube video. Oh look I think we've bent the laws of physics here because. well, I showed out the battery and now let's take a look at how much current the LEDs need to be bright and in the video it claims 20 milliamps later.

He actually kind of admitted in the forum that yeah, it's probably not 20 milliamps, but it's not 1 milliamp or less or something like that. Well just look at the data sheet for a typical LED and basically it's a linear relationship between intensity versus current. and well, you can define intensity various ways. but anyway, it's basically a linear relationship there and LEDs up.

Even jump in ones are perfectly usable down at a milliamp or 2, or even sub 1 milliamp and modern high brightness ones. By modern I mean like the last 15 years or something. high brightness, high efficiency ones? Well, they use them all down in the tens or hundreds of micro amps range. So really, there's you know, no reason to believe that your LEDs are being around at a high current.

And of course he didn't do the basic engineering. He hasn't measured the land current, so once again makes extraordinary claims. Haven't even done some basic measurements like how much current is actually flowing through the lid? No, just think. sigh.

yeah. 20 mili-amps speaker as well. That's the maximum value of a typical read: Oh In fact, modern. A lot of modern low-power design relies on the fact that you can actually run only a milliamp or so through lid and you can get reasonable brightness in your product so you don't have to piss away 20 milliamps.

That's like theory from living 30 years ago. And the other thing too is because. well, this is clearly an oscillator circuit. It's going to oscillate.

We're going to get pulses of current through the lid just like a PDA and just like pulse width modulated. and LED for example, right? I Have no idea what the wave shape is gonna be Anyway, it's gonna have an on/off time. you know, something like that. So we're actually getting pulses of current through the LED and you can actually get quite efficient performance of LEDs by actually pulsing them at.

You can actually pull some that 20 milliamps or even higher. but do it very briefly, even very briefly. Like that, and do it. You know, once every 10 cycles or whatever.

and you can actually get a decent apparent brightness out of your LEDs. So until unless you actually measure that current, you don't know what it's working at. And as I've done a video on before, your amount of power you're actually consuming in the LED is basically the area under the curve. It's the integral like that.

so you have to actually get if it's complex thing like this. and it's not just a DC current you have to. Actually, if you want the real power consumed in the LED, you have to get the scope shot of it and actually calculate the integral under the curve. If you want to do really precise proper, you know thorough engineering of this thing.

but of course you can refits. You can just get your meter of course your current meter and it'll just give you the average value over time for something like that. So that's you know. Usually a reasonably solid result getting the average value, but just be aware that is actually the area under the curve there the integral.

And of course, that becomes more relevant when you've got like complex wave shapes cuz we might have a complex wave shaping here I don't know, we haven't actually measured it yet and I don't know how long I've been yapping for, but well, we could have skipped all that and just done some basic ballpark back in the envelope calculations to see if it's possible to light up 23 parallel. LEDs for 52 hours from a double-a battery. Well, we know a double-a battery has got around about 2.2 watt hours or something like that. Well, look at 23 lens.

We know that we can operate a LED at 1 milliamp and actually get reasonable brightness out of it as shown in the video. Considering that he hasn't given any direct quantitative measurements of the brightness output, well, we just have to match that. Okay, we know we can do that at like a milli amp or two. So let's just say a milliamp 23 LEDs That's 23 million total.

They operate a slightly live lower forward voltage at the lower current. You can see that on the curves. So around about one point six volts times, one milliamp current is around 1.6 million watts to light up an LED and a similar sort of brightness to what's shown in the video. but we've got 23 of those x 23.

that's 37 million Watts total Mellie wants. and he actually shows a current meter for coming from the battery actually in this thing and it's a similar order. It's down in like he's measuring like is I think it drops from 64 down to 18 milliamps or something like that. So at the battery voltage of 1.2 it's the power we're talking about.

Okay, and where does that power come from? I come from a quantum vacuum free energy? Whoo! I Don't know what does it come from the battery? Well, we know we've got 2.2 watt hours capacity in the battery there. 37 milliwatts here times they claimed 52 hours that he got. You know, working with average values here, it only comes out to 1.9 watt hours completely within the bounds of the energy source you're using to power this circuit. So right there you know that this thing we can account for the power in these LEDs easily from the battery that we've hooked up to the damn thing.

Oh my goodness. to make that jump that it's free, you know, over unity or more power out you're put in is just madness. Where's the evidence is? none of it. So what have we got? We know that leads don't need twenty million stock, right? We do it all the time in engineering.

Go do it yourself. It's a trivial five second experiment. and hey, we do know that we can actually power twenty three parallel breads and LEDs at a reasonable brightness for fifty two hours from a single double-a cell. Yeah, it's possible.

No one's doubting that. I'm sure when we hook it up, we'll be able to measure these sorts of things, but you don't even have to. You can just do the calculations, looking at the data sheets and and know it's going to work. That's a great thing about engineering.

in science. all these things are proven. You know they're gonna work. You can bet your life on it.

Oh, and I Also forgot, one claim that you know is using that sort of evidence that I these things drawing huge amounts of power. so I can't be coming for all of it. can't be coming from the battery. in that the resistance through the core he's got here.

He thinks it's just a coin. Remember, he doesn't think it's inductive, but we know it damn well is an inductor. He says, well, the DC resistance through that core is zero. Well, yeah, okay, he's right.

Well, it's not zero. Of course, it's pretty damn low. It's a really low value, but it doesn't matter. It's not working like that.

It's an inductor. It's got a quite a large amount of inductance. It's got like 50 on microhenry that's pretty huge in the scheme of things for a high freq. oh hi, frequency oscillator Like this one based on the values of 47 puffs and you know it's it's gonna be reasonably high frequency, hundreds of kilohertz, or maybe even megahertz.

So inductors don't work When you got an inductor. It doesn't work like that. You can't just say that the resistance through the core is zero. It's just.

it's just silly. you're not talking about the right thing. So let's take a very quick look at how this circuit works. And yes, I Just read your honour over here.

a little bit bigger so we can draw stuff on it and we'll draw some waveforms here. Now clearly this is an oscillator. How do you know? Well, it's got this class - transistor relaxation oscillator arrangement with the feedback capacitor in here. Nothing fancy at all.

A lot of people think it's like a jewel thief type variant. Well, jewel thief uses a transformer arrangement with the single transistor. Kind of different that you can get up ones with just PNP just NPN configurations. This one uses a PNP and an NPN and by the way, the art stated used used transistor in there as a PDX 33c.

It's drawn as a single transistor. It's actually a Darlington pair so it's got much higher gain than your regular transistor. We'll just chuck in a you know, a 2n double - double - or something like that going to be good enough for the job. So we've got a basic relaxation oscillator here.

How do we actually start analyzing this? Well, For starters, when you first apply power, let's start looking for any DC pass to set these things up Because we're using Bipolar transistors. They're current driven devices. You need current flowing in the base. If you've got current flowing into the base, then the transistor will turn on.

so they basically use it. We're using these as on/off our switches. They're not really being used in the linear way, hence the relaxation oscillator. Now, let's have a look at this when we apply power.

He's our 1.5 volt cell here. Okay, so we've got our 1.5 volts across here. and well, by the way, I haven't drawn in. that's ground.

If you want to have your little ground symbol there, it doesn't matter. We've got our 1.5 volts applied across here. Well, let's have a look at our PNP transistor here. It's a classic BC 5, 5, 7.

And of course PNP look. Just follow the arrow. The current can flow zit. Let's have a look.

Can it flow down here When it's first powered up? Well, it can look. It's got this hundred K resistor. It's got a current path down to there. So as soon as we apply the power, we can say that transistor is turned on.

Okay, so we've got current flowing down here like this and that transistors turned on. So we're going to have current then flowing through the transistor down into the base. and this transistor down here is going to switch on because there's current flowing down through there like that. So we that transistor switches on.

Our current starts to flow through our inductor like this. the magnetic field starts to charge up in the inductor. That's how inductors work. Initially, it's going to try and resist the current flowing through there, but it's going to slowly build up.

So so the current in our inductor is going to start to rise. Something like this. We don't know what value is going to rise up - doesn't matter. Now we have.

We have to remember the key to this thing is this feedback capacitor. Here, it's only 47 puffs. But remember that one's gonna start charging up as well. and this voltage here of course is going to start going up as well because as you increase the current, you're going to get a bigger voltage drop across your transistor here.

So we'll draw that waveform as well. Here, This is this point. Here, the voltage is as the current rises through this inductor and hence through the transistor. Here, the voltage drop across the transistor is going to rise as well until it hits a point somewhere here.

where by virtue of this feedback capacitor, the voltage on the base of this transistor over here is below the threshold voltage of the base emitter. Junction There, ie, you know your point seven volts or whatever it is, so it's going to be rise up to about point seven volts below the battery voltage here. ie, you know it might be 0.5 volts or you know something like that. so it rises up to that point.

What happens when this? when this transistor no longer has enough base emitter voltage there? Well, it's gonna switch off. What happens when that switches off or starts to switch off? It all happens very rapidly. So in this transistor here switches off, it deprives the base current of this main charging transistor down here. and what happens? Mmm, it snaps off and Bingo.

We're now in a different state and what happens at this point? Hi. Here's the magic. Okay, the voltage at this point is going to suddenly shoot right up. How far? Well, it depends on the collapsing magnetic field of this inductor here.

So what happens at this point? Well, I've had to read all this. because where our voltage now. Once it reaches that threshold where this transistor switches off and this one switches off, BAM the voltage at this point is going to shoot up. Why is it going to shoot up? Because we've got a collapsing magnetic field in our inductor.

Here is no longer any current flowing through it, so our voltage has to. It's like switching off a relay coil. For example, you're told to put a reverse diode across the relay coil. Why? When you switch off the coil.

the collapsing magnetic field generates a large reverse voltage. So we've actually got a huge reverse voltage. Positive negative like that. and what does that do that swings the voltage at this point here up above our battery voltage here, which is sitting at our 1.2 volts average or whatever it is, swings it up to a very large value.

At this particular point here. How large? Well, it's actually going to be clamped with our diode. Because if you have a look, our diode is actually backwards. You know, if you've thought about this conventionally and didn't know that this voltage here at this point went above the rail, then you would think that they've They've installed the diode back to front.

All, No, they haven't. The reason it's back to front like that is just like a relay coil. It clamps that voltage across there and hence so in this thing. Collapse has gone up to this point and we're going to have current flow.

now. Where is it going to go? The only place for it to go is through our diode and around like that. So we're going to have a huge spike of current in the diode like that. And of course it's going to clamp it to basically the forward voltage of the diode.

But yeah, if we didn't have the diet here than a voltage at this point could be get very high in our tens of volts or whatever it happens to be. So we should actually be able to power pretty much any Le in here regardless of its voltage drop red, white, or whatever, even a serious string of LEDs up to a certain voltage point. So I've drawn in the additional wave form here or time-correlated for the current through the LED It sits here. during this sight charge cycle of the inductor.

It does nothing. There's nothing. no current flowing through the lead, But when it goes wham and switches back and these transistors switch off and you get the collapsing magnetic field. Bingo! Your current shoots up through your Led, you get a huge spike.

This could be like hundreds of millions. And here's one of the bad design aspects of this circuit. There's no current limit in LED and no current limiting resistor in this thing. So it's just going to Wham Just put a voltage directly across an LED from a relatively low impedance source like this inductor, so you can wear huge spike, a current which is then going to ramp down like that and it could be much above the rating of these LEDs You know they might have a maximum current rating, a continuous current rating of 20 milliamps, for example.

A lot of them have a pulse current rating as well for a certain period of time, but you got to be very careful not to exceed that. sort of thinking. drastically limit the life of your LEDs This is a really piss-poor engineering solution. There's no current limiting resistor you don't know, you know the boundaries of your current conditions, and it's just it's horrible, right? But anyway, that's how it works.

So it Rance Rance back down like this. So the current through the inductor, of course rants back down and of course the currents or the LED ramps back down until you get and the voltage at this point here will jump up to that higher voltage above the rail here. So I might be on a 2.2 or two and a half volts or whatever it is, and it stays. you know, reasonably constant.

It's at that point it all starts again. our currents gonna ramp back up through there and it'll basically that, which should be some sort of that sawtooth E type shape and then bingo. This is going to happen again at some point and a jumps back down to there. and then we're gonna have another spike of current and it oscillates at some resonant frequency determine upon the capacitor and the inductor, and and a few parasitics and things in there.

So that's how his basic thing is gonna work. It's giving huge pulses of current, hence why. It's probably reasonably quite bright, but they're going to be very quick and you know, spaced apart way, who knows what depending on the time constants and stuff like that. So this is pretty much how it's gonna operate.

And of course the other piss-poor thing with this circuit is that we've got all the LEDs here in parallel. And you just don't do that in professional designs because they're gonna not evenly share the current like this. It's going to depend on the process, matching of the particular dyes, and everything else. It's just a horrible way to do it.

It's just totally uncontrolled. But yeah, you know it works for a hack circuit. So I think I've had enough of the white board here. It's already debunked.

You don't even need to build the thing up. And yeah, I'm sure it works. So let's go actually build this thing up. And yeah, I'm sure we can light 23 LEDs from a single double-a battery.

Let's measure the average current. We're not going to go into full blow and engineering mode and get in there and measure the integral of the curve. You know, if you really wanted to do this extremely thoroughly to prove that you know scientifically that you've bent the laws of physics, or you're extracting energy from the vacuum, or you're doing whatever and it won't be pretty done. Sure about your precise measurements, you want to account for every single nitpick in Pico What in this thing? But yeah, so we're not going to do that.

But let's pair it up: I Never play around with it. And because I have waffled on far too much in this video, this will be a very quick demo Here it is Tada, it works. Look at that. I'm pairing it from 1.5 volts I've got 23 parallel LEDs set up.

no problems whatsoever. Here's my little Dave CAD drawing it's the anti Edition I've got a 2 in 3904 in there. that's a reasonable current general-purpose NPN We're gonna be see Five, Five, seven up there I whacked in a 100 Mike inductor. that's a little surface mount job down there.

It's a bit higher than the 80 odd 88 I think we calculated from the 5 core, but yeah, near enough and exactly the same various 47 puffs, feedback cap, and 100k down to ground. And here it is. Check it out. No, there's nothing up my sleeve and yet just the surface mounting doctor pulled on some leads there.

I have my microcurrent actually in series with the LEDs up here, so that'd be that'd be up there. So what? that'd be in that little link in there. so I'm actually measuring the current through the LEDs there and what do we get? we get sorry about the lights there. Let's round that up to 12 milli volts which is 12 milliamps because it's I'm on the 1 millivolt per milli amp range there.

so it's around about 12 odd milliamps taken from the LEDs continuously and channel 1 here is actually powering the circuit I've got a set to 1.5 volts and it's currently drawing around about 24 milliamps or there abouts which is equivalent to about 36 million ones which is less than half of what the guy got in his video because he said he was measuring as I showed like 68 milliamps or something like that so mines. I Don't know whether or not it's more efficient, but anyway, it's my particular circuit rolls, my particular inductor and transistor. So anyway, we're proving the concept here. but as you can see, yeah, it's not join much at all.

it's gonna last forever. and if we go in here and we actually drop this voltage down here, we go a tweak it down at one point 4 volts as you can see the current is going to drop and the power and the total power that the circuit is consuming. that includes the LEDs and all the losses and sorry I should zoom out there the LEDs they're still on. Ok, it's still on at naught point nine volts and drop it down to oh sorry point eight volts there and they're basically off.

That's the threshold voltage of my particular circuit, which is exactly what you'd expect and we just probably been. A couple of waveforms here. look the oscillation frequency around about 91 kilohertz. so I was kind of in the ballpark of a couple hundred kilohertz and we'd expect that to change with frequency as well.

We might test that in a second. Anyway, the yellow waveform here is the one I drew on the board and here it is side by side and I said. It started at about half a volt and then work its way up and does it well. Here's the baseline down here and we're at 500 millivolts per division.

So yep, at about one division, it starts to ramp up like that until we get to the threshold where this transistor can no longer conduct and then bang. it switches that off and then we get the sudden huge rise in voltage, which is then clamped by the LEDs. In this thing, it is a bit of overshoot. Yes, you can see a little bit of overshoot in there, but that's neither here nor there.

There, It is there. and as you can see, we've only got a 1.5 volt supply in this thing, right? But Five hundred, one volt, 2 volts. Ah, three volts. So it's jumping up to around about 3 volts.

That's not surprising. We've got our one and a half volts supply plus our roughly 1.6 volt clamping voltage of our LEDs at them at the particular current. So yeah, there you go. That's what it's jumped up to.

If we remove the LEDs will find that the voltage would jump up much higher and I can do that by just disconnecting my current meter. There it is, and we'll have to go to one volt per division. Our Wow Look at that. two volts per division 5 volts 5 10 15.

Yeah, so it's really jumped up there To you know, many tens of volts and our blue waveform here. that is the base of our transistor there, so that shows the threshold voltage of the transistor plus the feedback via the capacitor there as well. And as you can see, that jumps up drastically once both transistors are off because then it just boom. it feeds straight back.

So we do get a higher voltage here also than the supply voltage. and then you can see once that once the LED starts to discharge all the stored energy the inductor there. it gets down to a point where there's no energy left in the inductor and the voltage on the base here drops right back down and Bingo! This transistor switches back on and then our ramp starts up again and so on. And that's how it oscillates.

And if we hook our scope up to the output of the micro current here and we have to be very careful, we can't just keep our ground probes down here if our micro current is in here because then we'll short out our ground references across there. So I've had to. Now take the scope ground. from there, you can do it with differential inputs and other things, but anyway, I just move the scope input up here.

so the yellow waveform is still measuring the voltage here, but it's going to be a bit referenced a bit different. And then the blue waveform now is our LED current. You can see that those waveforms basically match exactly what we thought they would on the white board there. so that's our LED current.

It didn't rise up instantly, but it ramps down like that. And of course, there's no LED current for the period that the inductor is charging up. But when it dumps that magnetic field here and all the current can reverse, the voltage reverses goes above the rail and starts powering the LED bang. So now LED is getting lots a little bursts of current like that.

So overall, our circuits are actually pretty piss-poor fishing. it's only about 50% or there abouts causation. So we've got a total average current of 24 milliamps there and we're going in basically getting like half of that 12 milliamps or so on average going through the LEDs so you know, not that great. Now if you're wondering about these, LEDs I'm using.

Well, they're about 20 at least 20 years old I think they're from the very early 90s and they are basically the piss porous. LEDs I could find I don't have a datasheet on no ideal model layer, but yet they're I Know for a fact that they're 20 plus years old. have them sitting on my junk beam now I've put a fixed exposure on this camera so we know that there's a total of 12 milliamps flowing through these LEDs on average. So that means on the average current for each LED is only half a million.

Okay, half a million at 500 microamps and we get in. You know, a reasonable bra brightness here. So I've got fixed exposure I've got the same lead over here and as you can see that one, well, I'll show you that at the same time that one is exactly the same LED But I've got that at a fixed current of our 20 milliamps. so that's basically the maximum current and it's not a huge amount brighter.

If I go in here. Okay, and let's adjust the current. then we go: 19 milliamps, 18, 17 Goes Down Goes Down See, and we get down to well zero. So I don't know I'd have to actually get in there with the meter and measure it.

But if it's like one milliamp for example, no, that's to one milliamp, It's yeah. it's basically a little bit brighter than what we've got here. So once again, fixed exposure I'll try and show you that that's at 20 milliamps now. So I'll wind that down 18 16, 15 Eight millionths, five milliamps.

And as you can see, that's down at now one milliamp or there abouts. As you can see, it's pretty similar brightness to those. So yeah, it looks like they really are running at the claimed average current. Well, they measured every current as you'd expect.

So yeah, these suckers are running at half a million average. There you go, no problems whatsoever, and then just do the math on a current draw and average current draw of 24 milliamps or 36 million watts from those batteries. It's all lasts even much longer than the 52 hours and the other guy got no problems whatsoever. There's no magic call freaking happening here.

I'm just using off-the-shelf Joe Bloggs SMD Bloody inductor in there. over 100 microamps night? no worries. like a power 23 LEDs the piss porous LEDs I Could find they're absolutely horrible. Even at 20 milliamps, the damn things are absolutely useless.

There it is. at 20 mili-amps that's how bright they are. They're hopeless. LEDs And and it's fine.

So cheese. No wonder he got this thing working and there's no magic happening. There's no quantum vacuum. There's no, it's just basic engineering.

It works. So there you go. I Hope you enjoy that. I Know it's been a lot longer than I anticipated, but hopefully there's a lot of information in there and some people learn something anyway.

And yeah, there's no magic to this. We aren't bending the laws of physics. there's no quantum vacuum, we're just doing a basic real engineering here. It's very simple.

If you don't have that unwavering belief that you're getting, you know energy out of a quantum vacuum or whatever it is you think you're getting this free energy or overunity or more energy out than what you're putting in. if you go through and do the measurements and the calculations properly and they're not hard and we haven't done the full suite of you know working out where accounting for every little bit of energy, but no problem, we can light the 23 LEDs with you know easily for the amount of time this guy claims and it's not a problem at all. And then the worst LEDs in history. Unbelievable.

So this is what happens when you believe stuff. Instead of actually doing the engineering, doing the sight, using the scientific method, and actually thinking about this sort of stuff, Free Energy is just busted. It really is. It's so yeah please.

If you're gonna do this sort of thing, at least do the basic measurements and understand what you're doing. So there you have it. Ah, this belief in free energy. Quantum Vacuum.

Whatever you want to call it, It's just I wishful thinking of biblical proportions. It's just ridiculous. and unfortunately, we probably won't change a lot of these people's minds because they. they.

This is what they deeply believe in. As he said, he spent 16 years researching this and playing or a study in it. and well, you know it's probably not easy for them. he'd give up because they've got such a deeply held belief no matter how much evidence you throw at them that that they've got it like completely wrong.

Like the circus like this, it's bloody obvious where the energy comes from. It comes from this thing. The battery in this case powerslide at the battery You look up to it. I Mean how can you not see that? oh facepalm worthy? It really is.

It's so bleeding obvious. anyway. I Hope they've learnt something from this Anyway, that these circuits that they're working on are just basic engineering. There's nothing magic whatsoever.

So anyway, if you liked the video, jumping over to the eevblog foreign link is down below as always. and if you liked the video, please give it a big thumbs up because that always helps a lot of YouTube And follow me on Twitter and all that sort of stuff. And if you like the shirt there it is, you can always buy it on my merchandise page down below. Catch you next time you.